Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850, Volume 2: 1812–1826 [1 ed.] 9781848933873, 9781138766884, 9781138661028

Citation preview

WRITINGS OF SHAKER APOSTATES AND ANTI-SHAKERS, 1782–1850

American Communal Societies

Series Editors: Christian Goodwillie Peter Hoehnle

Forthcoming Titles in this Series Shaker Autobiographies, Biographies and Testimonies, 1806–1907 Christian Goodwillie, Glendyne R. Wegland and Margaret Gower (eds)

Contents of the Edition

Volume 1 General Introduction 1782–1811 Volume 2 1812–1826 Volume 3 1831– c. 1852 Index

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

WRITINGS OF SHAKER APOSTATES AND ANTI-SHAKERS, 1782–1850

Edited by Christian Goodwillie Volume 2 1812–1826

ROUTLEDGE

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2013 by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Taylor & Francis 2013 Copyright © Editorial material Christian Goodwillie 2013 To the best of the Publisher’s knowledge every effort has been made to contact relevant copyright holders and to clear any relevant copyright issues.  Any omissions that come to their attention will be remedied in future editions. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

british library cataloguing in publication data Writings of Shaker apostates and anti-Shakers, 1782–1850. – (American communal societies) 1. Shakers – United States – History – 18th century – Sources. 2. Shakers – United States – History – 19th century – Sources. 3. Shakers – United States – Public opinion – History – 18th century – Sources. 4. Shakers – United States – Public opinion – History – 19th century – Sources. I. Series II. Goodwillie, Christian. 289.8’0973-dc23

ISBN-13: 978-1-84893-387-3 (set) Typeset by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited

CONTENTS

Christopher Clark, A Shock to Shakerism, or, A Serious Refutation of the Idolatrous Divinity of Anne Lee (1812) Eunice Chapman Eunice Chapman, Letter to Lucy Wright (1817) Eunice Chapman, Thomas Brown and Mary Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers (1818) [Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum (1818) Daniel Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village, and a Solemn Warning to the Whole Human Family Against Shakerism and Delusion (1820) [Anon.], A Brief Exposition of the Fanaticism, False Doctrines, and Absurdities, of the People Called Shakers (1822) Absolem H. Blackburn, A Brief Account of the Rise, Progress, Doctrines, and Practices of the People Usually Denominated Shakers (1824) Samuel Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism (1824) Peter Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense, or, A Death Blow to Shakerism ([1826]) John Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft; or, A Short Account of Shakerism (1826) John Woods, Shakerism Unmasked (1826) Silent Corrections Editorial Notes

1 81 85 87 155

167 203 229 259 303 315 365 421 423

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

CLARK, A SHOCK TO SHAKERISM, OR, A SERIOUS REFUTATION OF THE IDOLATROUS DIVINITY OF ANNE LEE

Christopher Clark, A Shock to Shakerism, or, A Serious Refutation of the Idolatrous Divinity of Anne Lee of Manchester, Eng. (Richmond, KY: Printed by T. W. Ruble & Son, for the author, 1812).

The identity of Christopher Clark is a mystery. In A Shock to Shakerism he states that he ‘once had a Shaker patient under a grievous disorder’, so perhaps he was a physician. Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker leader John Dunlavy referred to his work as ‘chimerical reveries’ in the preface to his Manifesto of 1818.1 The Pleasant Hill Shaker Ministry also mentioned his work in a letter written 12 April 1825, to the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker Ministry: ‘We understand that one Cristopher Clark, (living about 40 miles from here) is writing considerable extensively against the faith of the gospel, and what he will bring out, we cannot tell, but we expect not much.’2 This quotation is curious, in that A Shock to Shakerism was published thirteen years prior in 1812. The Shakers wrote as if they were previously unaware of the author or his work; perhaps Clark was planning another attack on them that was never published. Clark’s Shock to Shakerism was reprinted again in 1816 in Russellville, Kentucky, just west of the Shaker community at South Union. Clark’s work is very scarce today, with only four copies of the 1812 edition and two of the 1816 edition known to have survived. Perhaps its sheer density and the volume of scriptural quotations it contains made it a difficult work for anyone other than a clergyman to digest. Additionally, like Bailey’s Fanaticism Exposed (Volume 1, pp. 243–65), A Shock to Shakerism lacks a personal narrative to engage readers. Instead, the work is a theological dissection of the Shakers’ Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing, the 1808 edition of which Clark cites throughout his work. The 1812 edition of A Shock to Shakerism was printed in Richmond and Danville, Kentucky, both of which are south of Lexington. Based on the Shakers’ reference to him living ‘40 miles’ from them, and the locale of his publication, Clark probably lived south of Lexington. –1–

2

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Clark wrote in keeping with many of his anti-Shaker forbearers. He makes the standard comparisons to the Roman Catholic Church, and cites Gavin’s Master Key of Popery, just like apostate Daniel Rathbun did in his 1785 Letter (Volume 1, pp. 55–112). Clark mentions the work of contemporary anti-Shaker writer Colonel James Smith. For Clark, a Shaker convert was an ‘enthusiastic dupe, or a spiritually blinded wretch’. He compares Shakers with slaves, writing ‘it is easier to gain white Negroes in America, to work, and dance all their days, than obtain money to purchase black ones’ (p. 10, below). Clark’s personal experience with the Shakers seems to have been minimal, but there are a few references to interactions with Shaker converts to be found in the text. Primarily, he uses canonical Christian scripture to refute assertions made by the Shakers in the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing, which he called a ‘complicated falsehood’. Clark relied on other Christian theologians, particularly the English Arminian Daniel Whitby (1638–1726), who he quotes extensively. Clark despised the Shakers’ use of scripture in a way that perverted orthodox interpretations. Shaker theologians, or those who struggled to interpret their words, are ‘like one that would take an Eel by the tail, the slippery animal is quickly gone from his grasp, for the scripture words and phrases, are met with, in quite other meaning, than they are usual with other denominations’ (p. 6). Clark strenuously objected to gendering Christ female through Ann Lee, writing ‘What is somewhat rare the great Shaker Christ, is a woman God’ (p. 10). In another section of Shock he begs: ‘I wish to understand by what rule of transmutation the eternal Logos, the unchangeable son of the ever blessed Father, who called himself the son of man; shall be changed in sex, and become the daughter of John Lee of Manchester’ (p. 77). Clark imagined a female Christ’s glorious return with dismissive ridicule: ‘what glory is there in the appearance of the Shaker mother, with an enormous cap, and a long bed-gown’ (p. 14). Considering the Shakers’ belief that Ann Lee was the bride of Christ, Clark follows a humorous chain of logic to disprove the idea: ‘had Jesus Christ who is called the Lamb stood in need of a wife, he might have obtained one more virtuous and honorable, than Anne Lee, the wife of Abraham Stanly, an old blacksmith in Manchester’ (p. 32). And, how could Ann Lee be the bride of Christ if she was a Shaker, and the Shakers forbid marriage? Moreover, if the Shakers today are the result of the union of Jesus and Mother Ann Lee, and they were not married, then ‘their offspring, must be a spurious breed of bastards’ (p. 35). Clark noted that the Shakers’ Testimony insinuated that man’s fall resulted from Eve having sex with the serpent in the Garden of Eden: ‘And thus they have foully slandered the mother of all living and turned into ridiculous metaphors, the plain historical facts given by Moses respecting the cause of human depravity’ (p. 70). In justifying Ann Lee as the vessel for the return of the Christ Spirit, the Shakers wrote ‘Christ should make his second appearing in one who was con-

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

3

ceived in sin, and lost in the fullness of woman’s fall, and that too in a woman.’3 Clark concluded, ‘if Anne Lee fell in this manner [i.e., by having sex with a serpent], and was lost in the fullness of this fall, she must have been more base, than the vilest strumpet in London’ (p. 35). To back up his interpretation he quoted from the Shaker hymn ‘Old Adam Disturbed’, which was published in the hymnal Millennial Praises.4 However, as an impartial gentleman he rejected both the Shakers’ belief, and his own satirical judgement of Ann Lee, calling the Testimony ‘a slanderous book, both to her character and the characters of others’. Clark saw Shaker celibacy as a plot ‘that our national strength may be weakened’ (p. 26). He called it ‘the most destroying and self destroying, system, that ever was set on foot in the world’ (p. 20). For proof of the fact Clark recalled that a Shaker had once told him ‘that it would be better to end the world by celibacy in a quiet way, than according to my notions of a general conflagration; by burning up so many millions of people’ (p. 72). In Clark’s view celibacy was as dangerous to society as whoredom. In either case healthy young people who might lead productive and fruitful family lives in the bonds of marriage committed themselves to an unnatural and destabilizing way of life. He particularly abhorred married people who separated to become Shakers, leaving ‘their children under the dominion of strangers without the care of a mother, and to be raised up to the practice of dancing Shakers jigs’ (p. 22). Clark also objected to the Shakers disavowal of Christ’s vicarious atonement for all mankind through his sufferings on the cross. He reasoned that such beliefs negated the statement in the Testimony that Ann Lee suffered and died on ‘the same fundamental principles of redemption, that the sufferings and death of Christ were necessary in his first appearing’.5 From this quote Clark concluded ‘the Shakers are no more benefited by the sufferings and death of their great Mother; than they allow christians to be by the sufferings of Christ’ (pp. 58–9). The final straw for Clark was Shaker Richard McNemar’s assertion in his book The Kentucky Revival that Christ, like all men, had within him two opposing natures, ‘one was true God, the other, very Devil’.6 Clark charged that McNemar had: vilified, and blasphemed the spotless character of Jesus … How, or with what face, can M‘Nemar say, that ‘he had two opposite natures residing in his one body, of which one was true God, and the other very Devil?’ Such a being as this, composed of such opposite powers, and infinite extremes; a lindsey woolsey7 man, that is half God and half Devil; never existed either in heaven, earth, or hell, nor could have any state of being, except in the brains of some mad fanatic. (p. 67)

Clark determined that McNemar was ‘a bad judge of Christs, and their endowments; seeing he defamed the son of God, and accepted of ANNE LEE’(p. 68). For all its close reasoning and scriptural foundations, A Shock to Shakerism ultimately seems to have disappeared without a trace. No mention of it has been

4

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

found in contemporary Shaker documents. Even later apostates and anti-Shaker writers, who often quoted extensively from earlier works to demonstrate the long-standing perfidy of the Shakers, ignored it. Clark’s work was the lengthiest anti-Shaker writing since Daniel Rathbun’s 1785 Letter. But, whereas Rathbun’s account is gripping in its combination of his first-hand account of living as a Shaker with scripture-based attacks on the sect, Clark’s narrative suffers because it lacks a personal dimension; arguably, because of this it has sunk into obscurity. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Dunlavy, The Manifesto, p. iv. Ministry, Pleasant Hill, Kentucky to Ministry, New Lebanon, New York, 12 April 1825, Shaker Collection, IV:A-53, OClWHi. Youngs, Testimony, p. 435. [S. Y. Wells] (comp.), Millennial Praises (Hancock, MA: Printed by Josiah Tallcott Jr, 1813.), pp. 51–4. This hymn was also printed with the title ‘The Believer’s Appeal’ in apostate Thomas Brown’s Account of the People Called Shakers, pp. 369–71. Clark may have had access to this book, but it is more likely that he had received the words to the hymn in a manuscript copy. Youngs, Testimony, p. 567. McNemar, Kentucky Revival, p. 51. Linsey-woolsey is a fabric made from a linen warp and woollen weft.

Christopher Clark, A Shock to Shakerism, or, A Serious Refutation of the Idolatrous Divinity of Anne Lee of Manchester, Eng. (Richmond, KY: Printed by T. W. Ruble & Son, for the author, 1812).

Be it remembered that on the 13th day of December, Anno Domini 1812, and in the 36th year of the indepedance of the United States of America, Christopher Clark of the said destrict hath deposited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as anthor in the words and figures following, (to wit.)

{...} For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Then if any man shall say unto you, lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. JESUS.

In conformity to the act of Congress of the U. States, entitled “an Act for the encouragement of learing, by secureing the copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, designing for the term therein mentioned.” And also to an act, entitled “an act supplementary to an act, entitled on act for the encouragement of learning, by secureing the copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the time therein mentioned; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, historical and other prints. John H. Hanna, Clk. Of the District of Kentucky. /

PREFACE. It may be thought by some that I intend to slander, or retail false or evil reports on the Shakers, altho’ I hereby disown all such intentions; I mean nothing false, or slanderous, against the characters, or persons of any sect or individual; for

–5–

6

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I conceive that truth and falsehood, right and wrong in religion, may be fairly made to appear, without any personal invectives; and if any one who esteems himself, either a christian, or a gentleman, see cause to answer any thing that I have written, let him abide by the same rule, and I shall beg no favours in point of argument, for I only intend to investigate truth, and expose error, for the public good. It is true I may bear hard on the divinity, or Goddeshood, of Anne Lee; and yet perhaps I shall not handle her Divinity rougher than a Shaker has that of Jesus Christ, who declared “that he assumed in the body of / his flesh, the same diabolical nature which is in all other men, and had two distinct and oposite natures residing in his one body, of which the one was true God, and the other very devil.”1 For while I believe the Bible, I must view Shakerism as a fountain of error, evil, and delusion; I think therefore a very short apology sufficient, for as a great man has said “can it become the preachers of the gospel, to manifest less concern for the salvation of men, than mercinary warriors, do for the destruction of their countries enemies?” I am conscious of my own uprightness of intention, and I have waited for some years past, hopeing to see something on this subject, that might open the eyes of the uninformed, and ignorant part of our citizens; although it is probable, that some may count it too great a compliment paid to shakerism, to take so much trouble, as to refute such glareing errors, which are thought to be plain enough to every / person of common capacity. However true all this may be, those who are well informed themselves, often unawares run into a mistake, and they suppose what is plain enough to them is so to others. Yet certainly something should be done, to open the eyes of those who are over credulous, respecting a new dispensation, pretended to exceed Christianity; which was introduced by Christ, and his apostles; and what makes the danger still greater, is, that the whole business is covered with such high professions of holiness, that some time and consideration is necessary, even for sensible and pious persons, to be satisfied, before they form a judgement, or offer any thing to the public. At length, after reasoning, praying’ arguing, and reading on this subject; I come forward now, to offer to my fellow citizens, a few thoughts on paper, on some of the most pointed errors in the system, contained in a book, entitled “The / Testimony of Christs second appearing.”2 I shall not at this time, take notice of all the glareing errors, in six hundred pages, except it be collectively, or according to subject: & many things I shall omit even this way, hoping, that some other of more leisure and ability, may supply what may be wanting. I have observed, that the most of people reasoning on this subject, is like one that would take an Eel by the tail, the slippery animal is quickly gone from his grasp, for the scripture words and phrases, are met with, in quite other meaning, than they are usual with other denominations. /

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

7

SHOCK to SHAKERISM &C. chap. I. Of christs second appearing, and of the false christs, who have appeared in the world. Whatever may be the private rules of the Shakers, or their private principles and designs, in my opinion, they have preached and printed more than enough, to convince all impartial enquirers after religious truth, that they are avowed enemies to Christianity. A book entitled “The Testimony of Christs second appearing” (but should rather be called the Shakers Alcoran)3 contain their own account of the divinity of ANNE LEE, and the principles of Shakerism, founded upon the said blasphemious, and idolatrous pretentions to divinity. I begin first with the title of the book, “The Testimony of Christs second appearing,” and I ask where is the testimony, that he has yet appeared the second time, either in Anne Lee, or to any other person now living? if it be meant of the second coming, or appearing of Christ, spoken of in the scriptures, then I am sure no such appearance is yet manifested: should but it be replied the book refered to, contains testimony, or evidence, that Christ has made his second advent to the world; as the scriptures say, that he will come the second time; I answer, there is testimony in that book, that a certain false Christ, a deceiver, assumed the dignity and title of Christ the son of God, well did Jesus the true Christ prophecy when he was in the world, that many false Christs would come in his name, “saying, I am Christ; and shall / deceive many, therefore when they shall say, lo, here is Christ or there, believe them not.” In Samuel Beerts travels to the holy Land, there is a brief history, of the famous Sabathi Sevi, born at Smyrna, who in 1666, openly set up for a Christ, but at length turned Mahometan, to save his life; and died at the Otoman court in 1676; having lived ten years a Mahometan after his pretentions to the Godhead were ended. One thing is worthy of note, that none of these deceivers ever appears in the world, until after the true Mesias had first come: for if there never had been any true coin; there never had been any counterfeit money. The first false Christ, that we read of, is mentioned in Acts 5.36, one Theudas who was slain with about 400 of his followers; and in the 37th verse Judas of Gallilee, who drew away much people after him, he also perished; and all that obeyed him were dispersed. From Stackhouses’s body of Divinity, Vol. 3rd and page 39, where these two are mentioned, the following historical catalogue is extracted. This author observes that Josephus in his antiquities about that time mentions another who led the Jews into the wilderness, and promised them great deliverance, but was destroyed by Festus. Soon after followed Asinæus, and Avileus, both weavers, had mighty success, but were at

8

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

last destroyed and occasioned the ruin of many of their followers: and about 74 years after that, another weaver named Johnathan, led many jews after him into the wilderness, but was taken and burned alive; and multitudes of the jews were massacreed about Cyrene. In the reign of Trajan, the jews set up one Andrew, who occasioned the destruction of many thousands; and in the reign of Adrian, another whom they called Bar Cochah, i. e. the son of a star, aluding to the star of Jacob, Num. 24 and 17, but when they discovered the imposture, they changed his name to Bar Cosibah, i. e. the son of a Lie. In the reign of Theodosius the younger, another false Christ arose in the Island of Crete, pretending that he was sent from heaven to carry the Jews off that Island on dry ground through the sea, and thereupon persuaded several to throw themselves in. In 520 another called Dunan, arose in Arabia, and with his followers set upon the Bishops, & christians in the City / of Negree, committed great outrages, till he was destroyed. In 529, the Jews and Samaritans in Palastine, were seduced into rebellion by one Juliana false Mesias, who occasioned the destruction of many of them. In 620 when Mahomet appeared, as he at first pretended to be the Messias, the Jews flocked to him; till, as some say, they saw him eat Camels blood, & upon that account forsook him. In 721, they followed a certain Syrian, who said he was Christ. In 1137, they followed another in France, which occasioned their banishment from that country. In 1138, they took up arms with another in Persia, and in 1157, they made an insurrection with another in Spain, and had almost been cut off. In 1167, they suffered very much under another in the kingdom of Fez; and in the same year, under another in Arabia, who gave for a sign, that after his head was cut off, he would rise to life again, by which fiction he escaped a more cruel death. About the year 1174, another arose in Persia; and about 1199, the famous one, called David Alroi; a great magician, and who deluded many. In 1222, many followed a false Christ in Germany, whom they called the son of David; and the same year some expected the Mesias to be born of a woman, then with child at Worms, but it proved to be a girl. In 1465, R. Abraham Avenaris, foretold the coming of the mesiah to be at hand, from the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of Pisces. In 1497, Ishmael Sophus pretended to be Christ, who having got together an army of vile and profligate men, gained many victories, but at last cheated them, and set up a new sect for Mahomet. In 1508, R. Ascher Lemla appeared in Germany, pretending that he was the Mesiah’s forerunner, who, he promised should come and restore the Jews to the land of Canaan that same year. In 1534, a new Mesias arose in Spain, who was burned by Charles the fifth. The same year, another at Mantua, who came to life again, as many of the Jews believed, after he was burnt. In 1615, another appeared in the East Indies, and was followed by the Portuguese Jews. In 1624, another in Holland. In 1666, Sabathi Zevi, who is described at large in Beerts Travels. In 1602, R. Mordochi a German Jew, whom

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

9

many in Italy, and Germany owned, but concealed it, through / fear of the inquision, and no longer ago than 1770, according to the memmoir of the 21st page of the Testimony, arose the famous ANNE LEE of Manchester, and to use their own words “when the present testimony of salvation and eternal life was fully open, according to the special gift and revelation of God, through Anne Lee that extraordinary woman, and who, at that time, was received by the society as their spiritual Mother.” In the above quoted page on the desire of all nations, Hag. 2. and 6th, ’tis said “neither was the appearing of Christ, in the form of a man so properly the desire of all nations; but as his second appearing was to be manifested in that particular object (namely woman) which is eminently the desire of all nations.” To all this foolish apology for a female God; I ask can the Shakers tell us, whether males or females make the chief bulk of all nations? And making allowances for the restraints of custom and the delicacy of the female sex, perhaps there might be found an equal desire for the male sex in all nations, as there is for the females. But let this reckoning turn up as it may, I am very confident, that the best commentators in the world never gave the same exposition of this text of scripture. – In the same page of the testimony, there are six texts of scripture collected on the subject of shaking the Heavens and the earth, and shaking all nations. “Hence the name” say they, “although intended by the world for derision, was very properly applied to the people who were the subjects and instruments of the work of God, in the latter day, and now in truth and in reality began to be fulfilled.” And although the context in the 2d of Hagi, where this shaking is mentioned, plainly teacheth us, that at the setting up of Christs kingdom in the world; God will once again, do for his Church as he did after he brought them out of Egypt; then, he shook the heavens and the earth at mount Sinai, lanes were made through the sea, and streams fetched out of the rock in the wilderness; like things he here promised to do again, and which came to pass when at the sufferings of Christ, the sun was darkened, the earth shook, the rocks rent, the graves of the dead burst open, and the bodies of several saints which slept, arose and went into the Holy City, and appeared unto many. – / And although in a figurative sense, the shaking of States, and Empires, might also be pointed out, by this shaking of the nations, when Christ shall come, to set up his kingdom in the world; yet, no man but a Fanatic, could believe that this scripture was originally intended as the description of a Shaker, in his idolatrous dance,4 with Baboon or Monkey manners, shaking the loose joints of his sinful body. Yet, whether the uncommon beauty, or great endowments of the Shaker Mother,5 might not render her the desire of all nations; at least I suppose she must have been desirable to Stanly the Black smith,6 seeing he married her, and she had four children by him: but how many presumptious pretenders in future, may enlarge the catalogue of these desirable Christs, time alone can tell; seeing upon the whole it appears, that in eighteen hundred years past, in round num-

10

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

bers, about thirty Christs, have set up their pretentions in the world. Well did our Lord forwarn us of these, saying “many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” What is somewhat rare the great Shaker Christ, is a woman God; Diana of the Ephesians was also a female God, but not a Jewish, or Christian deity; she was said to be the daughter of Jupiter, and the Goddess of Hunting and Mariage; but Anne Lee, although she was married herself, is the Goddess of Celibacy; in this the religion of those two deified ladies, mightily differ; and from their parentage, let all men judge which of these two has the better claim to divinity, viz. John Lee the black-smith,7 or the great Jupiter Ammon. It may be replied that the worship of Diana, is downright idolatry, and as certainly so is the other; the Ephesian Goddess, was worshiped in the appearance of a woman on horse-back, and the Shaker Mother, in the dress of a long bed-gown, and a most enormous cap,8 that conceals the upper part of the face, as a token of conscious guilt. In the 19th chapter of Acts, we learn that St. Paul was an opposer of the Ephesian idolatry; and for my part, I cordially detest them both. St. Paul is impeached by Demetrius, for having taught, that they were no Gods that were made with hands; and yet I think, that the worshiping of a wooden God, made out of an oak tree, is less criminal, than the worshiping of a presumptious impostor, pretending / to be Christ, either in his first or second coming. – The wickedness of Nero, is not equal to this. Col. Smith9 says, that Shakerism is a money making scheme; and it appears that Demetrius acted on the same principle, for he told his fellow workman of the same trade, that it was by that craft they had their wealth. A gentleman once observed in my hearing, that, if it was preached that there were nine persons in the Trinity, and three of them were Holy-ghosts they need not fear to make converts, for some would believe it. Experience shews, that the most foolish absurdities gain credit with some, and it is easier to gain white Negroes in America, to work, and dance all their days, than obtain money to purchase black ones. – Their own account of the rise of Shakerism, is published in the introduction of that blasphemious book;10 there it is owned that it took its rise in England, from the French Prophets;11 ’tis probable that this is the truth; for it smells strongly of Popery, and bears the prominent features of a French religion: but is vastly more intolerable, than the ancient Popery of Rome. A papist in the former mode, after paying the priest for his services, what he has left behind is his own, and he is as free, as other men; but with the Shakers, a man becomes a perfect slave, he has neither soul, body, conscience, nor estate that he can call his own. In the introduction page 22d, ’tis told that about the year 1750 “she (i. e. Anne Lee) became a subject of the work that was under the ministration of James and Jane Wardly,12 and joined herself to that society of people, who were then called Shakers.” This was the society that originated in the French prophets, and probably being more extravagant in delusions than the rest; she took the lead, obtained the title of Mother, laid claim to

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

11

divinity, and to use their own words page 23d, “She was received and acknowledged as the first Mother, or spiritual parent in the line of the female, and the second heir in the covenant of life &c. to such as addressed her with the customary titles used by the world, she would reply, I am Ann the word, sigifying that in her dwelt the word,” which is the name of Christ given in the Revelations, and the gospel of John. Now here the divinity of the son of God, is fairly assumed, for he is the second heir in the / covenant of life: and in all the scriptures, none other, was ever called the word. Dr. Whitley says, the Platonists esteem the word (or Logos,) that principle by whom ever-existing, all things were made. Zeno says the word (or Logos) is eternal. Philo and all the Jews, say the word is (presbutators) the most ancient of all beings. And St. John, in the 1st chapter of the Gospel, says the word was God; and that all things were made by him: and without him, was not any thing made, that was made.” Yet however vain, foolish, horrid, or presumptious, all this may appear to be, when applied to the Shaker Mother; yet they artfully endeavour to defend these pretensions: for in the poem at the latter end of the book,13 she is represented as the daughter of the Holyghost; the words are “the Holy-ghost at length did bear, th’ anointed one the second heir, a virgin soul a holy child, a Mother pure and undefiled; in her the heirship is complete &c.” but if a wife has a claim after mariage to her husbands name, perhaps she called herself the word, on that account; for in page 465, she is represented as maried to Jesus Christ; and in page 567, she is said to be as meritorious in the salvation of mankind, as Jesus himself was their words are, “That she suffered her due proportion and, died upon the same fundamental principles of redemption, that the sufferings and death of Christ, were necessary in his first appearing.” In page 21st and 22d, ’tis said that she was “born about the year 1736 in the town of Manchester, her natural father John Lee was a blacksmith by trade, with whom she lived until she embarked for America &c. She had five natural brothers viz Joseph, James, Daniel, William and George, and two sisters, Mary and Nancy.” Had all these other seven children pretended to divinity as Ann did, sure they would have been a wonderful family, they might have removed to different counties, and stocked the world with Gods. But what kind of a father must John Lee be? I heard a Gentleman say he must be God-almighty, for no other being could be the father of Christ; however, to make her nativity appear full as wonderfull as that of Jesus Christ, they took care to say nothing of her true and only mother nor give any account of John Lee’s wife; but without / shame propagated a groundless fable, that she was brought forth by Holy Ghost. Yet some part of her memoir is very humiliating for a Christ, whose mother was the Holy Ghost; for it is said in the page quote, “that she grew up in the same fallen nature with the rest of mankind” if so, then God forbid that I should trust my salvation, to one by nature, no better than myself; who “grew up in the same page, it is recorded, that “she was married to a

12

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

man named Abraham Stanly, by whom she had four children” I doubt not, but this was the most innocent part of her life although it is a pity she was not born at Mecca, for she would have been a proper wife for Mahomet. In the scriptures in general, and in the writings of St. Paul in particular, we learn what kind of an appearance Christ will make at his second coming; and although the Shakers have cast off the sacraments of baptism and Lords Supper, yet St. Paul saith 1st Corinthians 11th & 26th. “As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lords death until he come” plainly implying, that this sacrament shall be used until the end of the world; for that is the time, pointed out in scripture for his second coming; as it is declared in the 3d chapter of Acts, concerning Jesus Christ, whom the heavens must receive until the restoration of all things; from which I infer that he never will be seen in a bodily appearance, in this world until the general judgement. Yet, however plain and conclusive, these declarations of scripture are on this point, the Shakers endeavor to evade them all, by pretending, that the resurrection, and the Judgement are come already; as if all the world should resort to them, for the all important purpose of confession, forgivness, and judgment. How unparalleled the presumption! How audacious the wickedness of such hypocrites! I am filled with wonder at the folly of the dupes that are thus imposed on, and the God provoking impudence of the pretenders! In 2nd Timothy 4th & 1st, St. Paul saith, “I charge you before God the father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his coming” Here it is undeniably plain, that the general judgment of all the human / race, both quick and dead, will be at the time of his coming; and our Lord has told the world before hand, how he will dispose of all the human family at his coming, namely that “he will set the righteous under the character of sheep, on his right hand, and the wicked called the goats, on his left; then shall he pronounce the sentence to the righteous, come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: and to this judgment, the son of man shall be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” In the 24th of Mathew ’tis said, “As the lightning that cometh out of the east, and shineth unto the west; so shall the coming of the son of man be; and then shall be seen the sign of the son of man in heaven; and then shall the tribes of the earth mourn, when they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory: and he shall send his angels with the sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, form the one end of heaven to the other.” In this sublime description of the majesty of the coming judge, to fix the final fates of men, there is not the most distant resemblance of Anne Lee, an old black-smiths wife from Manchester. No, she and all such impostors, after their sentence must retire to Vulcans quarters, and there hide themselves in eternal disgrace. By comparing the account given in the testimony of the Shaker Mother, with the 14th chapter

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

13

of Acts, we may see what a manifest difference there is between her conduct, and the conduct of Paul and Barnabas, at the city of Lystra in Lycaonia. “The people imagined that the apostles were the Gods, come down to them in the likeness of men; and priest of Jupiter, brought oxen and garlands, to sacrifice unto the apostles; calling Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker; but the apostles rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, sirs, why do you these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, that you should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is therein.” – For the apostles were no idolaters they rejected the worship of such petty deities neither would they receive divine / honors, but like the angel spoken of in the Revelations, who reproved St. John, for falling down at his feet to worship him; he said, “see thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant,” and with this sharp reproof he added, “worship God.” If the Shaker mother had followed the good example of that humble angel, although a spirit so glorious, that St. John might have mistaken him for Christ himself; she never would have called herself ANNE the WORD; neither would she have suffered the poor deceived Shakers to be so far guilty of idolatry, as to receive her for the second heir in the covenant of life. The true Christian will always say, not unto us O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give the glory. I have often heard it observed, that it was this God invading spirit of pride, which wrought in Lucifer himself, and was productive of so great an evil, as the fall of the whole Satanic host. – And I have often remarked, that in the preaching, writeing, and conversation of the Shakers, they always manifested this spirit, lessening and despising, all the other good men in the world: not in lowliness of mind, esteeming others better than themselves; but boasting of their own superior holiness, so that it ever appeared to me, the top stone of their fabric, was nothing but emty professions and vain presumption. In Col. 3d, and 4th, the Apostles saith, “when Christ who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” How plainly here is the time pointed out, for the appearing of Christ, and the glorification of the saints, and fully declare both these events inseperable, and must take place at one and the same time: so that if any shall ask when shall christ who is our life (Phanerothe) i. e. appear plainly or shine forth? the answer is, when ye also, (i. e. the saints) shall shine forth with him in glory. – Or if you reverse the question, and it be asked when will the saints be glorified, or shine forth in glory? the Apostles answer is ready, when Christ to this world, shall make his glorious appearance: but Christ is glorious in heaven from the time of his ascension, with the glory, which he had with the father before the world was; and the souls of the saints are happy with him in Abrahams bosom, from the time of their decease, or the departure of each respectively, / therefore it is plain, the Apostle does not intend, barely to describe the spiritual happiness of a Christian in this world, nor that felicity they enjoy in

14

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

heaven, between death and the resurrection, for both these are in some respects hid with Christ in God, from the views of this world: but he must be understood to describe, how he will appear hereafter, in all the pomp and power of the upper world, with his holy angels in all his own, and his Fathers glory; and then he will be glorified in his saints, and the resurrection bodies of the glorified saints, shall also shine forth as the sun, and appear with him in glory. – And if the righteous are suns, that shine only with borrowed rays, how transcendantly glorious must that eternal Sun be; from whom all the beatified, receive their happiness and glory. But what glory is there in the appearance of the Shaker mother, with an enormous cap, and a long bed-gown? “God says that he is a jealous God, and his glory he will not give to another; nor is praise to graven images.” Then who could conceive, that such impostors, should not meet with a just requital, and they become wandering stars, for whom is reserved blackness, and darkness forever? In 1st Thess. 4th, & 16th, St Paul saith “the Lord himself, (not the elect lady, or the Shaker mother herself ) but it is in the masculine gender, the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Here the apostle saith, the abodes of glory above, with the shout of a king, and the triumphant authority, of a mighty conquerer; in all the pomp and power of the upper world, attended with the glorious retinue of the saints and angels; but in particular, with the voice of the archangel (as general of the hosts of the armies of God) who shall make proclamation, and give notice to this lower world, of the approach of their omnipotent judge; whose appearance shall be attended with the loud trump of God, which shall awake all that sleep in the dust of the earth, and summon all the world, to appear before his bar. And although the book called the “Testimony,” denies the resurrection of the dead, yet it seems / from this scripture, that Christs first care in that day, will be about his saints; for the first great work that we hear shall be done, the dead in Christ shall rise first; and those who are found alive at his coming, shall be changed; so that those who slept not in death, will have no priviledge above the dead; but those found then alive shall be changed, as if they had died, and, rose again; and thus, being made immortal as the others, shall be caught up to meet the Lord, in the region of the air; so shall we (both quick and dead) ever be with the Lord. – Now I ask in the name of God, in the name of religion and common sense, who but an enthusiastic dupe, or a spiritually blinded wretch? Can read and reflect, on these declarations of scripture; and conceive them to be all fulfilled, in the delusive pretentions of Anne Lee: the false calculations of the shaker Millenium; or the dancing of shaker jigs, if such is the worship of that female Idol. When Christ came first into this world, it was to destroy the works of the devil; and as Redeemer, to work out Salvation for man. But in his second coming, he will be different in his appearance, he will bear a very different office, and

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

15

perform very different work; namely, to judge the world, and give unto every one as their work shall be. Thus he declares in the Revelation. “I come quickly, and my reward is with me, and my work before me,” so his great business, is to distribute rewards and punishment at his coming; for so saith St. Paul to Timothy, “the Lord Jesus Christ, shall judge the quick and dead, at his appearing.” Now this almighty judge, is at no loss to execute his sentence, or bring his threatnings into effect; But how silly, futile and pitiful, are the pretensions of the Shakers; or their great mother, to the dignities of this office? A Shaker once kneeled to me, to pronounce my doom and condition; how silly and absurd, this appeared to me? And I now enter my appeal from that sentence, and from the tribunal of Anne Lee the usurper; to that of the triumphant Jesus, the true Messiah; whom I own as my judge and know to be my best friend. In the 50th Psalm, it is said “that God is Judge himself.” And truly if Jesus Christ is not God, his claim to the office of Judge, would be something like that of the Shaker Mother. / But in the gospel of John 5th & 22d our Lord declares his appointment to the dignity of that office, saving “The father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment to the Son: that all men should honor the son, even as they honor the father.” Let the Shakers therefore shew us if they can, that scripture, that directs us to honor their Mother. I have no objection to give honor, to whom honor is due; fear, to whom fear; worship, to whom worship; but I by no means approve of presumptous impostors, quitting their own ranks and stations, to the eternal undoing of their own souls; and the souls of those that are deceived by them.

CHAP. II. OF AURICULAR CONFESSION OF SIN. THE first step in general taken with all, is to persuade them to confess their sins; and as soon as this is effected, they know that they have them in the snare; for this is the common door of admitance. I have read Gavins Master Key to Popery,14 and ’tis easy to observe that this doctrine of auricular confession of sin, is a leading principle of popish government; by this, the Pope hold the secrets of Princes; Cabinets, and councils of nations; and manages, and sways them to his interest. It was not through ignorance or simplicity, that the Shakers adopted the auricular confession of sin; for nothing can give one man, a greater advantage over an other; happy for us in, America; we are not forced into such measures; although it is true, that the Shakers have persuaded some to this, that were simple and unwary: for what will not the fear of hell-fire on the one hand, and the promise of a Millenium, and high attainments of a spiritual nature, on the other / hand; do with people that are of a weak, and unsteady mind? and perhaps somewhat alarmed in their conscience, concerning their dangerous condition; yet probable they never had true religion, that their hearts might be established

16

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

in the truth, And now I submit it, to all candid men, to judge as they please, what the fate of that man must be, that by confession, has given up his heart and conscience with all his secrets, to a Shaker confessor; and his estate into their treasury; with his body to work and dance, in the idolatry of Anne Lee, all the days of his life? call this what you please, and say is it slavery, or no, and if it is, say whether it is of a bodily, spiritual, or infernal nature. I suppose that our legislators, are under no apprehensions of any evil, arising to the community at large from this quarter. They with thousands more of sensible men, think the absurdities of shakerism too gross, to do any hurt to our enlightened age and country; but will not facts, and the experience of eight or ten years past, convince us of the contrary. How many have made themselves slaves already, and induced their whole familes into the same condition? I ask where, or when, is this evil to stop, what may the United States of America yet become to by Shakerism? Many laugh at the absurdities of the Shakers, yet this never impedes their progress; they leave no stone unturned to make proselites; although their system is replete with evils, both to government, and religion; but a few years more may, open our eyes on this subject, and be productive of consequences more serious, than many are now aware of; and I pray, that God may prevent what I so much fear. In page 548 & 4th verse they say that “the coming of Christ with his holy angels, or in his saints, is to give mankind who are weary of sin, the priviledge of confessing their sins to God, by Christ the mediator in his saints and which is the only door of hope that ever was, or ever will be opened for real salvation.” I ask who that reads and considers these words, cannot plainly see that to confess to God, by christ the Mediator in the saints, is in effect the same, as confession to the saints themselves; unless that Christ. our mediator, could receive the confession without the saints hearing it; for the words “To God, / through Christ in the saints,” is but a blind to hoodwink the eyes of the ignorant: it would be more honorable, plainly to profess the necessity of auricular confession at once, like the church of Rome, I am as much satisfied of the Propriety of the confession of sin, as any Papist or Shaker can be and that pardon of sin cannot be obtained with out confession, and sincere repentance; for the scripture plainly promiseth to the penitent, that he that confesseth, and forsaketh shall find mercy. The only point in debate, is, who shall be the father confessor? Now to the scriptures to make out this important point, and I deny that auricular confession, can be proved from the scriptures; and I defy all the Shakers in America, to prove from the first page of Genesis, to the last end of the Revelations; that we are commanded to confess our sins to any man: either for the purpose of admission into the church, or for the forgiveness of sin, or for admittance into the kingdom of heaven. And it is certain that these three are the most important purposes, or ends, that can be alledged in support, either of the doctrine or practice of confession. But if I shall shew from scripture and reason that these great purposes, may

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

17

be obtained without it; and that it is no where commanded in the scriptures, it will then fairly appear, that it is both unscriptural, and unnecessary. – The particular scripture that favors this point the most, is in James 5th & 16th, “confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another; that ye may be healed.” A Shaker once quoted this scripture to me, and explained it, that every sin is a fault; I replied it is true, that every sin is a fault, but every fault, is not a sin: and I added, that we have faults of memory, reasoning, understanding, and judgement, and that these faults will remain with us while we inhabit these bodies of flesh and blood; and as I knew the gentlemans education might have taught him better; Sir said I, you know that the original word for sin is (amartia) a transgression of the law; but in this place, the original word, is (paraptomata,) which signifies a slide, stumble, or fault, now sir said I, could this word have been translated a sin, the Roman Catholic clergy, would have made our fore-fathers hear this, in the deaf side of their heads, some hundreds of years ago; but they failed / and could not do it. In the same book page 551, is the memorable story of Achan, which is brought forward as a triumphant proof, for Shaker confession; this you may read in the book of Joshua 7th & 19th. “And Joshua said unto Achan, my son give I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel; and make confession unto him, and tell me now what thou hast done, hide it not from me.” Here let it be observed, that Joshua was commander in chief of the armies of Israel, and chief judge of the nation at that time; and this was a case of life and death, in point of judgement, before the judge. If his transaction proves Shaker confession, why did not Joshua forgive him? but in the respect of the Shaker use and purposes of confession first for admittance into the Church it answered no end; for he was a Hebrew, under Abrahams covenant of peculiarity to God; consequently a member of the then true church already. Secondly, it did not procure forgivness of the sin, for they stoned him with stones, until he died. And as to the third purpose of confession, as being preparatory to the kingdom of heaven; neither the Shakers, nor I can tell where he went to, or where he died. But if this unhappy Achan, had been endowed with the spirit of prophecy, in respect of the modern Shaker Millenum; he might have replied to his austere judge, in the following manner, viz. You keep no stock purse, or treasury, to receive the estates and donations of penitents, who confess their sins; but the happy time of the Shaker Millenium is coming, when I would be forgiven, by confessing “to Christ, the Mediator in the saints,” and this golden wedge, and babylonish garment, with two hundred shekels of silver, might be received into the treasury. Now it is evident from the whole narrative, that there was no witness against poor Achan, he died on his own confession, in point of judgment; according to the old Proverb, “confess and be hanged.” But a few years ago, I saw a Negro executed, who on his trial, made confession before the judge, that he had killed his master. And a Negro

18

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

girl, in a neighboring country, was hanged for killing a child; who also made confession in point of judgement. Having examined the evidence, arising from these two / scriptures which the Shakers boast of for confession, and finding that they rather refute, than prove the point in debate; I shall omit to mention other scriptures, that are less pertinent to the subject; for I am confident, it cannot be proved from the Bible. Therefore I come now to shew, who the true father confessor is; and in Psalm 32 & 5, are these words, “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid, I said, I will confess my transgressions unto thee Lord; and thou forgives the iniquity of my sin.” There we see plainly, that the Lord; (that is Jehovah) the God of Israel; was the father confessor under the Jewish dispensation: that is when confession is made to obtain forgiveness; without one word of the “Christ the mediator in the saints hearing of it, and indeed, very serious doubts might arise on this” footing, for fear the pretended saint was only a hypocrite, and Christ not in him; and thus the poor penitent might miss of forgiveness, by placeing his trust on so precarious a foundation. But least it should be supposed that the father confessor might be changed, by a change of dispensations, let us see who is the true confessor under the gospel: and this is made plain to us in the 14 chapter to the Romans 10, 11 & 12 verses, ‘But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. – For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then, every one of us shall give an account of himself to God.” Here ’tis, plain, that we should not confess, or give an account to the Priest, not to the Pope, nor to the Shaker confessor, but to God only. And if every one, must give an account of himself, to God, then sure the Pope, Priest; or Shaker confessor, are in this respect, no better off than other people; and just upon an equal footing, with the rest of mankind: for shall not the judge of all the earth do right.” There is no doubt, but God the great Rector of the universe is just and impartial, and omnipotent in power, and without confession to him, and forgiveness from himself; God would just as soon damn for their sins, a Pope or Shaker confessor; as he would a Hottentot,15 or a Guina Negro. / I have frequently thought, if one of the boldest rogues in the Penetentiary, was to persuade the rest, to confess their crimes to him, in order that they might be forgiven, and liberated from their confinement; it might be a just, and plain resemblance, of one guilty son of Adam receiving the confession of another; and on account of the presumption, more God provoking than those they have be fooled. Here let us throw off the mask, and view this matter: in its true light; and what authority is hereby confered on men, or what is the meaning of the whole? but making a kind of mediators of men and thus the Shakers must imitate the Pope of Rome, who pretends to a delogated power from God; as Christ Vicegerant on earth, as if a poor, heavy laden penitent sinner, must not go immediately to Christ

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

19

himself, for the pardon of his sins; who invites all such, to come unto him and find rest; but first, he must make interest with some of his high commissioned servants, or is the monarch of the skies, like the haughty Monarchs of the earth? that we can have no recource to him, without taking a course of regular steps by his attendants, and underlings. It is true that God is infinitely Holy, great and glorious, and cannot look upon sinners with approbation of their ways; but happy for us. “We have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous,” and he is the sole Medium, of our reconciliation with God: therefore every other intercessor is unnecessary, and I have shewn already that all who seek the forgivness of their sins, should make their confession to God only; for his word declares, that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,” but we know well, that the Shakers are not faithful and just to forgive us, for they have no such power; even the Shaker Christ herself, is inadequate to the task; whether they account her to be the Mediator in the saints,” or on the outside of them, ’tis all the same: for if it was the will of God, that those father confessors should have all the secrets of the world in their hands, why was not the gift of discerning of spirits given to them? why was there not somthing like a window, made in the breast of every son an daughter of Adam, as they come into the world? and if God intended, so much intelligence and power to / some men, over others; why were they not blest with a miraculous gift ? that men might be to their view, as transparent as glass. True, this pretension has been assumed already, for a Shaker lady, told a gentleman of my acquaintance, she could see through him, as if he was a glass bottle.

CHAP. III. Of marriage and celibacy. The next after confession is to vow a life of Celibacy, and whether the person is married, or no after this, it make no difference; for to both sexes, the nuptial state, is counted the most criminal of all other evils. And although in the scripture, marriage is declared to be honorable; and may justly be esteemed the most sacred contract, on this side the skies; upon which, in a great measure depends all our domestic comforts, and estates; with the welfare of our families, and offspring; yet in the eyes of a Shaker, all these considerations, are of no more force, than a thread of tow before the flame. In opposition therefore, to this doctrine of Shaker celibacy, I lay down the following arguments. If it was possible, that we, could have a just idea of a world in anarchy; where lawless, and uncivilized life prevailed without controul; where marriage no more restrains, the native rudeness of mankind; there let, Celibacy become universal; what must the consequences be but to fill the world with whores and rogues? some would acquire despotic power, and the strong hand would invade exclusive right, and thus, jealousy, anger, murder, and death, would soon spread over the earth And if, under

20

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

government and religious life, it was universally, and strictly obeyed; it would at the / end of the present generation, depopulate the world; it might be a world of birds and beasts, but not a man to till the ground. Shaker celibacy, is therefore, the most destroying and self destroying, system, that ever was set on foot in the world; for it not only removes the cause which supports the existence, of all other modes of society, but would in the end defeat itself also Doctor Moors travels, has many excellent observations, on some of the popish countries of Europe, and on Popery, as it is carried on in Rome and Italy. It is supposed by some, that there are more useless persons, in the retirements of celibacy in those countries, than would be sufficient to defend their respective dominions, if the same number were under arms. Strangers who travel there, observe in many towns and villages, as, they pass along, that they meet with Monasteries, or Nunneries of persons under vows of celibacy, having exempt priviledges from the government, on supposition, of their possessing superior degrees of holiness; for all the Monks observe a life of celibacy, and the Pope has decreed it, to be the state of all the energy. Simpson in his plea for religion, page 93, observes “that popery, has been a horrible curse, to the population of christendom! France alone before the revolution, contained upwards of 366 thousand secular and regular clergy, besides an immense number of Nuns; this vast body of males and females, were all enjoined by the laws of the church, to continue in a state of celibacy. In the whole of christendom, there was not less than two hundred and twenty-five thousand, four hundred and forty-four Monasteries about a century ago; how much greater the number before the reformation? Upwards of 3180, of such religious houses were suppressed by Henry the 8, and his predecessors in England.” Secondly, celibacy, an enthusiastic and unnatural principle, tends to render abortive the designs of God in the creation of man. What these purposes, or designs of the Almighty might be, which caused him to create such a world as this, and make his favorite creature man the ruler of the whole, I will not positively assert in every respect, but one thing is sure, it was not for the unhappiness of man; for no doubt, he designed well towards our race / both in creation and redemption. Suppose if you please, that his design was so fill up those vacancies in the celestial abodes, made by the fall of the Luciferian host; yet this celibacy, would prevent the existance of all the happy heirs of those abodes, that might be born in succeeding generations to the end of the world. But should you think that this consideration is too deep for you to fathom, and you would rather confine your observations to causes and effects with which you are better acquainted; then look into history on the most depopulating characters, such as Nero, Charles the 12, Bonaparte, and many others, who have wasted cities, and ruined families and whole countries. Now this celibacy, which is against the interest of every country, would effect that by stratagems and art, which others have attempted by force. ’Tis therefore against the interest and policy of the

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

21

United States, to countenance, so many useless people under vows of celibacy, pretending to scruples of conscience as an excuse, for not bearing arms in the defence of their country; but rather, seeking exempt priviledges from government, under pretence of superior piety. For what is a nation, but a great family or community? where every individual more or less, should act to the benefit of the whole. And that member of either a family or community, refusing their aid or assistance, when demanded in a reasonable manner by the heads and directors thereof, should be exempted from the benefits, favors, or priviledges, derived from that community or family. – The application of this observation is obvious, for the Shakers not only refuse to bear arms in defence of their country, but Col. Smith has given us sufficient reason to believe that their system is opposed to the United States government. Third, it is against Gods great and first commandment, i.e. “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” – Nor can the fall of Adam from his first innocence be urged as a reason for the prohibition of this commandment, after his transgression; for in Genesis the 9 & 7, God repeats to Noah and his decendants the same command again; saying “be fruitful and multiply, and bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein,” so that the / scriptures nearly amount, to the words of a poet on this subject, viz. “God bids increase, who says refrain; None but the foe of god and man.”

“I will (saith the holy St. Paul) that younger women marry, bear children, and guide the house.” And the same apostle to the Hebrews, declares “that marriage is honorable in all,” nor can any thing that is truely honorable in all be justly accounted sinful in some, either before God or man. And if the young women should marry, and bear children, by a parity of reasoning the young men should marry too; and then Shaker celibacy may go back to the pit, from whence it came. Enoch the seventh from Adam, was so holy as to be taken to heaven without death, yet he was a married man, and begat sons and daughters; in a word, our Lord himself was personally presents at a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and he never forbid the banes of matrimony, nor so much as intimated that it was a sin, but he said in another place, what God hath joined together let not man put assunder: for had marriage been sinful in his esteem, he would have peopled the world some other way, God was at no loss for ways and means to effect his designs, he might (if he pleased) have made men grow out of old stumps in the bottoms, as mushrooms do after a shower of rain; but seeing God has chosen that the human race, and all animal nature, even the fowls of the air, the beasts of the earth, and the fishes of the sea, shall propagate their species, by the gratification of their senses, “and shall the thing formed, say to him that hath formed it, why hast thou made me thus.”

22

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Fourth, another evil arising from celibacy, will be discovered by the youth of both sexes after entering into such vows, as they grow up their passions will grow strong, and being prevented from lawful marriage, they will thereby be induced to commit lewdness; or else, be tormented with what some call the burning exercise, for both the scriptures and the anatomical construction of the human body, plainly shew the absurdity of such vows to the general mass of mankind. Adam the father of mankind, may be compared to a great tree planted in the earth; and unfolding itself, in its successive generations from the beginning / of the world until now: and it is the same unerring hand, that cause the juices of the human blood to flow in the body, that causeth the sap to rise in the trees of the woods, and I may add with as little criminality as the sap in the trees, if directed by reason and prudence, and the righteous laws of God and man. It is very far from my intention these observations should be construed into a paliation, or excuse for libidinous wickedness, and if I am understood, I disapprove both of whoredom and Shaker celibacy. And if it is absurd and unreasonable, that young persons should enter into such vows, it is still more distressing and grievous, in those that are married; all contentment, peace and happiness, fly from such families; and nothing is left, but confusion and distress to their companion, and want and beggary to their children; surely such are “covenant breakers, without natural affection.” Who put their children under the dominion of strangers without the care of a mother, and to be raised up to the practice of dancing Shaker jigs, without praying, or any knowledge of the christian religion. And is marriage such a light thing? the most important, solemn, and happy contract, that can be formed under heaven, upon which depends all our domestic comforts, and in a great measure the means of our subsistence and augmentation of our estates; with the proper raising, and education of children; so that the death of a good wife, or a good husband, can hardly be compensated in the course of one life time again. Fifth, this argument I deduce from Marks gospel, 10, 6 & 7 verses, our Lord said, “from the beginning of the world God (and not the devil as they intimate) made them male and female,” From which I infer, that God made every male and female of Adams race, from the beginning of the world until now. And so saith the Psalmist, “we are the sheep of his pasture, and the workmanship of his hand.” Not the devils workmanship. The prophet Isaiah expresseth this same opinion, “O Lord thou art our father, we are the clay, and thou art the potter; we are all the work of thy hands.” And for this cause (namely that God made them male and female) shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleaves unto his / wife; so that with dearer than parental affection, the twain shall be one flesh; what God therefore hath joined together; let no man (no, not even the Shakers) put assunder. It is self-evident, that Adam and Eve was not the cause of their own existence; nor the formers of their own bodies. And if the propagation of the human race must be deemed in them a criminal action, God himself was the

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

23

cause of it: for it will ever revert back to the author of their being. This argument will still become stronger, while aided by a positive command, “be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth.” Especially, as with the command he also bestowed on them the power of obedience. And our Lord has put it beyond a doubt, that the human race was made of different sex for the purpose of propagation; and he has fully declared both the cause, and the effect; for in the above quotation from Marks gospel he says plainly, for “this cause (namely that God made them of different sex,) a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the twain shall be one flesh; then adds what God hath joined together,” which words plainly imply, that God is the author of marriage; and at least subjoins this prohibition, “let no man put asunder.” I have been told that the Shakers represent a married life as a state of whoredom, or adultery; but sure it never was intimated in scripture, that any man could commit adultery with his own flesh. In the Prophesy of Micah 6, & 7, it is said “shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” Here this interrogation, “shall I give the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” in scripture language amounts to a strong prohibition, that I shall not. The heathens offered human sacrifices to appease their deities. But God is the author of our being, his unerring hand hath given our bodies their construction, and the power of propagating; and he rejects such offerings as an abomination unto him. And whether the offering be made in sperm, embryo, the fœtus, or any future stage of human being, so as to destroy the animal life; it is all wickedness; and cannot appease the deity for any wrong done to his honor. Thus Shaker celibacy, which prohibits the lawful propagation of the human species, in some / degree partakes of the guilt of such heathenish sacrifices, while it is done under the pretence of pleasing God as a general rule to all. The laws both of God and nations, have laid down proper restrictions for the propagation of posterity; but monks and Shakers affect to be wise above what is written, and holy beyond Gods commands. And I say with a poet. “These are inventions added in a fatal hour; What ever called by man, they’r purely evil; They’r Babel, Antichrist, and Pope and devil.”

Therefore I detest sacrificing the seed of the human body, whether offered to the idol Molech or Anne Lee. Sixth, from the great professions that are made by those who have entered into a state of celibacy, it might be supposed, that the best of mankind would embrace these sentiments; consequently, there will be none left to propogate the human race, but the common degenerated mass of the wicked; so that mankind must continually become worse, and worse. Now as all the productions of nature, posses the qualities of their respective kinds; so the good advice of the

24

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

old Proverb, “take care of the breed,” should be observed by all who are setting in marriage. Good Abraham of old was of this mind, he would not let his son Isaac have a wife, of the race of the idolatrous Canaanites that dwelt in the land, but sent his faithful servant back to the land of Padanaram, to obtain a wife for him of his own religious kindred that worshiped the true God. And I advise all who worship Jehovah the God of heaven, and have tasted of the love of Jesus, that thy would avoid marriage in such families as are infected with the idolatry of Anne Lee. The scripture of the New Testament has laid down this injunction, “be not unequally yolked together; believes, with the unbelievers.” Some already, have suffered more trouble and confusion from this quarter; than they would have endured, in traveling a thousand miles to seek a wife. But for the generalty of pious, or religious people, to observe a life of celibacy; would be so far from good conduct, or the will of God, that it might justly be accounted a curse to the world; for those who live the most upright lives themselves, are the fittest to be married and have children; as / no doubt, both by precept and example, they would raise them up in the nature and admonition of the Lord. Great and happy are the effects of being born of religious parents, and having a religious education in youth; thus Solomon directs, to “train up the child in the way wherein it should go, and when it is old it will not depart from it.” “Tis education forms the common mind, “Just as the twig is bent, the tree’s inclin’d,”

So that if celibacy be imposed on any, let it be on the wicked, who badly raise their children; for the lives of wicked parents, tend to make their houses a kind of nurseries for Satan. Now if all such entered into vows of celibacy, it might be a blessing to the world, by putting an end to the wicked breed.

CHAP. IV. Shakers objections to marriage. It is supposed that St. Paul lived a life of celibacy, and said I Cor. 7 & I. “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Answer. It was no doubt good for the Corinthian church at the time, to take this advice, but circumstances alter cases; for in the 26 verse, he saith that it is good for the present distress; i. e. to be in a state of single life; for if the apostles own case is well considered, his itenerant life of constantly traveling in preaching the gospel, would be attended with too great difficulties for a married man. How much more so in times of persecution and distress? In Fletchers portrait of St. Paul, it is observed that his first danger was from the walls of Demascus in a basket; but if he had been married what then must become of the poor wife and children? and indeed this was only a prelude / to what followed after, for he

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

25

himself says, “that bonds and imprisonment await him in every city.” And in the 26 verse refered to, the word (anangken) distress, plainly shews this cannot relate to the peaceable times of the church, for they are not times of tribulation or distress, as that word signifies. I am the more particular upon this point because in the testimony pages 143 and the 104 verse it is asked “what was this present distress? was it persecutive? by no means.” Therefore to shew the falsehood of the assertion in Luke 21 & 28, the same word (anangken) occurs to express the afflictions, necessities, and distress which befel the nation of the Jews by the Romans. And 2 Cor. 6 & 4. (en anangkais en diogmois) in necessities, and persecution, so Dr. Whitby16 observes that the present distress spoken of, cannot signify the troubles common to the life, for they are not always instant, or present. But to put it beyond a doubt, that the distress spoken of is of a temporal, and bodily nature, and should be strictly explained of times of persecution; the apostle saith that such as marry shall have trouble in the flesh, and sure it would trouble both the flesh and spirit of most christians in our day, if we were hunted in the mountains, dens and caves of the earth for our religion; dragooned by soldiers, flying from enemies, and our wives and and children exposed to distress, hunger and want. Accordingly, church history inform, us that this was often the suffering condition of the first christians; with great prudence therefore, the apostle rather dissuades from entering into marriage contracts too hastily, or for that time; not that he consder it to be of a criminal nature, for that idea is not intimated in scripture; but on account of the persecution and distress, suffered in the apostolic age; for it is much easier for a single person, either to provide subsistence for one alone, or fly from an enemy; than to provide for a family, and to escape with a wife an a half a dozen children. And let no monkish fool, or Shaker enthusiast, immagine himself wiser, than seven men that can render a reason, and still prefer his own whimsies on this subject, in contradiction to what I have here advanced; I beg leave to inform my readers, that I have read and advanced the sentiments, of some of the / ablest critics on the Greek text. I acknowledge indeed that the sentiments, constitutions, and worldly circumstances of many individuals, both male and female; may render it prudent, for such to remain in a single life; either, for a longer or a shorter time; both on account of religion, and for other reasons. Yet celibacy as a general rule can never be accounted meritorious, nor marriage sinful. And it is justly to be observed, that the principal evils so frequently met with on that subject, among religious people; flow from being united to improper persons, for where the pious and ungodly are joined together, experience shows that it is easier to pervert, than to convert; and this is the real evil. Seeing therefore that marriage and celibacy, doubly affect us; being both of a religious, and of a secular nature; there is no man, that regards either God, or the welfare of his country, can feel indifferent on this head; nor think himself

26

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

and his posterity, uninterested in it. But in page 143 & 140 verse, tis said. “here was the cause of persecutions; a stumbling block to the cruel Jews, who could no longer see any way to uphold wars and fightings; for want of a posterity of murdering Cains, to involve the earth in blood and oppression.” Here the poor Jews are counted cruel, and fond of a posterity of murdering Cains, to involve the earth in blood and oppression; consequently they were opposed to celibacy, that would prevent the future generations of bloody murderers. I ask was this the design, for which Shaker celibacy was introduced into America i. e. in plain english, that our national strength may be weakened; or, in the language of the politician, that our enfeebled posterity, be no longer able by war, to defend our rights against our enemies; or in the Shaker dialect, that a posterity of murdering Cains, be no longer able to uphold wars and fightings, and involve the earth in blood and oppression. But in respect of the design of Shaker celibacy, whether they allow of this commentary or no; it is undeniably certain, that the consequence would be to weaken America: if we were involved in war with any foreign power, while they refuse to bear any active part, in the defence of their country; all such retirements of celibacy, only hang as a dead / weight on the government; and perhaps when aid might be the most necessary, they would then be found on the enemies side. For I am ever jealous of that eclesiastical power, that can disarm men from defending their just right; in the general it is found out at last, that such only wait for a turn of interest, or a change of circumstances; and then, another mandate of the same infallible ghostly authority, will in reality, change its pretended meek and passive subjects, into murdering Cains, that involve the earth in blood and oppression. But does the United States government, manifest a Cain like sanguinary spirit? or, can the neighboring nations count us fond of war, while our seafaring merchants for a series of years, have borne the depredations of European plunderers? And should any of the Trans-atlantic tyrants of Europe, invade our happy land, and venture to introduce their troops within the limits of the United States; I hope, through the attention and vigilance of our government, that these monkish retirements of celibacy, shall not so far prevail, but we shall ever be able to Burgoin our enemies;17 and restrain the absurdities of Shaker celibacy. Every sensible man that reflects on the circumstances of our infant nation, and compare it with the old nations of Asia or Europe, must see what a prejudice we would sustain by this celibacy, which would be a curse to any nation; but more so to the United States of America. – Great Britain and Ireland being small in territory, yet containing about nine or ten millions of inhabitants, might better bear the effects of Shaker celibacy than us. France with twenty-nine millions, could better afford to lessen the number of inhabitants, than the United Sates of America. Or China with more than fifty millions might restrain the custom of polygamy, or bear for some time the depopulating principles of Shaker celibacy. But we as a nation, being possessed of a vast extent of territory, with compari-

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

27

tively few inhabitants in our infant state, I could hardly bear the absurdities of celibacy to become considerable, without feeling the injury done to our government. Yet at some future period, when our population may become equal to the extent and productions of our dominion; the evil might be the better permitted / among us. From these considerations, it is plain that Shakerism becomes an object of attention to government, which if permitted to remain among us, should be under certain restrictions. And thus it was remarkable in the conduct of our Lord and his Apostles, that they never inculcated any depopulating principles to national government: and even with respect to individuals, every man who has a wife and a place of abode, must feel himself unjustly injured; when by Shakerism, his wife is seduced from his bed and board, and from the duties which she lawfully owes to her house and family. On the other hand, it is highly iniquitous for a married man to enter into vows of celibacy; and carry away with him his estate to the Shakers, and enduce his wife and children into the same condition; surely such, at the discretion of a court, should be obliged to divide the estate with the rest of the family. But it is supposed by some that the state constitution, on leaving every man at liberty to worship God according to his own conscience; will not admit of any legal restraints on such conduct; then it is plain, that our constitution requires amendment: for no man under pretence of religion or for conscience sake, should have an unbounded priviledge, either by principles of celibacy or any other way, to destroy the families of others, or to injure the peace and happiess of his neighbors: for let enthusiastic pretences be what they may, the true religion of the son of God, never authorized such conduct. /

CHAP. V Of the resurrection of dead bodies. Testimony page 571, “the natural bodies of all men are mortal and subject to dissolution like the bodies of all other animals, and when dissolved back to their native elements, they rise no more forever in the same form.”– But why should the form, or shape of the human body, be rejected as the model or image of a resurrection body? I cannot guess what form of body, would be most agreeable to the principles of Shakerism. Or whether they might not think fit to rise from the dead, in the form of some brute, or winged fowl. The scriptures inform us that celestial beings, have frequently appeared unto mankind in human form, Abraham and others entertained such, and conversed with them. Two angels came to Sodom, the evening before it was consumed; they appeared no doubt in human form, for some part of the narrative calls them men. I think the human form was originally divine, for God created man in his own image; which account will imply both the purity, and powers of the soul of man, and the form of his body. I see no great heresy, in believing that our resurrection bodies shall retain / the

28

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

human form; and I think it probable, that the glorified body of the Lord, retains the human form in heaven. It is true, that the modification of the matter of our bodies at the resurrection, when under the forming hand of God; exceeds our present knowledge, yet, what difference is there between the body of a man, and the body of a tree, or the body of any other thing. animate, or inanimate; but matter modified by the hand of God. The clothes we wear, whether of cotton, wool, or silk, is only matter modified through various stages; trace them back to the original seeds from which they grew, and you will find that the whole substance, was acquired from the atmosphere, the earth, and the fostering heat of the sun. – If men can do so much in the modification of matter, why should it be thought a thing impossible with God, to raise the dead? Can it be counted a greater task, than to form man out of the dust of the earth, and to breathe into him the breath of life at the first? Page 575 “not that they (the Apostles) ever learned or taught others, that Christ Jesus resumed the same natural appearance of sinful flesh, which was laid in the new tomb.” But why must this evil insinuation be used, that his body was sinful flesh? How false! Yet, sure he assumed his former appearance, when he was known to two of them, in breaking of bread; and when he came into the midst of his assembled disciples, and said peace be with you; for they knew him, and eat, walked, and conversed with him after his resurrection, Still the most remarkable evidence, arises from the conduct of Thomas; for nothing short of occular demonstration could make him believe, that the body of his master had arose from the dead. Yet, when he saw his risen Lord, with the marks of violence on his body, which he had received on the cross; he cried out, “my Lord and my God.” In the scripture of the New Testament, there is great stress laid on the resurrection of the body of our Lord: as St. Paul has declared, that “if Christ is not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain; yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have testified of God, that he raised up Christ; whom he be raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in / your sins.” This is the great hinge, upon which all christianity turns; and if this is not true, all christianity falls to the ground, and is nothing; but falsehood and fables: for the resurrection of our Lord, was the last great miracle, that was to confirm all the rest; and if this was an imposture, the Jews were sufficiently aware of it, and proceeded with the utmost care to prevent the fraud; for they knew that Jesus in his lifetime had said, that on the third day, he would rise again from the dead: therefore they closed the door of the sepulchre with a great stone, and sealed it, so that they could discover if any one broke the seal; and at last placed an armed guard of soldiers, to prevent every person from any intercourse with the sepulchre. But what follows? the guard of soldiers are overpowered by a great angel, and like dead men they fell to the ground; the seal is broken, and the stone

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

29

rolled away; and now having finished his sufferings for our redemption, the conquering Saviour, arose triumphant over death and hell. In the testimony, the chapter on the resurrection, contain ten pages of Sophistry, and falsehood; striving to confound together the resurrection of dead bodies; and the spiritual resurrection of the soul, from a death in sin, to a life of holiness; in order if possible, to evade the truth of our Lords resurrection, and bodily ascension into heaven; accordingly in page 576, they say “It was not therefore his natural body that ascended, for this was brought forth by a natural woman, and as it never descended from heaven, so neither was it that which ascended.” But flat as words can express we are told in the first chapter of the Acts, that our Lord conversed with his disciples on the mount of Olives; and while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And, while they looked steadfastly toward heaven, as he went up behold, two men stood by them in shining raimnent; who said ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? for this same Jesus, shall so come; as ye have seen him go into heaven. Now from this plain account, of the ascension of our Lord into heaven, after his resurrection from the dead, there remains no more doubt of his body ascending into heaven, than there is of the ascension of a baloon into the air, before a croud / of witnesses at noon-day. And what the angels said, to the men of Galilee, as plainly proves the nature of his second coming; for they said, he shall so come, as you have seen him go into heaven, i.e. in a bodily manner, before a croud of spectators. But in nothing like the Shaker mother, from Manchester. Although it was not Jesus alone, that went bodily into heaven: for Enoch and Elijah, ascended bodily, long before; yet perhaps not without a change equivalent to death, and resurrection; for St. Paul affirms, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Yet still the same apostles words, supposes such a modification of matter, at their resurrection; as that God shall change our vile bodies, and fashion them like unto the glorious body of Christ; so that his glorified body, after his resurrection, is to be the model, or pattern of our resurrection bodies. Nor are these things impossible with God, for he that made man out of the dust of the earth at first, can raise him from the same dust again, more glorious than before. Accordingly it is declared by the prophet Daniel, “that many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life; and some to shame, and everlasting contempt.” So that plainly, a general resurrection, both of the righteous and the wicked, are here said to take place, from the dust of the earth. And yet in the Testimony, page 574 & 24, the resurrection of the dead is called “an imaginary resurrection and altogether a lying vanity, in following which the deceived soul forsakes its own mercy, and from which it must be delivered, or perish forever in its own corruption.” And although the resurrection of the body, is here counted a damnable error, “from which the deceived soul must be delivered, or perish forever in its corruption.” Yet good Job of old,

30

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

did not count it a damnable error, to believe the resurrection of his own body, for he said, “that after this skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; for I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand in the latter day upon the earth, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another: although my reins be consumed within me.” Now let these metaphorszers, that turn so many plain narratives of fact, into shadows / and similitudes, tell us if they can, what Job meant by his skin, flesh, reins and body, being destroyed by worms and yet, that in his flesh he shall see God, and his eyes shall behold the redeemer in the latter day upon the earth. Come forth ye whimsical dupes of error, and tell us if you can; that skin, flesh and reins, are not proper parts of the human body. Come wreck your distracted brains, to metaphorise the worms, flesh and skin, with the consumption of his reins, and seeing God in his flesh again, in the last great day upon the earth; and when you have done all this, then declare that there is no meaning in words, and that the resurrection of the dead is all a fable. Lazarus was four days dead, before our Lord called him forth from the grave. His sister supposed that his body was putrid and stinking. His spirit had existed in the separate state of the eternal world, so that his soul was four days old in eternity; and yet, he was removed back to this life again: not with a glorified body, such as the saints shall enjoy at the general resurrection; but only, to the same mortal state; which he had before his death. So justly may we say unto God, “is any thing too hard for thee?” for those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God. The account in the revelation, of the general judgment; describes the dead, small and great, standing before God (but not before the Shakers) now this implies a resurrection; for how can the dead, either small, or great; stand in judgement, until they are first raised up. The position of standing, is different from lying in the grave. The same account goes on to relate, that the sea give up the dead that were in it; and that death, and hell, give up the dead that were in them. Here let it be observed, that the sea can be no receptacle for the souls of men, but only for the bodies of such as were cast into it. Hell, and the state of separation, contained the souls. The dust of the earth, and the sea, could only contain the bodies. But to establish with certainty, the doctrine of a general resurrection, no language can be more express, than the words of our Lord himself in the 5 & 20 of Johns gospel. He declares, “that the hour is coming, in which all that are in the grave, shall hear the voice, and shall / come forth.” Can Shakerism metaphorise this plain language, or persuade us to believe that the souls of the departed were lying in the graves along with the bodies? Surely nothing can come out of the graves, but what was laid in them before, and that was the dead bodies. And the present Shaker resurrection, never raised one dead body from the grave. In the 29 verse, our Lord goes on to declare, the different states and rewards, of those that are raised from their graves, which shall be according to their works. For he says “those

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

31

that have done good to the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation.” But does Shakerism pretend to raise any to the resurrection of damnation? If not, this cannot be the Shaker resurrection. And yet, alas! it is not improbable, but this will be fate to too many in the Shaker resurrection.

CHAP. VI. Of the mysterious marriage of Anne Lee. Page 465 & 156 & 157 verses, “From the stone prison in Manchester (England)18 and from the false judgement of Anti-christ she was taken, and on the wings of liberty and independence, she flew to America, into the wilderness of Niskeuna,19 where God intended to make a short work in righteousness, and where she was nourished a time, times, and a half time, or three years and a half, until the opening of the testimony in America in the year 1780, when she was called forth out of her secret retirement from the world, and openly arrayed in her true spiritual apparel, fine linen clean and white; which is the righteousness; or righteous acts of saints. And then was heard in truth and reality, a great voice of much / people in heaven, saying, Alleuia, salvation and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God; for the marriage of the Lamb is come. Marriage is for the purpose of multiplying seed: therefore it was said, she shall be brought unto the king, whose arrows were sharp in the heart of his enemies. And towards the end of the verse ’tis said, “she is now a mother and has children.” This wondrous tale, is partly a compositon of fulsome Shaker stuff respecting Anne Lee; and partly a quotation from the Revelations, where in a similitude, the state of the Church is compared to a woman who received the two wings of a great eagle; that she might fly into the wilderness for a time, times, and a half time, from the face of the serpent. And to have a just idea of this subject, it is necessary first to enquire who are the persons, whose nuptials are here treated of ? The quotation is partly made from Revelations 19 & 7, where it is said, “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” And first, who is this bride-groom called the Lamb? Every sensible man that reads the scriptures, can readily answer that it is Jesus Christ: for ever since the days of John the Baptist, he has been called the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. And in the Revelations, it is said of him “worthy is the Lamb, that was slain, to receive glory and honor, and power.” And elsewhere “hide us from the face of him that siteth on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb.” And again, he is called “a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” With about half a dozen more, of other scriptures to the same amount, all which abundantly proves that Jesus Christ is the bridegroom or the Lamb, spoken of in this quotation from the Revelations, and made use of in this place in the Shaker testimony.

32

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

The second inquiry should be, who is the Lambs bride? A plain answer is given to this question in the testimony page 465, “from the stone prison in Manchester (Eng.) she (i.e, Anne Lee) flew on the wings of liberty and independence to America, into the wilderness of Neskeuna, where she was nourished a time, times, and an half time, until the year 1780, and then she was brought forth from / her secret retirement, and arrayed in the righteousness of the saints, and then was heard in truth and in reality, a great voice of much people in heaven, saying Alleluia for the marriage of the Lamb is come.” And least any doubt should be entertained of the wonderous nuptials, it is declared that “she was brought unto the king, whose arrows were sharp in the hearts of his enemies, that marriage is for the purpose of multiplying seed, and that she is now a mother and hath children.” Now what are we taught, or what information can we gather from this marvelous tale? No other meaning can be put upon it, but this, that there was great ado, and a mighty fuss made in heaven, when the Shaker mother was married to Jesus Christ. “For then was heard (not in metaphor) but in truth and in reality, a great voice of much people in heaven, saying Alleluia, salvation and glory, and honor, and power unto the Lord our God, for the marriage of the Lamb is come.” But had Jesus Christ who is called the Lamb stood in need of a wife, he might have obtained one more virtuous and honorable, than Anne Lee, the wife of Abraham Stanly, an old blacksmith in Manchester. Surely this is both blasphemeous, and incestuous!! But as this fabled bride, was born in the year 1736, and her mysterious marriage, came to pass in the year 1780, when she was then only 44 year old, there was certainly too great a difference in their ages, towards entering into a state of marriage. And as our commentators have for several centuries, explained this part of the Revelations concerning the Lambs wife; and the woman in the wilderness, for a time, times, and an half time to be figurative language, or an emblematical description of the Church. – At last this luminous book, called the “testimony of Christs second appearing,” has happily relieved us from our former ignorance. And by a new revelation, greater than St. Johns; we come now to discover, to whom this language of St. Johns is applicable, and who this real woman is, namely Anne Lee the Shaker mother. We are told in the 22 page of the introduction of the testimony, that she had four children by Stanly, but they are all dead. “And here, they say marriage is for the purpose of multiplying seed, and she is now a mother and has / children.” I wish we were informed how many children she has had, since her marriage with the Lamb. In page 139 & 103 verse, it is said of our Lord, “his turning water into wine, was nothing less to his disciples, than a seal of the certainty, and accomplishment of his own marriage.” And in the verse above ’tis said, “he was to come with all his holy angels, at the marriage of the Lamb.” But if all the holy angels came along with him to his nuptials, as it is here said they did attend on that occasion, and this was in the year 1780, after she left the wilderness of Neskeuna. I wonder

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

33

whether they made use of any consecrated priest, to solemnize the ceremonial covenant, between them, for in page 392, matrimony is counted a reproach, seeing as ’tis said, “the sexes cannot live together in any order, without a ceremonial covenant, ratified, and solemnized by a consecrated priest.” And at the last clause of the verse, ’tis said, “none of which pertains to the kingdom of Christ.” Every sensible man will see, that there is only one particular wanting in this account, to complete a true and real marriage, and that is the ceremony of solemnization by a consecrated priest, which is declared in the above quotation, not to be pertaining to the kingdom of Christ, this fairly implies that no ceremony was made use of between them. I presume therefore, they must have lived together without any ceremony, as the sexes do now among she Shakers, but how that is I cannot tell. Or, what liberties they use with each other, I leave to themselves to describe,

CHAP. VII. Of the meritorious sufferings of Anne Lee. Testimony, page 567 & 80 verse, “therefore mother in all respects, suffered her due proportion, and died upon the same fundamental principles of redemption, that the sufferings and death of Christ were necessary in his first appearing.” I count this quotation a wonderful declaration, and breaths out the spirit of presumptuous blasphemy! Two conclusions may be infered from these words, the first, that as the sufferings and death of Anne Lee, were quite foreign to the doctrines of redemption, having nothing at all to do in the matter, so the sufferings and death of Christ, at his first appearing in the world, were of no consequence, and the world was made nothing the better by him: consequent, the doctrine of what he did and suffered for men, is a delusion like that of the Shaker mother. The second conclusion is, that as Jesus Christ was the most excellent and divine person, whose sufferings and death; have always been represented as meritorious in our redemption, by the Prophets, and Apostles, and is still so esteemed and received by all his followers: accordingly, they hereby intend to raise the fame of their / great mother Anne Lee, and so placed her pretentions, on a level with those of Jesus Christ. But if we judge of the merits of her sufferings and death, according to the scriptures, we shall value them nearly on a balance, with the suffering and death of the impenitent thief upon the cross. I suppose ’tis true, that she suffered and died. – And so all the race of Adam, that left the world before her, has also suffered and died, and many false Christs, have suffered and died even some of them died violent deaths, as the recompense of their delusions. But if the deaths of impostors, are to be counted meritorious in the redemption of men, the human race must be abundantly redeemed, for Mahomet died, David Alroi died, Ascher Lemla died, Sabathi Sevi died, all these, and many more pretended to be Christs, and their deaths were just as meritorious, on the prin-

34

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

ciple of redemption, as that of the Shaker mother. However there is something inexplicable in her Goddeshood, for in some places of the testimony, she is represented as Christ himself, in his second appearing, and in other places only as his consort, but it would be a rare thing if all the parts of a complicated falsehood, in a volume of 600 pages should agree. ’Tis true there are Gods many, and Lords many, and I add, the heathen pantheon gives an account of Goddesses many. But to Christians there is but one God, the Father of all, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things. Not one lady, by whom are all things; Again there is one Mediator, between God and man, not the wife of the Lamb, but the man Christ Jesus. One God and father of all, but no wife of God, nor Shaker mother of all. Page 436 & 39. “Then the man who is called Jesus, and the woman who is called mother, are verily the two first foundation pillars of the Church of Christ. – The two anointed ones – the two first heirs of promise, between whom the covenant of eternal life is established – The two first visible parents in the work of redemption.” Two consequences flow from words of this quotation, the first tends to a disparagement of the son of God, whose offices as redeemer, with his virtue and dignity, is brought down to a par, with the pretentions of the Shaker mother. The second is an intention to raise the fame/ of their female Christ, by esteeming her to be a foundation pillar of the Church. But Pope Joan, mentioned in Gavins Master Key to Popery, was also a pillar in the Church: although that author affirms, she was brought to bed of a bastard, at the head of Francies street in Rome, but never was so great an impostor, as to pretend to be a Christ, The next parallel is, “the two anointed ones.” But if these two anointed one, are the same two, spoken of in Zachariah 4 & 14, then the whole is a great mistake, for the subject in the context, respects the return of the Jewish nation from captivity, and the two anointed ones are Zerubabel, and Joshua, being then great and good men in that nation, and the heads of their Priesthood and government, by whom the Jews returned to their land again. ’Tis true, I have no doubt of Jesus being the Messiah, or anointed. But what title has Anne Lee to this anointing? not as much as Pope Joan had to extreme unction. “The two first heirs of promise.” The promises in the scriptures, are assurances that God has given us, of bestowing blessings upon his people. And in the New Testament, in the writings of St. Paul, is chiefly taken for the promise that God made to Abraham, of sending the Messiah, Rom. 4 & 14, “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or his seed, through the law; but through the righteousness of faith.” Gal. 8 & 16, “Now to Abraham and his seed, were the promise made.” Heb. 6, “so after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise,” verse 17, “God willingly more abundantly, to shew unto the heirs of promise, confirmed it by an oath.” Hence it is true, that Abraham as the father of the faithful, and all who through the righteousness of faith, are faithful followers of Christ in his dispensation, are the heirs of promise. But what part has the Shaker mother in all this?

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

35

just as much as Judas, Simon Magus, or Sabathi Sevi of Smyrna. “The two first visible parents in the work of redemption.”– Now the testimony teaches us, that Jesus Christ, and Anne Lee, are these two visible parents, I therefore ask, when, or where were there two visibly seen together?– And if the Shakers are the offsprings of these two parents / in any sense, in the same sense, the parents must have been married, unless their offspring be illegitimate. – Hence an unavoidable dilemma ensues, that a marriage union must be owned, to have taken place in some sense, or else their offspring, must be a spurious breed of bastards. But it is in a work of redemption, that these two are joint parents and to redeem is to purchase with a price. I ask therefore, what price has Anne Lee paid in redemption of men? Here the scriptures are silent, and not a man upon the earth can give a satisfactory answer, in saying that she paid any thing. Yet the testimony says she is a parent in the work of redemption, “and page 486 suffered and traveled for a lost world,” but another old fashioned book, of higher authority than the testimony, saith, “when the devil speaketh a lie, he speaketh it of his own, for he is all a liar, and the father of it;” Page 435 & 32. “Therefore it was also necessary, that Christ should make his second appearing in one who was conceived in sin, and lost in the fullness of the womans fall, and that too in a woman.” But what is the fullness, of the womans fall or, what woman is here refered to? Is it Eve in her fall, from paridisical innocence that is meant? Here the Shaker mother is more slandered, by her own pretended revelation, than by any thing I have said against her. For in pages 46, 48 and 71, it is insinuated, that Eve was a prostitute to the serpent. And if Anne Lee fell in this manner, and was lost in the fullness of this fall, she must have been more base, than the vilest strumpet in London. Her having four children by her husband Stanly, could not render her so miserably lost as this, in the first womans fall. The testimony is therefore a slanderous book, both to her character and the characters of others. /

CHAP. VIII. Of defaming the holy Scriptures. Testimony, page 506 & 9 verse, “the word was God but the Bible was not God, and therefore it is not the word of God. The word of God is not bound, but the Bible is bound in calf-skins, and sheep-skins, and goat-skins, and many other skins. The worlds were framed by the word of God, bur the world were not framed by the Bible, but long before the name of a book was known. Verse 10. – The word of God is incorruptible, and liveth and abideth forever, but the Bible is not incorruptible, nor doth it abide forever. Verse II – therefore they are greatly mistaken, and grossly deceived, who imagine that the scriptures are the word of God, nor is there any such groundless idea, communicated in any

36

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

part of the scriptures, from the beginning to the end.” The chapter upon the holy scriptures, from which this quotation is taken, contains 8 or 9 pages of such sophistical trash. But the manifest falsehood of these fallacies formed on the Bible and the word of God should be distinguished into two heads, or significations. The first idea means the essential word, the eternal Logos, or the son of God; by whom the worlds were made. The second is / the declarative word, which in the holy scriptures. Now these two observations of sacred truth, dispels all the darkness, raised by Shaker sophistry, on the words Bible and word of God. For the Logos or eternal son of God which is called the word, is incorruptible, liveth and abideth forever, he framed the worlds by his creating fiat, and is not bound in calf skins; or sheep skins, or any other skins. Yet still the Bible is the declarative word of God, which explains his will to mankind. When I take up the testimony to read, which is a book of 600 pages; it reminds me, of what I once heard a preacher say of the devil in respect of his being the father of lies; he observed that the devil did not tell all lies, for be mixeth some truth with lies, in order that he might lay foundation for telling more lies. And I think that if all the valuable truth in the whole volume, was selected into one piece, it would not exceed a dozen of pages: and perhaps such a heterodox mixture of error, sophism, and delusion; was never before printed, since the days of Christ and his apostles. In Col. Smith’s pamphlet,20 from the affidavit of Stephen Ruddle,21 it is evident, that the Indians are corrupted by Shakerism, against the truth of the scriptures; having been taught, not to mind the white people, when they come to them with their book, which they call the word of God; for that book is good for nothing now: accordingly, in page 319 of the testimony, it is tauntingly called “the protestant word of God, which introduces the reformation into England.” And in page 318, it is said, “that Cramner had luckily got acquainted with luthers word of God.” But these aspersions are out done by a declaration in page 588, where it is said, “no greater absurdity could possibly be invented, than to suppose that the scriptures of the old and New Testament (as they are called) are the only rule to direct us.” Here let us consider the state of a world without a Bible, or any part of the world, where the knowledge of Revelation never came. And this truth is established from history, as an indubitable fact, that ever since the commencement of Christianity, in every nation, where the Bible and its religion prevailed; there the arts and sciences flourished also, with all / the blessing of civilized life. But as soon as the religion of the Bible declines in any nation, then tyranny and barbarity, with desolation; again lift up their heads. – For the great rector of the universe has ordered, that national virtue and national prosperity, shall be inseparable. A few serious reflections on the rise, and declension, of those flourishing nations, and populous cities, where revealed religion was first promulgated, will confirm this; and what are they now? In many countries, scarcely the vestiges of them remain in the world.

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

37

Surely every good man will see and consider, that if the scriptures are laid aside, every wrong headed fanatic, will set up in his own whimsies, as the standard of truth. And like a ship at sea, without compass or rudder, becomes a prey to the impetuous storms of the atmosphere, and the billows of the deep; so if the scriptures are set at nought, from being the only, or best rule to direct us; both in matters of judgment, faith and practice; then enthusiastic zeal on the one hand, and infidelity on the other, would drive deluded souls to the contrary; but equally destructive extremes. It is true that conscience is a rule that is too much neglected by many; and the spirit of God, will teach the soul that is obedient to its dictates; but still we must judge of the operations, propriety and extent of these pretensions according to the scriptures; and in these cases say with the Prophet, “to the law and to the testimony, for if they speak not according to this word; it is because there is no light in them.” For since Shakerism is gone abroad in the world, smoke and darkness has issued from the bottomless pit; so that we have need to take St. John’s advice. And “try the spirits, for many false spirits are gone out into the world. Now the scriptures is that touchstone by which we should try them, seeing we have a sure word of prophesy, whereunto, we shall do well if we take heed. In 2 Timothy, 8 & 10, it is testified “that all scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The writers of the holy scriptures were inspired by the Holy-ghost, and were the most excellent men for wisdom and holiness; as Moses, David, Solomon, / the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists. In the scriptures is a rich treasury of knowledge, perfect, pure, deep and immutable; and point out all that is necessary, both for faith and practice. No writings so much display the glory of God, they far excel all other books, and though they were written by divers men, in divers ages; yet as one observed, there is as great a harmony in them, as if they were all written by one man. Simpson in his plea for religion, page 98, observes “the Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. It could not be the invention of good men or angels, for they neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying thus saith the Lord, when it was their own invention. And it could not be the invention of bad men or devils, for they would not make a book, which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity. – I therefore (saith this author) draw this conclusion, the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.” The same author observe that there are four grand arguments for the truth of the Bible, “the first is the miracle which it records. 2d. The prophecies. 3d. The goodness of the doctrines. 4th, the moral characters of the penmen. The miracles flow from divine power; the prophecies from divine understanding; the excellence of the doctrines from divine goodness, and the moral characters of the penmen from divine purity. And thus christianity

38

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

is built upon these four immovable pillars, the power, the understanding, the goodness, and the purity of God.” – This most venerable book, has the greatest marks of truth honesty, and impartiality, of all other writings whatsoever. The Bible has been carried into many nations, and translated into various languages; but still it is made the standard of truth in many disputes, by different sectarians; and is as this time a stumbling stone, and rock of offence to Shakerism. I therefore beg leave to withhold my assent from this modern gospel, taught since the commencement of the Shaker Millennium. And I recommend the Bible, as the best book which contains the laws of God to mankind, in this lower world. And let the Shaker / testimony revile the Bible as it may, I say with the poet, “What none can prove a forgery, may by true; What none but bad men wish exploded must.”

Boyle said, “the Bible is a matchless volume, and it is impossible we can study it too much, or esteem it too highly.” Milton said, “there are no songs comparable to the songs of Sion, no orations equal to those of the Prophets, and no politics like these which the scriptures teach.” Selden said, “there is no book in the universe, upon which we can rest our souls, in a dying moment, but the Bible.” And for the pious education of youth, St. Paul commends it in the example of Timothy, “who from a child had known the holy scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

CHAP. IX. A spiritual defence of the doctrinces of redemption, against the errors of Shakerism. Testimony, page 566 & 70 verse, “a living dog is better than a dead lion, and upon the same principle a living man is better than a dying, or dead God. And moreover that which is dead can never raise itself to life; and if the dead are raised, it must be by the power of the living.”– This is a gross perversion of Ecl.9 & 4 verse, and as an explanation of the proverb, it is added, a living man is better than a dying, or dead God. A few lines above this, in the same page, there is a quotation from Dr. Watts, his words are, “God the mighty maker died for / man the creatures sin.” This bounds and fixes the meaning, and shews plainly who we are to understand by the dying, or dead God; namely Jesus Christ the redeemer, of whom it was said by St. Paul, “That he died for our offences, and rose again for our justification.” For it was never taught by Doctor Watts, or any other christian writer, that any of the sacred persons of the trinity, suffered dying, or death, only Jesus Christ the son of God. It was indeed true of him, that he died for man the creatures sin. Nor can any but a wrong headed enthusiastic,

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

39

imagine that Solomon intended his proverb to be thus understood; namely, that Solomon intended his proverb to be thus understood; namely, that a living man is better than the Messiah; better than the Lord of life and glory: better than the redeemer, dying for the redemption of men. But what living man is it that is here intended? Can it mean Barrabbas the robber, whom the wicked Jews preferred to our lord, at the time of his suffering? For had it been a woman that was preferred, we could have guessed who was intended. However, this blasphemious language, manifests the same spirit that was in the wicked Jews; for some living man, is preferred to a dying God. And although Solomons proverb, in the case is misapplied and perverted; yet Barrabbas or any other, that the Shakers would prefer, is but a dog compared to the dying lion of the tribe of Judah. In the Revelations this dying God acknowledges his own death; saying, “I am he that was dead.” But also declares his resurrection, “behold alive for evermore.” – And as one interested in his death, I ardently desire to know, what benefits may be fairly expected to flow from it. I am sensible of the importance, of this fundamental doctrine in the christian religion; and I am unwilling herein, either to deceive myself or others. I acknowledge that the subject justly requires, all the satisfactory information that can be obtained. But to whom shall we apply for this instruction? not to fanatics, nor the pretended infallible decisions of Shakerism; but to the Bible impartially considered, and the most rational conclusions deducible from it. And although the dominion of death was only short as foretold by the Psalmist, “Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” For after / three days, and three nights, he arose from the dead, and as it is said in Ephes. 4 & 8, “he ascended up on high, and led captivity captive (i.e. satan and death he led captive) and gave gifts unto men,” which is the Holy ghost that he promised to his Apostles, for said he, “If I go away, I will send him unto you. Now he that decended, first into the lower parts of the earth, is the same also that ascended, far above all heavens that he might fill all things.” But when the she Christ of the Shakers died, and decended into the lower parts of the earth; which according to their own account, was in Anno-Domini 1784, about twenty-seven years ago; no doubt, there in the earth she remains where they laid her, and there she will remain unto the resurrection of {word excised in original} when Mahomet, Judas, and Jack of Leyden, with many others that have done evil, shall arise unto the resurrection of damnation. Verse71. “If sinners were real enemies to God, and he actually died in their stead, that they might live in sin, and in their blood, at least during life; and be saved from punishment hereafter; it certainly depends upon the living, whether the dead should ever rise.” In answer to this quotation, I shall briefly observe what the scriptures say on this subject. And that impenitent sinners, are real enemies to God by sin, is plain from Rom. 5 & 8, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son. And elsewhere, ’tis said, “the carnal

40

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

mind is enmity against God. Col. 1 & 21. But ye, that were sometimes enemies in your minds by wicked works.” So the supposition, “if sinners were real enemies to God,” is as really true, as that they are sinners. The second thing to be observed in this account is, that “he actually died in their stead.” Blessed and glad tidings this is, and as true as that they were sinners. For in 1 Tim. 2 & 6, ’tis said, “the man Christ Jesus, gave himself a ransom for all.” And elsewhere Christ himself said, “that he would give his flesh for the life of the world.” And one of his Apostles declares, “that we were redeemed not with the corruptible things, such as silver and gold; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without spot.” Here I ask, can any other sense be reasonably / put on these declarations, but that he give his life instead of ours, to expiate for our guilt, and to attone for our lives which we by sin had forfeited? The third point, “that they might live in sin and in their blood, at least during life; and be saved from punishment hereafter.” This is utterly erroneous and unscriptural, for ’tis said of our Lord, “his name shall be called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” But, “not in their sins and in their blood.” In Rom. 6 & 6. The Apostles lays it down as a point of Christian knowledge, that we are saved from sin. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him; that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth, we might not serve sin.” And in the II verse, he directs the Roman christians to “rekon themselves to be indeed dead unto “sin; but living to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” So in the 18 verse “being then made free from sin, ye become servants of righteousness.” I have often heard the Shakers apply these scriptural aquirements to themselves in the most confident language, and to the rejection of christians of all other denominations; as if they enjoyed some superior degree of grace, and a dispensation that exceeds all that ever went before it. But when I see so plainly the varnish of godly professions without fruits of holiness, it reminds me of Jezebeel painting her face; or what our Lord said of the Pharisees, like whited sepulchers: such should pray with the Psalmist, “keep back thy servant from presumptuous sin.” Yet such boasters should know, that there are many of other denominations, “who let not sin reign in their mortal bodies, nor obey it in the lusts there of; but yield themselves to God, as those which are alive from the dead. And have redemption in his blood, the forgivness of all their sins.” But to “live in their sins and in their blood, at least during life, and be saved from punishment hereafter.” This delusion, is too much like the delusions of Shakerism; for the regenerating grace of God is necessary to all adults, as our Lord testifies, “that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” and where life is prolonged and opportunities occur; holiness of heart and life is required “for without holiness, no one shall see the Lord.” / The last assertion in these words is, “that it certainly depends upon the living, whether the dead should ever rise.” If this is meant of the general resurrection, it would be certainly true; for the living God at the last great day, will raise the

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

41

whole race of Adam, which can never be effected by the dead themselves. But as it is intended to ridicule the resurrection of Christ; for this time, I shall not on so serious a subject answer the fool according to his folly, but quote the scriptures on this head. John 10 & 17, our Lord himself declares, that “therefore doth my father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” Here our Lord contradicts the Shakers testimony, about “the living only having power to raise the dead.” For he saith that after he should lay down his life, he had still the power to take it again.” And elsewhere, he said to the Jews respecting his body,” destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Now if we respect the council of God, and the design of Christ himself; nothing is more certain, than that he gave his body to die; though it was united to an immortal nature. And in respect of the power to raise the dead, in John 5 & 21, he saith “as the father raiseth the dead, and quickneth them, so the Son quickneth whom he will. And as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to have life in himself; and as the father, so the son quickneth whom he will. This is the great prerogative of God, “I kill, and I make alive.” And as the son of God is the great Jehovah, and the operations of deity follow the essence; so he saith of himself, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” – But least some infidel Shaker, should dispute with Christ his title to the name Jehovah: let such read Rom. 10th & 13th verse, which is a quotation from Joel 2 & 32, that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” The word Lord in the English Bibles begun with a capital letter is Jehovah in the Hebrew, expressed in Greek by the word (Kurious) so that as Whitley observes / here we have two arguments for the divinity of Christ, first that what is spoken of Jehovah by the Prophet Joel, is by St. Paul ascribed to Christ. Secondly that he is the object of religious invocation or prayer, for whosoever shall call upon his name shall be saved. And as the name Jehovah, is the incommunicable name of God, Psalms 83 & 12 “That he whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. Isaiah 45 & 5. I am the Lord (or Jehovah) and there is none else; there is no God besides me.” But this observation, that Jesus Christ is Jehovah; holds good in other places of scripture; for in Zachariah 11 12 & 13 verses ’tis said “they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver, and the Lord (that is Jehovah) said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price, that I was prized at by them.”– Here St. Mathew quotes this scripture and applies it to Jesus Christ, as having its fulfilment in him; for in his gospel 27 & 9, he saith, “then was fulfiled that which was spoken, they took the thirty pieces of silver the price of him that was valued.” And the Prophet here tells you, that it was the Lord or Jehovah that was valued. And that was Jesus Christ, as St. Mathew applies the words of the Prophet. Thus it is plain that Jesus the incarnate God,

42

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

is the great Jehovah; or else, St. Mathew and St. Paul are grossly ignorant, or guilty of a designed imposture. But as neither ignorance of their masters dignity, nor a design to deceive mankind by false doctrine; can be charged on these two Apostles; why should the power of Christ to rise from the dead, be denied in this Shaker blasphemy? “that it depends on the living, whether the dead should ever rise.” Who can set limits to the power of Jehovah, the immortal, the invisible, the only wise God our Saviour. Justly may the system of Shakerism shock to the center, that disputes the declaration of the incarnate God; who said, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again.” Tis true in Acts the 17 & 81, it is said of our Lord resurrection, that God raised him from the dead; and in Mathew 12 & 28, the miracles which he wrought are ascribed to the power of the holy-ghost; but this is a proof, that the essence and operation of God, are not to be divided, / for these three are one. Page 566 & 72 verse, “woe to him that is alone, for if he fall who shall help him up? Hence the necessity of another link in this chain of darkness. Behold a God descends and dies. That is one of the Gods dies, to satisfy the Justice and appease the wrath of the other, in behalf of sinners, and the other as soon as he was satisfied raised up the dead one: verse 78, and the dead one, after he was raised up, stood day and night, perpetually shewing his wounds, and pleading before his father, that he suffered and died in the room and stead of sinners, as a satisfaction to his Justice; but what God, or what Justice, could take satisfaction in beholding the marks of cruelty in the innocent, while the guilty went unpunished? verse 74. Such black and infernal darkness, is too disgusting to the reason of man, and too distressing to any enlightened soul, to merit a serious investigation, but must be sent back, with the beast and false prophet, to the bottomless pit, from whence it arose.” A spirit of infidelity breaths in these three verses, which is not to be exceeded by Hobs or Voltair; or the most inveterate enemy of Jesus Christ. But what has the immaculate Lamb of God done, to bring all this defamation upon him self, and the cause of sinful mortals which he hath undertaken? and still this language looks the more uncommon, as it comes from those who profess great sanctity, and perfection in holiness; and who look down on other people, as little and inferior to them and their dispensation. Yet why should I be surprised at this infidelity in a book, that is intended to propagate the divinity of a pretender, which stands in opposition to the divinity of Jesus Christ the true Messiah. In the above quotation ’tis said, “one of the Gods dies, to satisfy the justice and appease the wrath of the other, in behalf of sinners.” I answer that although this quotation insinuates that Christians believe in the doctrine of two or more Gods; seeing one of the Gods dies to satisfy the justice of the other. This is a falsehood, for to us there is but one God. “Here O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord” It need not be told twenty nines over, that neither the scriptures, nor the christian doctrine, maintained the belief of two or more

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

43

/ Gods: for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God: co-equal, essential and eternal. ’Tis true, that with others there are Gods many and Lords many; and for any thing that I can see to prevent it, the Shakers may yet in time have twenty such Christs as Anne Lee; for if there be any benefit in the number, there has been near thirty such in the world before her: but the deaths of all these Gods never availed any thing towards sattisfying divine justice, or appeasing the wrath of God on behalf of sinners. Although the Testimony says that “she traveled in pain for a lost world, and died upon the same fundamental principles of redemption, that the sufferings and death of Christ were necessary in his first appearing” – Then let the invincibly ignorant among the Shakers, enjoy the full bennefit of her attonement and intercession, and count themselves as happy in their delusion as they can; but this never can be the condition of some of their chiefs, who have been better informed: they must at some times feel very wretched, and be of all men most miserable; unless it be with them as the scripture has said of some “whose consciences were seared as with an hot iron; speaking lies in hypocrisy; and forbiding to marry; giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of Devils” But with respect to one of the Gods dying, to appease the wrath of the other; although in Christ Jesus dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and he was truely God manifested in the flesh; yet the Godhead never died. And to put an end at once to all senseless jargon of infidels respecting a God dying to appease divine wrath, we answer, that whatsoever in its nature is immotal, cannot die, even in the death of all other men the human soul is not supposed to die with the body. And as in Christ Jesus, there were two natures, both the human and divine, or in other words, he was perfect God, and perfect man; or both God and man. Therefore, when he suffered for the transgressions of men, his oblation of himself upon the cross, derived from his divine nature an infinite value, in behalf of sinners to God. For in John 4 & 10, it is declared that “God loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins.” And in Ephesians 1 & 7. / “we have redemption through his blood, the forgivness of sin.” And in respect of satisfying divine justice, two things are required in him who is Mediator. First that he make intercession for the offenders. Second, that he satisfy the offended party for the wrong done. Thus in respect of intercession, the first part of the mediators office; it is declared in Isaiah 53 & 12, concerning Christ, that “he made intercession for the transgressors.” And in Heb. 7 & 25, “that he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Second in respect of God, being the party offended by our sins; in Rom. 4 & 25, it is plainly said that “he was delivered up for our offences.” And elsewhere, “that God spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all.” So in respect of God being reconciled to man, or appeased from wrath, as the Shakers call it. In Isiah 42 & 21 verse, it is declared that “the Lord is well pleased for his righteousness sake.” And in the gospel, by a voice from heaven, it was testified, “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” The Shakers may call

44

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

this doctrine, “black and infernal darkness,” if they please; and esteem it “disgusting to the reason of man.” But let them have what disgust or aversion, they may to this doctrine, I shall shew that it is truly scriptural; and the source of all the happiness, comfort, and salvation of mankind. And although it is represented, as being too distressing to an enlightened soul, to merit a serious investigation, whether the Shakers esteem me enlightened or no, I shall give this doctrine both a serious, and a scriptural investigation. And as I have professed in the preface, to investigate truth, and expose error for the public good; so here again, I challenge all the Shakers in America, to shew from scripture and reason fairly considered, that Jesus Christ the son of God, did not die as a piacular victim, or expiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. And while the enemies of Christianity are thus employed in doing general prejudice to mankind; and are endeavouring to lay the hopes of sinners in the dust. I shall proceed to the comfort of the distressed and lost, to defend the doctrine of the attonement; or in other words according to the Prophet, that although “all we like sheep have gone astray, yet the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities / of us all.” And I shall make it appear that the life and death of Christ is something more than a mere patern, or example for the good of mankind; namely that he was delegated of God, as a victim for the sins of men. This is a grand peculiarity of the gospel, Shakers may say that it is senseless and absurd, or black and infernal darkness; but all who are born of God, by regenerating grace, will ever esteem it a fundamental principle of the christian religion. Therefore, now we shall go to the law and to the testimony (yet not to the book called the Shaker Testimony) but to the Bible, and let Jesus, the Prophets and Apostles, speak plainly their own sentiments on this subject. For it is very improbable that the scriptures should be silent on a subject, that is the very marrow or substance of all revelation; seeing the prophecies respecting the Messiah, have their completion in what Jesus did and suffered for men: but in particular, the gospels and Epistles of the New Testament; testify and explain to us what we are to believe on this subject. To this purpose it is said in Rom. 8 & 32, “that God spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all.” Here let us stop and enquire into the history of his life and death given by the four Evangelists; and we shall be informed what the son of God was delivered up to; namely, to a life of poverty and reproach, and at the last to the excruciating death of the Cross. Next, let us enquire of St. Paul, what the son of God suffered all this for? And his answer is in the above quotation, that it was “for us all.” In the third place, let us enquire, who are the persons that are here called, “us all?” And we will soon understand that it is sinners he died for, us all; we all, every one of us, ourselves and others lost by sin. Accordingly, in I Tim. 1 & 15, this doctrine of Christs dying for sinners is declared to be true. And although Shakers may count it “black and infernal darkness;” yet St. Paul saith “that it is worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Now if this was his

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

45

great design, or chief errand in coming into the world, to save sinners, as the Apostle declares it was; how he executed this design, or what he did to save them, is evident from the gospel, which is the history of his life / and death. There we learn that in his lifetime, he wrought many miracles, and both by precept and example taught the purest morals, and at last died an infamous and painful death. And if still it is a question with infidels, of what account to us, was his infamous and painful death. I answer in the words of the Prophet, “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.” Here let us state a plain case, suppose a person is condemned to the punishment of stripes before a Magistrate, and another man innocent of the crime, engages to free the offender, by bearing willingly the said corporal punishment. This is undoubtedly vicarious sufferings, and it is also undoubtedly the sense of the words of the prophet; consequently the application is obvious, which is nothing else but this; that Jesus Christ suffered for our sins. But if some are so slow of heart to believe this truth, and they still require more evidence, let them read the next verse after the quotation already made, which is Isaiah 53 & 6. “All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.” How justly does the metaphor of a stray sheep, describe the condition of a lost sinner wandering from God? surely our Lord would be understood so in the gospel, in the parable of the lost sheep. And will lost sinners still dispute his own words, after himself, declaring his favorable intention of coming into the world, saying “that the son of man came to seek and save that which was lost.” That Christ suffered for our sins, is therefore an established truth and the Prophet declares from whom it proceeded, namely from God: that it was of divine appointment. “The Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all.” This is the general voice of scripture, as St. Paul saith in I Cor.15 & 3, “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Therefore if I disbelieved the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, I would disown all revelation, or burn my Bible. Now the Shakers may doom this doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Prophets and Apostles, to the bottomless pit if they please; but if there is any meaning in words, or truth in the scriptures, the son of God died in / the room and stead of sinners. “Tis true, he did not bear all the consequences of their crimes, or the whole of their criminal deserts, as he did not go to hell and suffer for them there; yet by his death a reconciliation with God is so far effected, that their sins may be forgiven, and they again reinstated in the favor of God, and thus at last the faithful find their way to heaven and eternal happiness. /

46

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

CHAP.X. Plausible schemes for Salvation without Christ refuted. The salvation of our souls is of the greatest importance and the ultimate end of all religion, and that scheme of religion that does not promote our present and future happiness, or in other words is not productive of our souls salvation, should not be confided in, or relied on; but refused and exploded, as destructive to mankind. And as the religion and belief of a false Christ, has a direct tendency to lessen the estimation of the true one, so the most plausible schemes to obtain salvation, or the favor of God without the mediation of his son, will in the end fail, prove abortive, and deceive those that trust to them. Therefore laying aside the vain delusions of trusting to the merit of the saints, or to the Shakers Christ or mediator in the saints, and trusting to none inferior to God himself, but placing the matter in as clear a view as possible, there are but three plausible ways, that can be devised for a just and holy God to treat the guilty sons of Adam. The first by letting them bear the punishment themselves, due their sins. Or second by freely forgiving them without / any respect to his justice. Or thirdly, by substituting another, to suffer in their stead; now I shall shew that this last, is Gods appointed way, and this is what I plead for. For if God had treated the human race according to the first position, and he should require us personally to suffer the reward of our iniquities, without doubt we should all perish everlastingly, and descend to where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. But as this conclusion may be discredited by some, who are ignorant of their real state and condition, let Moses and the Apostle Paul inform them, what their true condition is. The first of these in Genesis 6 & 5, declare that “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” And the other says that “they are all gone out of the way, and there is none that doeth good, no not one.” And that God hath concluded all in unbelief, and threateneth tribulation, and anguish, and wrath upon every soul of man that doeth evil. Or if you will listen to the language of the judge himself, before your doom commences, he declares what shall be your desperate and unhappy condition, and how he will dispose of all impenitent sinners. Saying “go ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” But who may abide the day of his coming, or when the great day of his wrath is come, who shall be able to stand? For to suffer the horrors of eternal fire, can only be conceived by those, who have fallen in, and experienced this unhappy condition. Yet this would be the fate of all the guilty children of Adam, if the divine vengeance should fall upon them, and God should treat them according to the demerit of their crimes. Now this little sketch on the first position, may serve to shew what we may fear as our unhappy

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

47

condition, if we bear the punishments ourselves, that is due to our sins. But if God should deal with mankind according to the second plan, and freely forgive them without any respect to justice, or any thing required by way of reparation for the violation of his law, as Dr. Whitby observes, “he must have pardoned sinners without any thing required to shew his hatred of sin, and / his resolution not to let it go unpunished, and so without sufficient motives to deter us from it for the future, which seems not well consistant with his holiness and justice, and the relation of a governor, which seemeth plainly to require the vindication of his honor, and the preservation of the laws which he hath established from contempt.” – This mode of treating sinners, who would make mercy triumph over God himself. And Young saith, “a God all mercy is a God unjust.” But surely judgement and justice, is the habitation of his throne. In Deuteronomy 32 & 4 Moses gives us an idea of that dread eternal being with whom we have to do, he saith, “he is a Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgement: a God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is he.” So that we cannot look for any thing from the perfect works of this Rock of eternal ages, but to be treated for our ways of sin, according to his ways of judgement, which he declares shall be give to every one according to their works. Now if the God that is just and righteoos; and without iniquity; who cannot connive at crimes, nor look upon sin with approbation, shall act according to his own threatenings: namely, “that the wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God.” And he is as Moses hath said, a God of truth; consequently his threatnings must be true; then how can sinners escape the damnation of hell? It is madness to trust to his mercy or clemency, except it be in the way which he hath appointed, through his only son. And be it know to all despisers of the son of God and his dispensation, who substitute false Christs, and other schemes of salvation than what is fairly taught in his word, that in spite of their teeth they are in his power and in his hands, for all power in heaven and in earth is given unto him, for the “father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgement unto the son, that all men should honor the son, even as they honor the son, even as they honor the father.” Why should men whose principles and conduct, slight the mediatoral office of the son of God, still flatter themselves with fallacious thoughts of unlimited mercy. The national governments of the earth, could not long subsist without a measure of justice in their administrations, / besides this reverence and regard, must be paid to rules and laws. But frankly to forgive all transgressors, with out any respect to what law or justice required to inflict, would directly tend to destroy all government. In proportion therefore as God is more just and holy than men, we may fear the severity of his laws. And thus St. Paul directs us from his dealings with the unbelieving Jews, to “behold the goodness and severity of God.” For ever since their destruction by the Romans, they have smarted under his severity, and for the same cause, namely their rejection of Jesus Christ, and

48

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

his dispensation. – The great Rector of the universe from the threatnings of his word, intends that men shall see that there is something in his essence, that requires him to punish sin, and shew his displeasure against it. The Luciferian host who are reserved in chains of darkness, have long since felt, whether he is altogether made up of mercy; or just to punish for the breach of his laws. Witness this ye angels of darkness, and ye damned spirits of Adams race, attest this truth which God hath written (for sin and unbelief ) in dreadfull experience of fiery flames. O Sodom and Gomorah, wherefore did the fiery deluge destroy thy dwellings? But a prophet has informed us, that the city shall be desolate for the sin of its inhabitants. Tis indeed true, that God hath shewn great favor to the human race; but it is also as true, that his favor to mankind was through the Redeemer. Moses in one of his interviews with him said “so terrible was the sight, that I exceedingly fear and quake” It is therefore a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For our God is a consuming fire, and there is no presuming on his mercy either for the forgiveness of sin here, or heaven hereafter; independent of the mediation of the Savior. Therefore, we should as reasonably despair of salvation without Christ, as despair of crossing the Ocean without a ship. And thus one of their Apostles declares, that “there is no other name, given under heaven or among men, whereby we can be saved; neither is there salvation in any other.” Accordingly St. Paul tells the Ephesians “that when they were without Christ, they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope, and without God in / the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who were sometimes a far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. “– Here let all who expect to be saved on the second position; that is through the mercy of God without a redeemer, hear St. Paul declare, that they are aliens to the blessings of Gods people and that they have no hope, consequently the state of such who reject the son of a God as mediator, is desperate and hopeless. And let their boasted knowledge be what it may, St. Paul impeaches them with ignorance of God, and esteem as nothing their hopes of happiness. They may go seek for a mahometan paradise, for christianity afford such no hopes of heaven. St. Johns gospel 3 & 36, testifies, that “he that believeth on the son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. “Now how can such trust to his mercy, seeing there is no mercy on these terms; but only the wrath of God abideth on them. Or can such believe Jesus Christ himself, who affirms that they shall miss their road to heaven, unless they follow him as the only way to God; for he saith, no one cometh to the father, but by me.” And if they hope from Gods mercy to be pardoned without a Savoir, let them remember that it is “the Lamb of God (only) that taketh away the sin of the world. And that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree” Upon the whole, we may observe that there is nothing more frequently, or more undeniably found in scriptures than the rich mercy and free grace of God in Christ Jesus, And why

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

49

should there be so many encomiums on the free mercy and grace of God in Christ, if his undertaking had not been absolutely necessary for mankind? or if relief could be obtained for us from any other quarter? In this case, if any other way would have served for salvation, there is great impropriety in the scripture language. But the visible state of the world undone by the fall of Adam, and their own actual guilt, agree with the scriptures and cry aloud to all, come to the Savior, all ye that are weary and heavy laden that you may find rest; for if any thirst for salvation, he himself saith, come unto me and drink. By this time the reader will perceive plainly, that I have collected a variety of scriptures, / which upon the whole tend to shew the futility of the second plan, namely, to presume on the mercy of god without a mediator. How true and expressive, are the words of a poet, viz. “Thy mercy in Jesus hath saved me from hell, Its wonders I’ll sing, and its glories I’ll tell; Twas Jesus my Lord, when he hung on the tree, That opened the channels of mercy for me.”

CHAP.XI. Of the vicarious sufferings of Christ for sinners. Having examined the evidence which the scriptures gives us upon the two first schemes proposed, namely to bear the punishment of our crimes; or trust to the mercy of a just and holy God, without a mediator. I come at length to consider the third position, that is, that another should be delegated to suffer in our stead. This implies the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and herein God the great governor of the world is more honored, and his glory more displayed to both angels and men, by the obedience of Christ unto death for us; than if we had bore the punishment of our offences ourselves, or been freely forgiven of his clemency and mercy, without any respect to his injured justice. Dr. Whitby observes, “seeing that justice which consists in punishing for the transgressions of a law, is truely satisfied; when all those ends, for which the punishment of the offenders could be desired, are obtained. This author goes on to observe that the ends of punishment are first, that they who suffer may be exemplary to others from committing the like offences for which they / suffer. Second, that the offenders may learn wisdom by the rod, as our Lords counsel is, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. The third end of punishment, is the vindication of Gods honor, and the preservation of the laws which he hath established from contempt.” – Here let the opposers of this doctrine, shew us plainly from scriptures and reason, if they can; that all these ends of punishment may not as well be answered, and the law equally satisfied by a willing surety who, freely offers himself to suffer in the offenders stead: especially, while the sufferings of

50

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the surety, is productive of the offenders amendment, and no other way, for the offender to escape from punishment. For there is no alternative, but either the offender or the surety must suffer. Every sensible man who professes the christian religion must see, that this subject is of weight and importance, and worthy of a strict and candid examination. It enters into the marrow and substance of the gospel, and greatly affects our hopes of heaven and happiness, both here, and in the eternal world to which we are hastening. And as the ends or designs of punishment, fall here under consideration; the first of these is, that the sufferer, may be exemplary to others. Saith Dr. Whitby, “by what our savior suffered in our stead, we see that God is certainly in earnest when he threateneth death to sinners, and that he is thoroughly resolved on the punishment on the beloved of his soul, when he espoused our cause and become our surety. For if God spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all; Rom.8 & 32, we may be sure he will not spare his stubborn enemies.” By the same author in a quotation from Crellius, it is observed, “that he who laid such bitter sufferings on his innocent and well beloved son, will inflict the severest punishments on wicked men.” Our Lord in respect of his suffering acknowledges that he is troubled in spirit, and cried, “father save me from this hour” but resigns to suffer, saying, for this cause came I to this hour. And in Math. 26 & 38, he confessed to his disciple that his soul was sorrowfull, even unto death. Many good men since his days have expressed less dread of death, when dying than the son of God did / when suffering for us. For it is plain from the circumstamces that attended his death, that it was of an uncommon nature. The sun being darkened at the time of full moon, when there could be no natural eclipse; the rending of the rocks, the graves bursting open, and several resurrection bodies of the dead, appearing to many in the city, besides all this, hardly any thing remarkable befel him, or was done by him, in all his life; even the trifling circumstances of the soldiers parting his garments among them; and the money that Judas had received as a bribe, being given for the potters field, with many other particulars were all foretold by the Prophets, several centuries before he was born into world. All which abundantly prove the importance of his death, and the authenticity of the foregoing prophecies, where these circumstances are recorded. What the Jews did to our Lord in reproach and mockery, at the time of his death; with even his own dying words, stood upon record in the 22, Psalm, long before the transaction. The first verse of the Psalm begins with Mathew 27 & 46. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And as they mocked our Lord on the cross, “and reviled him wagging their heads, saying he saved others, himself he cannot save. – He trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will save him.” So also in the 7th verse of the Psalm, it is said, “all they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying he trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.”

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

51

The second end of punishment, is that the offenders should learn wisdom by the rod: and the death of the cross, was of the most exquisite kind for producing pain; being such as the Romans inflicted only on slaves. How pungent must be his pain, when his hands were fastened with rugged iron nails, to the transverse wood of the cross, a hole being dug in the earth, into which when it is raised up, the lower end of the beam is jolted; while the hands sustaining the chief weight of the body, and by that burden suffering continual torture, the sufferer dies no other death, but what the sharpness of pain, and excessive torture could produce. And if offenders should / learn wisdom by the rod; here is a lesson written in blood, even in the blood of the innocent, in order to produce the emendation of the guilty. “Be astonished at this, O ye heavens, and thou earth, be horribly afraid.” Here we are surprised out of measure, and we know not which to wonder at the most, viz. The unparalleled love of God to men, or the strictness of his justice upon the victim of our sins, And “if in his love so terrible, what then his wrath.” O sinners! the death of Christ for our sins, speaks to us in an emphatical language; and bids us fear the rod, forsake sin, and turn and live; least a worse death than that of the cross, even the second death, be our portion. The third design of punishment, is the honor of God, and the vindication of his laws. Here it may be justly asked, who will be so bold as to dare to contemn his laws? For by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, he has declared to the rebellions race of Adam, that he will not pardon their offences, without a satisfaction made for the violation of his law. Here is a sufficient lesson to mankind, by which they may all fully be informed of this great truth; that although he is a God of mercy through the redeemer, yet he will by no means clear the impenitent, that remains guilty and unforgiven. And in respect of his honor, his hatred of sin is more manifest, by making a sin offering of his son for us; than if he had frankly forgiven us without any regard to justice, or damned the whole race of Adam at a stroke. To the same amount is the words of a learned writer on this subject, that “the sufferings of Christ, are a sufficient demonstration of Gods hatred of iniquity, because our sins were the cause of them.” But can we ever forget his love, for the dearer the price, and the more value the ransom; that which is purchased becomes proportionably estimated. You see then the inducement to forgive us, is God manifested in the flesh, and his human body (not the God head) dying in our stead. Yet still an infinite value is derived from his divinity on his sufferings and death. An old puritan writer, observes “that for Christ to suffer was a greater matter than if all mankind had suffered; for one drop of his blood was worth a sea of ours. But will no inferior do / to suffer for us, neither angel nor man? I answer no, “none but Jesus, can do needy sinners good.” And as the merit and importance of the suffering, will always be in proportion to the dignity of the sufferer, this may teach us also the demerit of sin; seeing none but God manifested in the flesh, could make an atonement for it.

52

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

But if still it should be doubtful to some, whether it was the intention of God, to give up his son to suffer for us; and thereby make an atonement for the sins of men. If such can be satisfied with the authority and testimony of scriptures, and only attend, to the following plain this pointed declarations, we shall sufficiently decide this point. In 2 Cor. 5 & 21, ’tis said. “he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” Here the word (amartia) sin, as Dr. Whitby observes by many quotations from the Old Testament, must mean a sin offering; as in Levit. 6 & 25, the law of the sin-offering. The same observation is good in Exod. 29 & 37, the bullock of the sin-offering. So in the sacrificial phrase, to make sin for, us, is to make a sin-offering for us. And if we ask who made Jesus Christ a sin-offering for us, we are fully satisfied with an answer, from the context of the quotation; that it was God who ordered it thus. Nor can we doubt of it being the intention of God, and the counsel of heaven, seeing Jesus himself told Pilate, John 19 & 11, “that he could have no power at all against him, except it was given him from above.” Let the unbelievers of this truth read the 53d of Isaiah, a Prophesy that was given 712 years before the coming of Christ, and apply it to any other subject, but the sufferings of Jesus if they can. It is said the Earl of Rochester was converted to christianity, by reading this chapter. There it is said that “he was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; yet we did esteem him striken, smitten of God and afflicted. And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. And he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” Next, we / shall see what account the Apostles can give us of this matter, so in Rom. 5& 8, ’tis said, “God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” Will any after this declaration, deny that Christ died for sinners, or that his dying for them did not proceed from God? But besides this the Apostles words inform us what was in God the principle motive to this action, namely the love of God to sinners; for he saith, “herein God commendeth his love towards us.” – And it is the general language of scripture, and the meaning of many passages collected in one. “That God so loved the world, that he gives his only begotten son: that whosoever believeth on him, might not perish but have everlasting life.” Or as it is expressed in I John 4 & 10, “not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Here let us enquire who is this that sent his son? Answer the great God of heaven and earth. Who is the person sent? It is his only begotten son, who called God his father; and the Jews said in so doing he made himself equal with God. Where was he sent? Into the world, this wicked world. What was his errand? answer, to be a sacrifice or propitiation for our sins. And what should follow? but that we by him obtained eternal life. Again in Rom. 3

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

53

& 25, “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.” Open your eyes ye infidel despisers of the blood of Christ, and see in this scripture that if ye have no faith, in his blood, ye reject the foundation of all hope, and your sins will remain with you; for as it is said in another declaration of equal authority, “the blood of Jesus Christ the son of God, cleanseth from all sin.” But not the merits and blood of the Shaker Mother. The law declared, that “without the sheding of blood, there is no remission.” – And the gospel declares, that “we have redemption in his blood, the remission of sins.” This is the good news of redemption by a Savior, which is the substance of the whole New Testament. The (ilasmos and ilasterion) or propitiation of the New Testament, in old, under the law was signified by the mercy seat; before which, the / High-Priest made atonement by sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice or sin-offerings; from which place, they looked for God to be propitious to them. And thus under the gospel, God is propitious to us through Christ, our Mercy-seat or propitiation; pardoning our iniquities through the redemption that is in Jesus. Accordingly in Ephes. 1 & 7, it is said, “in whom we have redemption through his blood; the forgiveness of sin.” Hence from this scripture, two plain questions with their answers will arise. First, what do we obtain by this redemption? The Apostles answers, “the forgivness of our sins.” – Secondly, what is it, that procures this forgiveness? His answer is, “the blood of Christ.” For we have redemption through his blood, the forgivness of sins. Dr. Whitby on this place observes, “that the scriptures of the New Testament seems plainly to make our reconciliation, and so our access to God, depend on our being purged from our guilt of sin by an atonement made by the blood of Christ for our iniquities, that so, they being pardoned we may have peace with God, and freedom of access to him.” And elsewhere, he observe, that “we have reason from what is said of Christ in the scripture as our piacular victim, to conceive that he suffered in our stead; and that his blood shed for us procured the remission of our sins, as it atoned an offended God for our transgressions.” /

CHAP.XII. Scriptural views of our redemption. To prosecute this subject in a scriptural manner, it will be proper to observe that our redemption by Christ, is spoken of in the scriptures under four views, or four several heads of consideration. The first which I shall take notice of is under the view or idea of a price, ransom or purchase. And it is well known that the common notion of a price, is a compensation of value given for that which is purchased. Thus a gracious man becomes a redeemer when he delivers a debtor from prison, or a slave from captivity; by giving a price equivalent to him who detained them. And in the scriptures according to this notion of a price or

54

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

ransom, paid in purchase for our redemption; tis plain that Jesus Christ is this merciful redeemer, who paid that price. See 1 Corin. 6 & 20. –”You are not your own, for you are bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are Gods.” And thus this doctrine of Christs purchasing us for a price, is testified in Levit. 25 & 48. There we are taught that when an Israelite became poor, and sold himself; one of his kindred or brethren, might / redeem him again. This kinsman redeemer is a type of Christ, who by his incarnation is become our elder brother, of our flesh and bone; who plainly and often acknowledged his relation, or kindred to the human race, by calling himself the son of man. And to shew the price that he paid for us. St. Peter tells us in his I epistle 1 & 18. “That we were not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish, and without spot.” Christ being perfect and without spot of sin (says Whitby) was testified by the Lamb of the daily sacrifice offered for their sins, which was perfect and without spot that they might be accepted. And if it is asked what hath the son of God purchased for us by his blood? My answer is ready from Heb.12. “That by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Hence it is plain that his blood bought our eternal redemption. Th is our Jesus produced for us by his blood having made a perfect, and a perpetual expiation for the guilt of sin; therefore his blood was the [lutron] or prepaid to procure this redemption. Whence he is said give his life, a price or ransom for many. And in Tim 2 & 6 a ransom for all. In Rev. 5 & 9, the redeemer (or ransomed, purchased with blood) sung a new song saying thou wast slain, and hast redeemed (or ransomed us to God by thy blood (so his blood was the price paid) out of every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people. But should it be asked, what evil or distress has he ransomed or redeemed us from? In Gal. 3 & 13 in the most plain and positive terms we are told that “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: as it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.” Here Whitby quotes Crellius, who disapproved of the sufferings of Christ in our stead; and yet he is forced to own “that in this text, there is a double commutation or change, both of the person suffering, and of the evil suffered; for whereas we ought to have suffered, Christ saith he suffered for us; and whereas we ought to have suffered a curse, Christ suffered a curse for us.” And as we are told in the text that Christ / hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. This is undeniable proof that our Lord suffered in our stead, the punishment denounced against us in the law; for by the law as all mankind are guilty of sin, they were obnoxious to a curse. But Christ for our sakes to redeem us from that curse, submitted himself to death upon the cross, which by the sentence of law did make any one accursed according to Deuteronomy 21 & 23 where it is commanded, that “if a man hath committed a sin worthy of death, thou shalt hang him upon a tree; for he that is hanged, is

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

55

accursed of God.” And we know that our Lord died on the tree or cross, for us; as it is declared in I Peter 2 & 24, “that his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Dr. Whitby observes here, “that Christ actually suffered the legal curse to obtain pardon for others, and therefore only was accursed in the eye of the law, and in the sight of men; but was in his own person wholly innocent.” The nature of his vicarious suffering for us, required that he should be wholly innocent; for if he had been a sinner or guilty in the sight of God, his sufferings could do us to good. –”Christ was made a curse for us, says the above quoted author, as he was made sin for us; not by contracting our guilt, but by suffering the punishment of our guilt: for he was numbered with transgressors, and condemned with them to the death, which the law calls accursed.” – And although in the Shaker testimony, page 566 it is asked “what God, or what justice could take satisfaction in beholding the marks of cruelty in the innocent, while the guilty went unpunished?” I shall here answer this question, as pointedly as it is asked; and I answer, it was the God of heaven and glory, that took satisfaction, and was satisfied; who by a voice from heaven twice bore testimony of his being satisfied, Math. 3 & 17, and chapter 17 & 5, saying “this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” This testimony from the father concerning Christ Jesus, declares him to be the true Messiah, that was to come into the world: according to Isaiah 42 & 1. “Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth.” Here it may justly be observed that in respect to his moral rectitude, as God from everlasting, such declarations were / unnecessary, and therefore these voices from heaven, must shew the divine approbation of Christ. in fulfilling the mediatoral office for mankind. To this effect are the words of the same Prophet, verse 21, “the Lord is well pleased, for his righteousness sake.” But who is the Lord well pleased with, for the sake of Christ and his righteousness? I answer “those that live by faith in the son of God, for without faith it is impossible to please God; but with such sacrifice God is well pleased.” But saith the infidel quotation, “what God could take satisfaction in beholding the marks of cruelty in the innocent, must marks of cruelty be on the innocent?” O yes replies the Prophet, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief.” But must the innocent suffer, while the guilty go unpunished? Yes, yes saith St. Peters 1 Epistle 3 & 18, “Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God.” Here St. Peter fully answers these sentiments of infidelity, and shews plainly that not only the guilty went unpunished, and the innocent suffered; but that the innocent suffered for the sins of the guilty. Hence it is plain, that whosoever discredits and condemns this doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, must in effect disbelieve and condemn the chief parts of the scripture, and that spirit by which it was dictated and written; with all the reason and good sense, of the Prophets and Apostles. Nor is it to be doubted, but that some who call the dancing of jigs by the name of divine worship, still think themselves and their attainments, superior to them all. /

56

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

CHAP. XIII. Christ our sacrifice. My second view of the sufferings of Christ for our redemption, shall be to consider his death, as a piacular victim or sacrifice. And this is plain and undeniable, from many places of the scripture. No man that reads the scripture can avoid knowing that he is called a high-priest, as in Heb. 2 & 17, “that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Chapter 3 & 1. Consider the Apostle, and high-priest of our profession, Christ Jesus. Chap. 4 & 14, seeing we have a great high-priest, which is passed into the heavens, Jesus the son of God. With about half a score of other places too tedious to mention, all which abundantly shew, that in the vicarious sacrifice of himself, he is stiled a high priest. And it is well known that the Jewish high-priest, did ceremoniously bear the sins of the people; but could not atone by laying down his own life; therefore he offered bullocks, goats, and Lambs in sacrifice. Thus were the sins of the Jews ceremoniously expiated, or atoned for. – This observation respecting the making of atonement by / sacrifice, might be established in near twenty places of the books of Leviticus and Numbers, where it is said, the priest made atonement by sacrifice, for the sins of the people. But to be brief we shall only quote a few of them, see Levit. 4 & 35, “the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord, and the priest shall make atonement for his sin, that he hath committed and it shall be forgiven him.” And for those who shall sin through ignorance, chap. 5 & 10, “the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering, and it shall be forgiven him.” Dr. Whitby observes on Heb. 2 & 17, (ilaskesthi) is to make reconciliation or atonement for the sins of the people, and affirms that the word requires this sense; for Christ is here said to be a faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. This phrase as it respects the Jewish sacrifices, hath still relation to the guilt of sin to be expiated, and therefore must respect God. – This author by his quotations from the Septuagent, shews that (ilaskesthai) atonement, in Levit. 4 & 35, and in several other places too tedious to mention, is the same word used by the apostle to the Hebrews; and he observes, that “the apostle, therefore, here speaking to the Jews in the phrase always used by them, of such sacrifices as suffered in their stead, to expiate the guilt of their sin, must be supposed to teach them that the like was done for them by our Saviors sacrifice.” And here I think there is no room left to doubt of Whitby’s words being true, for in chapter 9 & 26 it is flatly declared, “that now once in the end of the world he hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” And in the 28th verse. “so Christ was once offered, to bear the sins of many.” – Christ is therefore “the Lamb (intentionally) slain from the foundation

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

57

of the world.” And was particularly pointed out by the Baptist in these words, “behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” – In Exod. 30 & 15, we learn that the children of Israel from twenty years old and upwards, paid half a shekel for the service of the tabernacle, supposed to buy the lamb of the daily sacrifice: now this money, is in the 16th / verse expressly called the atonement money of the children of Israel. And thus this Lamb of the daily sacrifice, is no other than a type of Christs oblation for us up on the cross; as it was foretold by the Prophet, that “he should be brought as Lamb to the slaughter.” And with respect to the virtue of his blood, having a purifying and cleansing effect from moral polution; in Rev. 7 & 14, it is said of the redeemed, that “they have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” – And to conclude this topic, having considered all these scriptures; I ask is it possible that Moses, the Prophets and Apostles, with the united testimony of so much scripture in both Old and New Testament could deceive us; after all that these have prophesied, preached, and written to the world? Or shall we impeach them with designed imposture, or ignorance of the topic upon which they wrote? If so, the conclusion that follows, must be as the infidel surmise; namely, that there is no saving virtue in the blood of Christ as a piacular victim to atone for sin. Then I boldly infer, that according to the scriptures, all other schemes must fail, and the race of Adam must universally be damned; for in the scripture it is plainly declared, “that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” /

CHAP. XIV. Christ’s death, a punishment for sin. The third view that I shall take of Christ as the source of our redemption, shall be to shew that in the scripture his suffering death, is considered as a punishment for the sins of men. And here it will be proper to observe, that it was not for his own sin that he openly challenged the Jews to shew his faults, saying “which of you convinceth me of sin.” Even Judas that betrayed him, returned back to his enemies and threw down the money which he had received as a bribe, confessing that he had betrayed innocent blood. And Pilate also, aquitted him of the impeachment the Jews had brought against him, for the Evangelist John says that “he went out, and told the Jews that he found no fault at all in him.” And St. Luke tells us that “Pilate told the chief Priests, the rulers and the people that he had examined him before them, and found no fault in the man, touching those things whereof they had accused him.” And St. Mark, saith, that “Pilate knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.” St. Mathew testifies that “Pilate washed his hands before the multitude, saying I am innocent / of the blood of

58

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

this just person.” Now Solomon saith that, “to punish the just is not good.” And St. Peter testifies that “he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” Consequently, he did not suffer for his own sin, and why should the righteous governor of the universe in whose omniscient eye, two sparrows that may be sold for a farthing, shall not one of them fall to the ground without his notice; and yet he suffered this innocent person so unjustly to be put to death? But St. Peter in his first Epistle 3 & 18, reveals the secret respecting his sufferings, and has told us how it came to pass, namely, that “Christ once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” Here the Apostle saith that Christ suffered for sin, and we know that to suffer for sin, is to suffer the punishment due to sin. – How therefore should our Lord be said to suffer for sin, the just for the unjust; if he did not some way suffer the punishment of our sin? Again if suffering death in anothers room and stead, may be called bearing their punishment it is said in Rom. 5 & 6. “In due time Christ died for the ungodly.” Yet in page 56 & 84, of the Testimony it is said, “so far then, were the Apostles from teaching that any individual suffered in the room and stead of another.” Here let it be observed, that if one declaration of St. Paul, in conjunction with the foregoing testimony of St. Peter, shall be deemed insufficient to overset this declaration of the Shaker testimony; we shall add a couple of other scriptures to the same effect, namely, Rom. 5 & 8. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Now with what face can they deny that the Apostles taught, that any one individual, never suffered in the room and stead of another. For the Apostle declares Christ died for us, and if we are really others, besides Christ, then in plain and pointed terms he died for others; that is others of mankind not himself. And in verse 10, “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son.” Now the conclusion that must be drawn from all these scriptures is this, namely, that we the sinners of Adam race; are the unjust. The ungodly for whom he died, and enemies to God that were reconciled by the death of his son. And / the innocent Jesus is the Lamb of God, that just one, that was betrayed, murdered, and suffered death as a punishment for the sins of men. And yet there are many in the world, who never conceived that this Jesus had done any thing for them to procure Gods favor; who still call themselves christians after this Christ; such can only have a name to live while in fact they are dead. Here it may be observed that as the above quotation from the testimony, denies that the Apostles ever taught that any one individual ever suffered in the room and stead of another, this declaration in effect denies, that Christ suffered in our room and stead: but equally tends to disparage the sufferings of Anne Lee, for in the testimony it is said, that “she suffered and died on the same fundamental principles of redemption, that the sufferings and death of Christ were necessary in his first appearing.” The conclusion that must follow is this, that the Shakers are no more benefited by the sufferings and death of their great Mother; than they allow christians to be

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

59

by the sufferings of Christ. Here leaving the reader to estimate the meritorious sufferings of the Shaker Mother, according to his own judgement. I shall proceed to observe, that the Prophet Isaiah foretold the sufferings of Christ, as a punishment for our sins; for he saith, that “he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people was he striken. And he bare the sins of many: and made intercession for the transgressors.” In I Peter 5 & 1, the Apostle saith that he himself, is “a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.” But in respect of our Lords sufferings, the manner of life which he lived was on many accounts a state of suffering. He lived an unsettled life, and had not where to lay his head. He was so poor, that he had not a penny to tribute until he got it of a fish. He lived upon the alms or gifts of some charitable persons that ministered to him of their substance. He was despised and rejected, despised as a mean man; and rejected as an ill man; and he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself. He was a man of a tender sympathizing spirit, admitting deeply the impressions of sorrow. Lentulus in his Epistle / to the Roman Senate, describes the person and character of Jesus; he saith that “he was never seen to laugh, but often wept; and so persuasive were his tears, that the multitude could not withhold their tears from joining in sympathy with him.” It is supposed by Dr. Henry on John 8 & 57, where the Jews observed that “he was not yet fifty years old, and could not have seen Abraham.” That he was so macerated with continual sorrow and weeping, that when he was only a little turned of thirty, he appeared to be near fifty. His gravity of aspect, might be infered from these words of Isaiah, “his visage was so mared, more than any mans.” Thus the sufferings of Christ are so commonly spoken of in the scripture, that in Hebrews 2 & 10, it is said, “the captain of our salvation, was made perfect through suffering.” So taking in consideration the whole of his suffering life, with the tragical scene of his death as a malefactor; never before, was so good a man, so barbariously used. – A Poet saith of his life. “Twas one continued chain, Of labor, sorrow, and consuming pain.”

And while Prophets and Apostles unite in their testimony, and declare of this just one, that “he suffered the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God. And that the Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all. Who can avoid considering the life and death, of the suffering son of God, in any other view, than as a punishment for the sins of man. Although in the infidel language of the Testimony, this doctrine is said to be “disgusting to the reason or man: and black and infernal darkness, and fit to be sent to the bottomless pit with the beast and the false prophet.” Yet if the inhabitants of the bottomless-pit, had the priviledge of this doctrine being preached

60

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

to them, I believe it would meet with very different reception than what it does in this world. However we have good reason to believe, that this doctrine is well received in heaven, for the blissful inhabitants of that region are described in the Revelations, and having washed their robes and / made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and the subject of the celestial harmony which they sing, is, “thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” I acknowledge for my own part, that this is the theme of all my joyful songs; and through the grace of God, I humbly hope to join in that universal chorus above, and sing with shouting millions the praises of the Lamb, “who hath redeemed us to God by his blood; out of every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people.”

CHAP.XV. Redemption, described as an exertion of divine power. My fourth view of this subject, shall be to consider according to the scripture our redemption by Christ, as an exertion of the power of God, to rescue and deliver his people. Thus in Deut. 7 & 8, “because the Lord loved you, he hath redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharoah King of Egypt.” And in Chap. 32 & 6. Do you thus requite the Lord? O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy father that hath bought thee? In Exodus 6 & 6 God told Moses to inform the Hebrews, that “he would bring them out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and rid them out of their bondage; and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgement.” In 2 Sam. 7 & 23. David in thanksgiving to God, for his mercies to his nation, saith “what people is like unto Israel, whom God went to redeem unto himself, and to make him a name, and to do great things and terrible, for thy land and people which thou redeemest to thee from Egypt, and from the / nations and their Gods? Now since Gods liberating the Hebrews from the Egyptians is called in the figurative language of the scriptures a redemption, and is typical of our redemption by Christ; and both are expressed in scripture by the same words and figures of speech; we may plainly see that metaphors should not be stretched to an undue bounds, for the same things, affairs, or transactions; may often with equal truth, be described in other words and ideas; so that to redeem in scripture language, does not always mean to pay a price, or ransom in purchase (although this is the most common idea of the words) but also signifies to deliver, or rescue a captive from the hands of an enemy, by an exertion of superior power. And to speak in plain words. Satan is this common enemy of mankind: and Jesus Christ is our great redeemer or deliverer, who conquered our enemy, and bruised the serpents head. So far from truth is that aspersion in the testimony, that “a living man is better than a dying or dead God. And that the beast and false prophet rejoiced at his death.” That it is declared in Cols. 2 & 15. “By his cross he blotted out the

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

61

hand writing of ordnances that was against us, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly triumphing over them in it.” I ask what advantage has the Devil obtained by the sheding of Christ blood, or how could the beast and false prophet rejoice at his death? If it be as St. Paul affirms, that thereby his empire in the world was ruined and destroyed; in short this was the very blow that bruised the serpents head, seeing by his cross he spoiled the principalities and powers of darkness. The plain truth is this, the Devil and the powers of darkness, may justly be called invaders of the property of Jehovah, committing hostilities and violence on his creature man, ever since the beginning of the world; and we all know what is meant by retakeing spoil or plunder from an enemy, and this the apostle declares is effected by the son of God, sheding his blood for us upon the cross: as he thereby defeated the enemy, and spoiled the principalities of hell, for it is said in 2 Timothy 2 & 26, that they might recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil, that were taken captive by / him at his will.” Now that this is the true and scriptural meaning of this subject, and of these texts of scripture; let it be observed that the principalities and powers here spoken of, are powers of wickedness; the spirits of satan, who in Luke 22 & 58, “Is called the power of darkness,” and in Ephes. 2 & 2. “The prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience.” And in Chap. 6 & 11, he directs the Ephesian Christians, “to put on the whole armour of God, that they might be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. For (said he) we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the wickedness in high places.” And our Lord himself in John 12 & 30, saith “if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me; signifying what death he should die.” And as one of the happy consequences of his dying. Now (saith he) shall the prince of this world be cast out.” In the Epistle to the Heb. 2 & 14, it is said, “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil; and deliver them who through fear of death, were all their life-time subjected to bondage.” Surely if he, that is the testimony is mocked as a dying or dead God; by his death, destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. They must be very far mistaken who preferred a living man to him, and supposed that the beast and false prophet would rejoice at his death; seeing the kingdom of satan was chiefly injured by his death; for the Apostle saith, that by his death he destroyed the devil, that had the power of death, and freed the captives, who through fear of death were subject to bondage. Here let it be observed that the Devil was the first sinner, and the first tempter to sin, and sin was the original cause of death; and he might be said to have the power of death, as he seduced mankind to sin; and as he is their tormenter, and the executioner of divine justice. But now, Christ has so far destroyed him, that he can keep none under the power of spiritual death, but those who continue to be his willing

62

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

slaves; for even the death of the body is become a conqured enemy, and cannot separate the soul from God; but only puts an end to all the / grievances and complaints of mortal life, and gives the soul a passage to eternal life and blessedness. Therefore death is not now Satan’s servant, but Christ’s servant; and has not hell following it, but heaven, to all that are in Christ Jesus. And even the death of the body will find a remedy in the resurrection. Israel when captive in Babylon, is said to be redeemed from their captivity, without price or compensation; Isaiah 52 & 3, “ye sold yourselves for nought, and you shall be redeemed without money.” In the history of Cyrus their deliverer, the whole account of Israels redemption from Babylon, shews that the hand of God was against the Babylonians. But what redemption money did Beeshazer get for liberating the Jews, more than Pharoah king of Egypt? I answer nothing, but the loss of his life, and the loss of his empire; by Darius and Cyrus of Media and Persia. And just so, has Jesus Christ paid the Devil, for those souls rescued out of his hand; for by his cross, he hath broken his power and authority. He openly, saith the Apostle, “made a shew of principalities and powers, triumphing over them in it. And thus, in every great deliverance or redemption, wrought out for the Church in all ages, when God rescued his people from any great danger, it was generally attended with displays of his power and vengeance on their enemies. And so it was even with the Jews themselves, who for their wickedness and rejection of Christ and his dispensation, in their turn, suffered by the Romans. And so it will be with all the wicked at the end of the world, would, when by an exertion of divine power, the bodies of the saints shall be redeemed from the grave, and all taken to heaven; then the wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God. So that redemption may be considered in this view, as I said, to be an exertion of the power of God, in rescuing his people, and conquering both his, and their enemies; either of a temporal, or of a spiritual nature; as it is declared in Isaiah 1 & 27. “Zion shall be redeemed with judgement, and her converts with righteousness; and the destruction of the transgressors, and of the sinners shall be together, and they that for sake the Lord shall be consumed. /

CHAP. XVI. Of christ’s intercession. The last head of this subject which I shall now take notice of, is the intercession of Christ in heaven, for his Church here upon earth. Accordingly it is said by Isaiah 53 & 12, “That he made intercession for the transgressors.” And we know that the office of an intercessor, implies both to pray for us, and manage our cause. – Here it might be supposed by some, that our Lord entirely accomplished this work, when he prayed for his Church and followers, that the father had given him out of the world. But this explanation will not hold good, for this

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

63

intercession was before his death, and the Apostle to the Hebrews writing after his death and ascension into heaven, in Chapter the 7 & 25, he saith that “he hath an unchangeable Priest-hood, and is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him; seeing he ever liveth to make continual intercession for them.” And therefore if Jesus Christ does not now act in his priestly office, the part of an intercessor in heaven, for his Church here on earth; the great Apostle is very much out in his opinion. Yet this doctrine of Christ’s intercession, is treated with ridicule in the Testimony, page 566 & 73, where it is said, that “the dead God after he was raised / up, stood day and night perpetually shewing his wounds, and pleading before his father that he died in the room and stead of sinners.” Now let the reader compare this infidel passage with Rom. 8 & 34, where St. Paul saith, “it is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again; who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” Here the most pointed and glaring contradiction appears, both in meaning and words, in these two accounts. And the reader is now at liberty to chuse, which of these authorities he will credit. Viz. that of the Shaker Testimony, or the Epistle to the Romans. – But if the quotation from the Epistle to the Romans should be doubted by some, as not being the general sense or meaning of the scripture on this subject, see Heb. 9 & 24, where it is declared, “that Christ entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” – And if some should ask, what is he doing for us, in the presence of God? I answer, that he there performs the office or business of a Mediator; as it is said in I Tim. 2 & 5. “there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” Now (mesites) a Mediator, supposeth a controversy between two; and as Dr. Henry observes, “sin had made a quarrel between God and man, and Christ is our Mediator that hath undertaken to make peace, to bring God and man together into union again.” And although none of us now alive, have yet been in the eternal world of glory, to see and hear the prayers or intercessions of our Lord; and how he manages our cause in the kingdom of heaven. Yet in John 14 & 3, he told his followers, that “he was going to prepare a place for them; and that in his fathers house are many mansions.” Dr. Whitby gives us the Jewish notion of a Mediator, and quotes these words from Philo, viz. “The father of all, hath granted to the most ancient WORD, an excellent gift, namely to be an intercessor for mortal man to the immortal God, and as embassador from the King to his subjects; and it is necessary that he who performed the office of a Priest to the father of the world, should be both his advocate and son, most perfect in virtue; that men may atone God by a Mediator, and God may reach forth, and distribute his favors to men by a certain / minister, and to obtain the pardon of sins, and the Participation of the greatest blessings.” Here Dr. Whitby observes, that it is made the office of a Mediator, according to the Jews opinion to procure peace to the creature from God, to make atonement to God, and to be an advocate to obtain

64

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the pardon of sins; and then draws this conclusion, that it must be part of his office, to appear and reconcile God to us. On these accounts, the office of intercessor or mediator which our Lord bears in heaven, is of importance to mankind; which is also plain from the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ is in three different places, spoken of as Mediator of the New Testament, the Mediator of a better covenant, and Mediator of the new covenant. And in this Epistle he is frequently spoken of as our High-priest, who by his sacrifice and blood of sprinkling, appears in the presence of God for us. But St. John in his Epistles bears a concordant testimony with St. Paul, and he saith that “we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” And we all know, that the business of an advocate is to plead the clients cause before the judge; and as it was the laws of God we had violated, yet by the mediation of our advocate, heaven is again become to us a court of grace, and the tribunal of glory is a mercy seat. And thus it is described in Heb. 12 & 23. “We are come to God the judge of all, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. Dr Henry saith “we have good hope that our cause will go well, seeing our advocate and intercessor is Jesus Christ the righteous, who is well qualified for that office, being the co-equal son of the eternal father; and who hath undertaken as the attorney-general of his Church, in the court of heaven.” The Apostle John informs us, that the ground of his plea on our behalf, is the (ilasmos) or propitiation for our sins. It is his propitiation that he pleads. Although he is mocked in the Shaker Testimony for “standing day and night pleading before his father, that he died in the room and stead of sinners, as a satisfaction to his justice.” Here it may be proper to observe, that as God is the fountain of righteousness and justice, from whose all perfect nature, / nothing that is evil can proceed; therefore the death of Christ could never be a satisfaction to the Devil; if it can be accounted a satisfaction at all, it must be to God, and his broken laws. Or, in other words to injured justice. And I think it is plain, that the blood of Christ as our ransom, was never given to the Devil, more than the Shakers, or the Pope of Rome; but to God, and divine justice. See Ephes. 5 & 2, “he gave himself a sacrifice and oblation to God.” And that no one inferior to God, nor any of the powers of dankness was favored by his death, see Heb. 9 & 14, “he offered himself without spot to God.” Let any man of sense consider what is implied in Christ offering himself to God, whose residence is in heaven, which answers to the legal oblation that was made in the holy of holies by the High-priest; which under the law was only a type, or figure of Christ and his blood entering into heaven for us. For it is declared in scripture, that “he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” I have heard an infidel say, that the blood of Christ was magotted and rotten, many hundred of years ago. Is not this trampling on the blood of the covenant, and counting it an unholy thing? But here we see it is of esteem in heaven yet, and neither has it lost

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

65

its value and efficacy, seeing it is continually represented in the intercession of the great advocate; who is the propitiation for our sins. And with respect to the time of his intercession being past, it is not spoken of in scripture in a past tense, or as if its influence and effect had ceased; for it is said “he ever liveth to make intercession for us.” Therefore as long as the mediatory kingdom of Christ shall last, and that is, until his second advent; the virtue of his blood-shedding, or propitiation shall not cease. Upon this account, his intercession may be considered as a constant, and perpetual address to God in our behalf; and from his sacrifice and intercession, results to us the pardon of our sins, the acceptance of our prayers, the assistance of his spirit, and the supply of our wants. So that as our advocate, he interceeds with authority for what has been the purchase of his blood; and in scripture he is represented as having great authority, sitting on the right hand of the throne, of the majesty of / the heavens. So that from his power and compassion for us, results our priviledges and freedom to God, see Ephesians 2 & 18, “we have access to the father through him.” Rom. 5 & 2. “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, we have access into the grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” Ephes. 3 & 19, “in him we have boldness with confidence.” Rom. 11 & 36, “In him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be the glory for ever and ever Amen.” In St. Peters sermon on the day of Penticost, mentioned in Acts the 2 & 32, he declares, that “Jesus being raised up, and exalted at the right hand of God, had received of the father the promise of the Holy ghost.” From which scripture it is abundantly evident (as Stackhouse observes) “that what ever God bestows upon us, he bestows by the hand of Jesus Christ: whom upon his first presentation of his sacrifice in heaven, and continual intercession with it, he is constituted and continues, the general distributor of all his graces, and favors to mankind. Therefore in conclusion, let us always bear in mind of what mighty advantage it is to us, that the highest favorite in heaven or earth, is our perpetual advocate, and patron at the right hand of God, to plead our cause. What life and vigor it is to our prayers, that they are offered up by so powerful and prevalent an hand; and yet he was touched with feeling of all our infirmities, and was in all points tempted as we are. And since we have a great High-priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the son of God; let us hold fast our profession, and let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain merey and find grace, to help us in time of need.” /

CHAP. XVI. Shaker defamation of christ’s human nature. Testimony, page, 567 & 75, “two contrary natures the flesh and spirit, the seed of the serpent, and the seed of God; met in one visible human form, and both were included under one name. 77. So Christ Jesus is said to have two natures in him,

66

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

not united, but at pointed variance.” Also, see Richard M Nemar’s22 pamphlet entitled the Kentucky Revival,23 published in Cincinnatti, 1807, page the 51. “Jesus Christ the redeemer, assumed in the body of his flesh, the same diabolical nature which was in all other men – was made in all points like unto his brethren whom he came to redeem – had two distinct and opposite natures residing in his one body, of which the one was true god, and the other very Devil.” These blasphemeous aspersions of Christ, militates not only against the person and divinity of our Lord, but also, tends to render abortive and of none effect, all that ever he did for mankind in the covenant of grace. Here I ask, what are we to understand by “the seed of the serpent, and the seed of God, meeting in one visible human form?” – Is it intended to signify, that Jesus Christ was no better by nature than Anne Lee the Shaker Christ, of whom it is confessed in the Testimony, page 22 that “she grew up in the same fallen nature with the rest of mankind?” / I have shewn you already, that Jesus was the most excellent, innocent, and divine being that ever appeared in human form; and that his divine nature, derived an infinite value in his sufferings on the cross, so that according to Heb. 9 & 26, “he had power to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself.” How then could sin the seed of the serpent, or the same fallen nature with the rest of mankind meet in him? For what concord hath Christ with Beliel, or light with darkness? St. John declares that “he was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil.” How then (as M ‘Nemar has said) can he be true God, and very Devil? And if the seed of the serpent or the Devil was in him, how could he destroy his works? In his own preaching, he testified to the Jews, that “if Satan cast out Satan, his kingdom cannot stand.” Yet as the testimony contains ambiguous expressions, perhaps it might be intended to mean by the seed of the serpent, the corporal body of our Lord (although free from sin) yet composed of flesh and blood like the bodies of all other men; and even in this sense, the bodies of other men, can never be considered either as the seed of the serpent, or the productions and works of the Devil: This at once would divest the almighty of his great prerogative, as being the universal parent of mankind; and place the Devil in his room and stead. It is true, that the wicked in scripture, language are stiled the children of the Devil; but this is understood to be true only in a spiritual sense, and not in respect of their bodies, or the mode of propagating them. For if this Shaker hypothesis is true, we should with propriety alter the object of our prayers; and in stead of saying the Lords prayer in the usual form and words, viz. “Our Father who art in heaven.” We should address ourselves to the great infernal spirit beneath, and say, our father who art in hell. Yet this Shaker account of the origin of our existence, was entirely unknown to the ancients, good job of old ascribes his existence to God, for in Chap. 35 & 10, he saith, “where is God my maker, who giveth songs in the night.” And in the 95 Psalm, the people are exhorted to pray to God as their creator, saying, “let us kneel before the Lord our maker.” And there is just

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

67

the same reason, to ascribe the whole creation / of the world to the Devil, as the present existence of mankind. In the 51 of Isaiah and 18 verse, the Prophet ascribes both to the same cause, and charges the Jews with forgetfulness of God; saying thou “forgetest the Lord thy maker, that stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth.” How then can the bodies of men be accounted the seed of the serpent, much less the body of Jesus Christ, which was miraculous in its conception by the Holy-ghost; for neither Joseph, nor the Devil, was his natural father. And thus it is plain, that this Shaker aspersion is without foundation, and that the seed of the serpent as being a sinner, or of a fallen nature, nor yet the seed of Joseph, and much less the seed of the Devil, never met in that human form, called Jesus Christ. Although M’Nemar has vilified, and blasphemed the spotless character of Jesus, for he saith, that “he assumed in the body of his flesh, the same diabolical nature that was in all other men.” In plain opposition to this, St. Peter saith, that “he was as a Lamb without spot, that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” Here let the reader pause, and say, which of these authorities he will credit, the scriptures, or the Shaker testimony; for all his disciples have testified that he was innocent, just and holy, so in Acts 5 & 14, they impeach the Jews concerning Jesus, of having dented that just one.” And St. John in several places of his writings, calls him emphatically “the righteous.” Saying that “if any one sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” How, or with what face, can M’Nemar say, that “he had two opposite natures residing in his one body, of which one was true God, and the other very Devil?” Such a being as this, composed of such opposite powers, and infinite extremes; a lindsey woolsey24 man, that is half God and half Devil; never existed either in heaven, earth, or hell, nor could have any state of being, except in the brains of some mad fanatic. Oh blasphemeous calumny! how hast thou defamed the holy and the just one? And how shall such stand in the great day before him, or dare to look their Lord in the face, when he shall enter into judgment with them? His awful judgement is coming, when he shall appear with power / and great glory, which will be very different from the pretended judgment of ANNE LEE, and the Shakers – And although in this life, the world we live in, and its inhabitants, undergo a participation of both good and evil in many respects; yet this will never justify this impeachment against the son of God, or make any reasonable man believe, that one of his two natures were very Devil. But alas for poor mankind! The evil of this blasphemeous slander of Jesus Christ, militates also against our fallen race; for what good blessing, our salvation could result to mankind, from either the doctrines, example, life or death, of one that was not only half a Devil, but the half of whose existence was very Devil – I have more charity for the worst of the Shakers, even their great Mother, although so great an impostor, that she called herself the WORD: yet in fact it being a false pretension, she never was perfect God, and could hardly be a perfect

68

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Devil, before her departure from mortal life; or short of her arrival, in the infernal regions, among the rest of the Devils; if this is the end of such deceivers, which I leave to every one to judge, just as they see cause. But if one whose being was both God and Devil, in the superlative degree, had descended into hell, in order to redeem either the damned of Adams race, or the Satanic host of fallen Angels; he would have been fitter for that task, than to come as a redeemer to mankind; for according to the scriptures, a redeemer adapted to mankind, must be God and man, but M’Nemar’s redeemer that is no doubt qualified as a redeemer for hell redemptioners. The opinion of fallen Angels becoming Devils, which is generally received, is constant with the account of them delivered by St. Jude, for he saith that “the Angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, are reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgement of the great day.” Yet the scripture doctrine of redemption is very unfavorable towards these angels of darkness, for St. Paul saith that Jesus Christ “took not upon him the nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham.” In this, M’Nemar contradicts St. Paul, for he declares that he possessed the nature of these angels of darkness, and was very Devil. And here I think it would / puzzle M’Nemar himself, to tell what benefit, his diabolical redeemer could be to mankind. There is no doubt, but that Jesus Christ both as God and man, was gracious, and beneficial to the human race; but as a Devil, what good could he do them? It is certain, that if his celestial natures as a God, did not controul, and overcome his infernal nature as a Devil, he must of necessity, have acted like the rest of the Devils; which would be to do all the evil he could. Yet happy for us, M’Nemar’s opinion of our Lords divinity, is nothing but diabolical delusion; for the scriptures no where intimate that he was guilty of sin, or even tainted with moral polution; but to the contrary, they testify that he knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” So that this gentleman is but a bad judge of Christs, and their endowments; seeing he defamed the son of God, and accepted of ANNE LEE. /

CHAP. XVII. The shaker hypothesis of the fall of man by original sin. Testimony page 59 & 55. “Many sensible and candid writers, by no more than the bare removal of a Fig leaf, would have discovered at once to open view, the very seat and fountain head, of all sin and corruption.” Verse 56, latter clause, “that the original corruption of Adam and Eve, which conceived and brought forth sin, was lust. Verse 59, here then is the mystery of iniquity first pointedly and clearly shewing what the root of sin is, and how sin is propagated. Page 61 & 72, Adam knew Eve his wife. Doubtless he was well acquainted with her before, but now he knew her in a shameful and criminal manner. Page

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

69

48 & 43, it was lust even the lust of the flesh, that was received from the serpent, which corrupted the nature and disposition, and degraded the dignity of man. Here was the fountain head from which all manner of sin and iniquity, like a mighty torrent, came rolling along down through the fallen race, corrupting the earth, & teeming with ten thousand evils.” From the reading all these quotations it is plain that the Shakers understand that Adams transgression, / which corrupted the human race was his cohabiting with Eve as his wife. One thing is certain, that it was the transgression of some law, which is here intimated, seeing a punishment ensued; but if he had avoided that knowledge of his wife he had undoubtedly transgressed Gods law, which ordered him to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. So far from truth is this hypothesis on the original sin of Adam, that for the omission of what they judge to be his crime, he would have forfeited both his innocence and life, with all the dire consequences on his posterity. I have often observed, that if the account of the fall of Adam, by eating the fruit of a forbidden tree, which is given us by Moses, is to be taken in an allegorical sense, and that Eve is this tree; and their cohabiting together is eating the forbidden fruit; it follows, that there must have been other women created at the first besides Eve; seeing adam is left at his option, to eat of every other tree of the garden, but that one which was interdicted; and thus by carrying the allegory one step further, it might be inferred that whoredom with many women is less criminal, than for a man to cohabit with his lawfully married wife. And if the gratification of their sensual appetites as husband and wife, is eating the forbidden fruit, or Adams first transgression, what then was Eves sin? for we are told by Moses that Eve by the instigation of the serpent, first eat the forbidden fruit, and afterwards give it to her husband, and he did eat, and St. Paul saith that “the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” On this head the Shakers testimony informs us page 46 & 25 “that Eves having eaten of the forbidden fruit, that is having received the nature of the serpent in her.” And in page 71 & 157 ’tis observed, that the sacred text does not say that Adam begat Cain, and that Cain was of the wicked one.” From these quotations the Shaker secret, respecting of Eves sin may be discovered, especially if we shall add to the second verse of a cellebrated Shaker song, I have now in possession; the words are as follows. / “The woman was beguiled, and got the serpents seed you know, And though she was defiled, the harlot took the lead you know, Then from his head old Adam fled, and cleaved unto his wife you know, And for his fall he never shall, eat of the tree of life you know.”

The inference is plain from these quotations, that Eve was a hariot to the serpent before Adam cleaved to her as his wife; and this is according to their own words in page 59. “the removal of the Fig-leaf, which discovers at once to open view, the very seat and fountain head of all corruption. And according to page 48 & 43, it

70

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

was lust even the lust of the flesh, that was received from the serpent, which corrupted the nature and disposition, and degraded the dignity of man. The guilt with which Eve is here impeached is certainly of the foulest kind, and the picture of our original depravity, delineated by Shakerism is composed of the blackest colours: and if they are understood this guilty action of Eve with the serpent was the chief cause of all the sin and miseries that has befallen our race in every age of the world, form the creation until now. Their words are “here was the fountain-head, from which all manner of sin & iniquity, like a mighty torrent, came rolling along down through the fallen race, corrupting the earth, and teeming with ten thousand evils.” And thus they have foully slandered the mother of all living and turned into ridiculous metaphors, the plain historical facts given by Moses respecting the cause of human depravity. But as the Shakers cannot evade entirely, the express command given to Adam in paradise, “to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” In page 61 & 74 of the testimony it is pretended that “the criminality of that knowledge, arose from an unseasonable & untimely use, of those bodily organs & animal passions, which were created to be under the government of a superior law.” This evasion of the command is weak and of no force, unless they could make it appear that Adam and his wife at the time of their creation, did not immediately possess the use of their bodily organs and animal / passions, which deficiency is no where intimated by Moses. I suppose Adam and his wife best knew, what strength of affections they had for each other, especialy while no Shaker divorce was enjoined by their maker; but to the reverse a positive command, to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Why does not the testimony inform us how long they should have strayed together, before they attempted to multiply the human species? And as they say that Adam and Eve, used their bodily organs at a time that was unseasonable; I ask when might that seasonable time have been, or do they suppose them to have been created under some imbecility, or in a state of childhood, or sickness; if so, who nursed and raised them to maturity? I judge it to be much more probable that Adam and his wife, from the respective hours of their creation, were made of full magnitude and strength of body; and as fit for entering into a state of marriage, as the generality of their offsprings are at this day, who are of lawful age. But if the account of Adams fall given by Moses, is not a narrative of certain facts; but an allegory, and Eve is the interdicted tree; and Adams approaches to her was the crime, by which he lost both his innocence and life, and ruined his whole posterity; how could the human race have ever been propagated? Surely not by natural generation; no, nor never to all eternity: unless God should countermand his own prohibition, “for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Thus the Shaker hypothesis of the fall of man, is replete with errors and absurdities, and no more to be credited by any sensible man (as the origin of

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

71

natural and moral evil) than the heathen story of Prometheus stealing fire from heaven, to animate his man of clay. /

CHAP. XVIII. The shaker hypothsis of the general conflagration. Testimony page 421 & 75. “The same mistake remains with all natural men, while they look for a natural Jesus, to descend from the natural heavens, in flames of natural fire, taking veangeance on their natural enemies: but their natural eyes shall never see it.” Whether an ideot, or an unconverted man, or a man who like all other men, exist according to the course of nature; is here intended by the term natural man, I cannot tell; but in every case the declaration is false, for all these will see the general conflagration. Natural, and flames of natural fire, we have some idea of; and we have often felt the power of natural enemies, and spiritual enemies also, but who is this natural Jesus? it cannot be Jesus of Nazareth, for the narrative of his life which is given in the four gospels, plainly shew his conception was supernatural: and that he was more than a man, even the God-man, who was heavenly and divine. Yet whether the Shakers may not have among themselves, some substitute Jesus, which they call a natural Jesus as they have a substitute Christ, I cannot tell. However it seems the intent of the whole / verse, is to deny that the world shall at last be destroyed by fire; in opposition to the declaration of St. Peter in his second epistle 3 & 10. The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, & the works that are therein shall be burned up; wherein the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” 2 Thess. 1 & 8, “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God.” And thus Daniel 7 & 9, saith “that he beheld until the thrones were cast down, and the ancient of days did sit; his throne was like the fiery flame, & his wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued, and come forth from him, thousands ministered unto him, the judgement was set, and the books were opened.” Here I ask, can this description by Daniel, look any thing like the Shaker judgement; or the Goddes-hood of the Shaker Mother? I wonder if a madman in Bedlem might not determine this! However, St. Peters words are express on the conflagration of the elemental earth and heavens; and the Shaker Testimony declares it shall never be; here the matter rests, and the reader must choose which of these authorities he shall esteem to be most worthy of his belief; unless he could fortunately guess out another alternative, suppose the world to be consumed by the fire of Shaker celibacy, or the burning exercise; which would certainly be more painful and distressing, than St. Peters conflagration. Yet still if this Shaker sentiment is true, and no dissolution shall ever take place of this elemental earth and heavens; nor

72

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

resurrection of the body, or general judgement at the last day, the conclusion is, that the scriptures are false; and the present mode and existence of all things has been eternal, and must remain so without end. If so, how then shall the fire of celibacy consume the world? A shaker once told me that it would be better to end the world by celibacy in a quiet way, than according to my notions of a general conflagration; by burning up so many millions of people. I answered that he was wise above what was written, seeing he knew better than the Maker of the / world, which would be the best way to end it, as he could by celibacy, have proposed a more mercyful way to destroy the antedeluvians, than by drowning them in a flood of water, or he could have found how to depopulate the cities of Sodom and Gomorah, in a more gentle way, than by fire and brimstone from heaven. But all this is in effect, to dictate to infinite wisdom; and to the prerogative of jehovah, who alone with propriety can say, “I kill, and make alive.” Testimony page 541, ’tis said, “in the souls and bodies of mankind, all these things were to be accomplished concerning Christ, which were spoken of the heavens and the earth. Such as, the heavens being on fire shall be disolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” This is another bold attempt by metaphorising plain narratives of facts, with a design to raise as much confusion as possible in the human mind on the meaning of the scriptures; and throw dust in peoples eyes, consequently to make the principles of the christian religion, appear uncertain or ridiculous. But happy for the professors of christianity, the authors of the Shaker testimony have as much failed in metaphorising St. Peters account of the general conflagration, of the elemental earth and heavens; as they have done in the case of the interdicted tree in paradise. And if the sentiments of the learned are of any authority, against this Shaker delusion, I here offer the following viz. Dr. Whitby who on this place of St. Peter, says “that the conflagration of the world, the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men, are contemporary; for the heavens and earth that now are, shall be burned up with that very fire by which the ungodly are to be destroyed, they being left in the midst of those flames, whilst the godly being snatched up into the air above the reach of them, shall be forever with the Lord.” And the same author observes, that St. Peter is speaking not only of the destruction of the sublunary earth and heavens, but also of the planetary heavens by fire: of this opinion was Mr. Mead, since the planetary bodies are found to be as much earth as that we tread on, and borrow all their light from the irradiation of the sun. Dr. Henry on the same place of St. Peter observes, “That the visible heavens shall pass away with a great / noise, as bring unable to abide when the Lord shall come in his glory; whilst the noise shall be as great as the breaking and tumbling down of so great a fabric must necessarily occasion. And that a fire shall go before him which shall melt the elements, of which the world and the creatures are composed. The earth also, and all the works that are therein shall be burned up; even all the works of art as well as of nature; all the stately palaces and

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

73

fine cities. Let us therefore saith this author, make sure of a happiness beyond this visible world, which must all be melted down.”

CHAP. XIX. False miracles examined and detected. As evidence that Christ has made his second appearing in the world, and to justify the pretensions of their great Mother, the Shaker testimony openly declares, that they are possessed of the same power to work miracles, which was in the primitive church. See page 468 & 9. “Many extraordinary gifts were in the primitive church, such as gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophesy, discerning of spirits, divers kinds of tongues &c. And in the 10 verse, it is asserted, that “such evidences the church of Christ this day possesses, and has from the beginning.” I answer the church of Christ does not at this day possess such evidences, neither is the working of miracles as evidence, at this day necessary. And as to the power of working miracles, or the knowledge of diverse tongues as a miraculous gift, every sensible man knows that it is palpable. As an instance of this, a getleman of my acquaintance in conversation with a principal Shaker, observed to him, that in his book he had given / a very erroneous translation of a certain greek word; and the Shaker chief honestly confessed, he did not understand that language; so that I am very confident, that neither the Shaker Mother herself, nor any of their chiefs, who are audacious enough to pretend to the miraculous gifts of the primitive church, have the knowledge of French, Hebrew, Greek or Latin more than other people, unless they acquire it by education. Notwithstanding in the testimony, in the page and verse last quoted, are these words, “such outward gifts have been abundantly ministered through Mother and the first witnesses, and from them to others, and abundantly used on diverse, occasions.” I have often thought, that there is no species of wickedness so detestable and ridiculous as that of a designed mistake and to qualify a deceiver for this work, he must have a large share, both of hypocrisy and presumption. Yet unless I should voluntarily shut my eyes, against the most glaring and palpable declarations of truth, I cannot help observing in the language of the testimony, these accomplishments are manifested; for in page 460 & 14, ’tis said, that “innumerable facts of a like extraordinary appearance, might have been collected from the living witnesses &c. and to shew that the same spirit that wrought by Christ Jesus and his Apostles, was made manifest for the confirmation of the truth in this latter day.” Accordingly with audacious, and impious pretensions, to the power of working miracles, the testimony informs us that Noah Wheaton25 of New Lebanon,26 in the State of New York, aged 64 years, after he had received faith in the testimony of Christ second appearing (that is in plain words after he become a Shaker) in the year 1780, in jumping from an high fence, broke one of the bone of his

74

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

leg, and dislocated his ancle, and to make short a long incredible story, he suffered greatly, until some mighty wonder working power came suddenly upon him, and then, he was instantly hurled from his seat upon his feet, and whirled swiftly round like a top, for the space of two hours, without the least pain; after which exercise he retired to rest, and the next morning took his team, and went to ploughing. And in their account of miracles, there follows this instance which I / have mentioned, about eight, or nine other lying wonders of the same kind; such as the story of Mary Turner27 of New Lebanon, who cured her son of a large wound, that he had received by an axe in his foot. But his mother felt the power of God run down her arm, into her right hand, accompanied with such a delicious balsamic smell as she was unable to describe; feeling confident that it was a gift of healing for her son, she laid her hand on the wound and it instantly ceased bleeding, and this she repeated seven times, during which time it closed up and was healed leaving only a small seam resembling a white thread.” Here every sensible man will observe, that if to fabricate and retail such stories as these, will justify a claim to working miracles, then, surely miracles will never cease; for in every age of the world, there was always some people fond of dealing in the marvelous, or retailing lying wonders. If we peruse Dr. Moore’s travels in Italy, and advert to the travels of the chapel of Lorretta, which is said to have been formerly the stable in the land of Judea, in which Jesus Christ was born, and which before the calamities of that country by the Romans, emigrated to the hill of the three brothers; but disliking its situation there, it moved a second time, and landed at Lorretta, where it still remains; with about twenty stories more of the same kind, which are but lying wonders; and yet believed by some people to be true, and sacred, as the existence of heaven and earth. Yet this is the best kind of evidence that is offered in the testimony, to prove Christ’s second appearing in the world. Here I ask how came the Shakers to imagine that Christ would work miracles of healing upon the sick, at the time of his second appearing? did they conceive that the immortal bodies of the righteous, after resurrection, would be subject to fevers, nervous diseases, or broken bones? and as for the wicked, who died in a state impenitent, whose times of probation in this world being ended; consequently, their spirits were under his wrath and displeasure, from the time of their departure from this life, unto the time of their resurrection; we cannot therefore, reasonably suppose that he will make such his patients then, or the object of his pity. It is therefore utterly impossible, that the / miracles recorded in the Shaker testimony can be true; for such could only flow from divine power, which they have not so much as made it probable, they ever were in possession of: besides this, the scriptures no where intimate, that Christ will work miracles of healing on the sick at his second coming. And as it is pretended that he made his second appearing to the world in Anne Lee, which is a blasphemous and uncreditable falsehood, therefore, the whole fabric must be a structure of lies

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

75

from the top to the bottom. By a creditable author, I was informed that a certain pretender to miracles, attempted to raise the dead, and the corpse was carried out in a coffin before a crowd of spectators, a Military gentleman, who probably suspected a fraud in the matter, observed that no law had forbidden shooting a ball through a dead corpse, and he immediately directed the spectators to stand aside, until he should fire a ball through the coffin; and on cocking the gun, the fellow burst the lid, and cried out hold your hand; and so the pretended dead, was raised in quite another way, than what was intended.28 Thus the same cause that produceth false Christs, also produceth false miracles. Because there was one true Christ, who with his true disciples, wrought true miracles; every false Christ, in combination with their false disciples, attempt to delude the unwary, by propagating false miracles: or properly lying wonders. I once had a Shaker patient under a grievous disorder, but a little time before he was taken ill, he frequently boasted that he should never feel pain, either in soul or body any more; for the Shakers could cure diseases by miracles. But an afflicting providence soon made him feel otherwise, and I had curiosity enough, to wish the Shakers would make trial of their miracle working power in this instance, but in vain, for they offered no attempt of that kind, under my observation. /

CHAP.XX. Heaven a real and local abode. In opposition to the doctrine of heaven as a determinate place of happiness, I have heard a Shaker preacher tell his audience, that heaven was not above or beyond the skies; or in some distant place, having a local situation like some fine city; and among other cities, he mentioned London and Philadelphia. But it immediately occurred to me, that the description of the New Jerusalem, which is given in the 21st chapter of the revelation contradicted his doctrine; for in that place, the state and abode of future happiness is described like a fine city, full of magnificence and beauty: and so particular is the description which is given of this city, that even the materials of the foundations, the height of the walls and their structure, the gates and their situation, with the inhabitants, are all described. And although the whole account of the New Jerusalem may be only an emblem, of the future happy abode of the righteous; yet I wondered with what face he could tell the people, that heaven was not like a fine city, while in this scripture, it is thus particularly described. And if I understood him aright, he endeavored to metaphorise or turn into similitudes; the scriptures on that subject, as if he would persuade his / audience to believe, that there is no proper, real or local heaven; above, or beyond the limits of this world, which is the place of the more immediate residence of God Angels and spirits of the just. It is indeed true, as Stackhouse has observed, “the joys of the blessed are figured out to us,

76

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

by eating and drinking at Christs table; by sumptuous banquets, marriage feasts, fertile pastures, magnificent cities, beautiful dwellings, thrones, and ensigns of honor,” but this, however from the whole account we are given to understand, that all the satisfaction and pleasure, and more than the greatest sensualist can enjoy, or wish for, will be far exceeded by the happiness of heaven. Still this eastern mode of speaking in which the scriptures are written, will not contradict the truth of a real, and local heaven: for if the reality of heaven as a place of happiness, can be explained away to nothing, by metaphors and similitudes; the reality of hell as a place of punishment, may be treated in the same way; then where is the immediate residence of God, and blessed spirits; or where shall Devils and wicked spirits reside. And with those who are thus far advanced in infidelity, one step further might make them become Atheists, and deny the existence of God and futurity altogether. Yet this can never be the case while they believe the authority of the scriptures, for in that blessed book, by St. Paul 2 Cor. 12 & 2, we are informed that there is a certain place above the stary orbs, called the third heaven; where he saith he heared unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Dr. Whitby on this scriptures observes, that this place is the habitation of the blessed Angels, and the majesty of God. In Revelation 2 & 7, in allusion to the garden of Eden, it is called “the paradise of God.” It is called the house of God the Father, for Christ saith “in my fathers house are many mansion.” I Cor. 15 & 47, it is spoken of as the residence of God the son, for tis said, “the second man is the Lord from heaven.” In I Peter, 1 & 12, heaven is pointed out as the habitation of God the Holy ghost, for he is said to be “sent down from heaven.” The Empyrium or highest heaven, must therefore be understood to be a real and local abode. And as the relative situation / of a throne and footstool, or up to heaven, and down to hell, is a natural idea to describe the locality of that high and holy place, where the Holy-one who inhabiteth Eternity dwells, surely the locality of the upper world is understood by the Apostle, while he calls it a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. And although the Shakers represent their millenum, as the scriptural account of heaven; yet we know that there is no eternal house, which is not made with hands, either in Shaker town, or any where else in this world. Every sensible man must see that St. Paul understood that heaven had a local situation above us, for in Rom. 10 & 6 he saith “who shall ascend into heaven? that is to bring Christ down from above.” In Ecles. 5 & 7, Solomon saith that God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; hence, the Shakers are mistaken, for heaven is not upon earth. Moses understood that the God of Israel dwells in heaven above, for in Deut. 26 & 15, he prays “look down from heaven thy holy habitation, and bless thy people of Israel.” Heaven is called a place of God. It cannot therefore be in Shaker town, for there they dance and labor very hard. Therefore, it is not Shakerism, but Christianity, that gives to mankind so sensible a demonstration of a blessed immortality, and a life of future happi-

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

77

ness, which is called heaven. For as Stackhouse observes, “the resurrection of our blessed Lord from the dead, and his visible ascension into heaven, declareth and publisheth unto the world, that he who taught another life after this, and the happy condition of good men in it; was himself raised from the dead, and visibly taken to heaven. From this ancient and well attested matter of fact, this inference is obvious, that God will raise, and advance to glory and happiness, all who prepare themselves for it; because our Lords ascent into heaven, is not merely a private and a personal advantage, but a thing performed under that public character which he sustained as our High-priest. – And this is declared in Hebrews, that as our forerunner, he entered into the holy place, there to appear in the presence of God for us. Now a forerunner is a relative term, and of necessity implies some persons following on / behind; for the Apostles meaning is undeniably this that Christ in our nature has taken possession of heaven (those mansions of glory and bliss) not for himself only but also for all his faithful followers.” Moses saith that “there is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help; and his excellency on the sky.” – Yet if there is no real and proper heaven, and all these scriptures have only a metaphorical meaning, then the Shakers have dismounted the God of Jeshurun, from riding on the real heavens and sky, and they have left him nothing but a bundle of worthless similitudes for his chariot; or a metaphorical horse to ride on. It is said in Mathew 25 & 31 “when the son of man shall come in his glory, and all holy Angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd separateth this sheep from the goats: then shall he say unto them on his right hand, come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Now a kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, cannot be Shaker-town, unless it be a kingdom, and a world of the Shakers own making. But as it is pretended that Anne Lee is Christ in his second appearing, I wish to understand by what rule of transmutation the eternal Logos, the unchangeable son of the ever blessed Father, who called himself the son of man; shall be changed in sex, and become the daughter of John Lee of Manchester: then it is not the son of man, that shall sit upon the throne of his glory, but the daughter of man, that shall sit upon the throne of her glory; neither is it the king, that shall separate the sheep from goats, but the Queen the Shaker Mother; who shall say to them upon her right hand, come ye blessed of my father. Here we may observe, that John Lee of Manchester, is confessedly her father, consequently, the Shakers who may be preferred by her to her right hand, can have no title to any heaven or happiness, but what Anne Lee and her father John can give them: which kingdom of heaven, or subsequent blessedness, I presume cannot be very great. Yet as a Shaker preacher in my hearing quoted Isaiah 65 & 17, as an authority for his metaphorising / on heaven, which he

78

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

alledged, could not be any other way understood, I shall here take notice of it. The prophets words are, “behold I create new heavens, and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoiceing: and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heared in her & c.” Here it is to be observed, that if I should admit it his own method of explaining this scripture, and understand it in a similitude, still it gains nothing to Shakerism; for no man but a fanatic could imagine, the prophet hereby intended to describe the Shaker millennium, seeing the whole subject is concerning the affairs of the Jews only. Thus God directs the Jews, to rejoice and be glad in that which he would create: for behold saith he, “I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” Dr. Whitby on this place of scripture, observes to the same amount, that “these new heavens, and new earth, are manifestly promised to the Jewish nation; and be quotes the Jewish Rabi Saadiah Goan, who saith, that there shall yet be to the Jews, a world full of joy and exultation, so that their heavens and earth, will be as it were new, as it is said in the 6 & 17 of Isaiah.” And thus it is plain, that this is an endeavor to pervert the meaning of the scriptures, and throw dust into peoples eyes respecting heaven and future happiness. /

CHAP. XXI. On speaking evil of christian sects. Testimony 367 “So therefore the Christian world, must mean that world of christians who are the followers of a false Christ.” This is a great falsehood, for the christian world (so called) either catholic or protestants never introduced any other Christ, but Jesus the true Christ until the Shakers set up the pretentions of ANNE LEE, for if it was even proved that they worshipped the true Christ in a false manner, that would justify the charge of following a false Christ; but this insinuation is in effect a blasphemy of the son of God, and a calumnious assertion of the Christian world. And thus, in several long chapters a torrent of invective language is poured out, tending to the defamation both of Roman catholics and reformers; and all I can gether from those Shaker accounts of the ancient churches, amount to this calculation namely, that they were all wrong, and all antichrists, and that no system ever was right, or could be right but Shakerism; yet as there were thousands of good men in these ancient churches who are long since gone to heaven, where the accuser of the brethren is cast out and calumny cannot now hurt them, I shall therefore pass over this Buzzard like action, of picking at the bones of the dead, and pay some attention to what is said of the living. Testimony page 385 & / 4, are these words, “they can reproach one another with the title of Popish tyrant, Protestant persecutor, Presbyterian

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism

79

liar, drunken Seceder, Baptist knave, or Methodist whoremonger, but these are terms of no reproach to the true Christian religion so long as it can be kept in the Bible.” This is evil speaking with a witness, and in the true spirit of Shakerism; defaming people by sects, impeaching men in crowds, and condemning them by the bulk. Nor to my knowledge was it ever before intimated that the leading trait in the character of the Presbyterian is to tell lies, nor the Seceders to be drunken, nor the Baptists to be knaves, nor the Methodists to be whoremongers, but every sensible man must perceive in this quotation, a spirit commonly observed in those who love to circulate defamatory reports; for it is represented that they thus reproach one another; and if it was even true, that these sects did frequently speak thus of each other, herein the Shakers employ themselves, in the Devils service; and perform a graceless, thankless, and unchristian office: for “the words of a tale-bearer are as wounds,” and it is the Devils work to blow up, the coals of envy and strife, and sow discord among the professors of religion. And notwithstanding all that the Devil and the Shaker Testimony can do, there are thousands of good and real christians in these different denominations, who have learned Christ; but are in charity with all men; and speak evil of no man, and as the elect of God, have put on holy and beloved bowels of mercy; for as charity thinketh no evil, and hopeth all things; for my part I hope this Shaker scheme of sowing discord among the brethren, will come to nought: for let difference of opinion divide true Christians into what sects it may, it is sure that all who are true Christians are worshipers of Jesus the true Christ, and members of his mystical body; and nothing short of the most dreadful delusions, and horrible apostasy, could make such become the followers of Anne Lee, or believe the Holy-ghost to be a female, and the Shaker Mother to be her daughter. For my part, I could just as soon with the ancient Persians, believe in the divinity of their God Oromazes, and Mythra his wife; or worship the Goddess Minerva with the Greeks, as dance / Shaker jigs; or trust to the delusions of Shakerism; that ridicule the christian belief of the Trinity, and introduce a whole family of Gods and Goddesses; that is father, son Mother and Daughter. For the Holy-ghost is represented as the Mother of Jesus Christ and Anne Lee; and I suppose if the Testimony could speak out freely all these thoughts on this subject, it might then fairly be inferred, that the Holy-ghost is the wife of God the Father, and a prostitute to John Lee of Manchester. Oh heathenish sentiment! And monstrous blasphemy. For the comfort and encouragement of all who assign their estates to the Shakers, and hope to recover any thing back again; I insert from their printed form of covenant, the following article. Testimony, Page 498 & 74. “And we do by these presents, solemnly covenant with each other, for ourselves and assigns, never hereafter, to bring debt or demand, against the said Deacons, or their successors, or against any member of the Church, or community, jointly or severally; on account of any our services,

80

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

or property; thus devoted and consecrated to the aforesaid sacred and charitable uses,” so that we may know what to think if a Shaker shall tell his audience, that on giving up their estates, there will be an inventory taken, for the purpose of returning their own back to them again, when they may chuse to leave them; for no words can be more solemn and binding, to convey a way a title to property, so that it might never be recovered again.

FINIS.

EUNICE CHAPMAN

Eunice Chapman, Letter to Lucy Wright, 4 December 1817. Shaker Collection, Western Reserve Historical Society. Eunice Chapman, Thomas Brown and Mary Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers, in the Case of Eunice Chapman & her Children Written by Herself (1817; Lebanon, OH: Printed by Van Vleet & Camron, 1818). Eunice Chapman made a vast deal of trouble about her children. Harrassed the Legislature a long while to get a law passed against the Believers. Her operations mostly concerned the people at Watervliet, but her enmity was directed against the Ministry & the society generally.1 Brother Isaac Newton Youngs

No survey of Shaker apostate writings would be complete without a look at the works of Eunice Chapman (1778–1863), or her fellow traveller in anti-Shaker agitation, Mary Marshall Dyer (1780–1867). Ilyon Woo has wonderfully retold Chapman’s story in her book The Great Divorce (2010).2 Likewise, Elizabeth A. De Wolfe’s Shaking the Faith: Women, Family, and Mary Marshall Dyer’s Anti-Shaker Campaign, 1815–1867 (2002)3 recounts Dyer’s lifelong struggle to regain her children, and also places Dyer within the larger context of Shaker apostacy. Both women married men in whom they had confidence, bore multiple children and saw their lives turned upside down when their husbands joined the Shakers – taking their children away from them, as was the legal right of a man in the early nineteenth century. Eunice Chapman’s husband James joined the Shakers at Watervliet, New York, in 1811. He took from Eunice her son George, and daughters Susan and Julia. In 1815 Chapman brought her case before New York State Legislature seeking a divorce from her husband, and ultimately custody of her children. Achieving either goal was unfathomable for a woman at the time. In 1817 she self-published a pamphlet An Account of the Conduct of the People Called Shakers, the first anti-Shaker work written by a woman. The publication made ample

– 81 –

82

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

use of affidavits, in the same way that Colonel James Smith had first done in his 1810 work Shakerism Detected (Volume 1, pp. 213–42). Chapman was met with incredulity that, as a woman, she could have written such a work. In an enlarged edition issued in 1818, the text of which is reproduced here, Chapman was obliged to defend her authorship, writing: ‘As it was suggested by many, that my first publication was written by a literary professional person, I will state that the printer, Mr. Abbey, can attest that it went from my hands to the press’ (p. 89, below). In the Account Eunice Chapman skilfully portrays herself as a helpless woman victimized by her husband and the Shakers. Chapman noted that she was a new sort of widow, only possible through the rise of Shakerism: ‘A woman bereaved of her husband and children and they still living, and she having no access to them is a widow wrapped in all the horrors of wretchedness!’ (p. 88). In truth, Chapman was proactive and bold in resolving her situation. She did not shrink before power, as her 1817 letter to Shaker leader Mother Lucy Wright demonstrates. Chapman addressed Mother Lucy by her married name of Lucy Goodrich, and threatened that ‘a woman can be as mighty to pull you down; as a woman was to build you up’ (p. 85). The woman who had pulled Mother Lucy up was Mother Ann Lee. As Woo has pointed out, Eunice Chapman successfully portrayed the meek woman that the public wished to aid, while simultaneously achieving her own ends by any means necessary. Her letter to Mother Lucy is reproduced below. Chapman’s case attracted national attention and resulted in the first legislative divorce in the history of New York State. A similarly abandoned and bereaved mother in Enfield, New Hampshire, watched the case carefully for guidance on how to handle her own personal crisis. Mary Marshall Dyer and her husband Joseph joined the Enfield Shaker community with their five children in 1813. Dyer soon regretted her choice because the Shakers dispersed her children throughout the village and they were no longer under her care. She left the community and plotted to get her children back. Dyer began a correspondence with Chapman, and the two women even lead a mob against the Enfield Shaker village in May 1818.4 In that same year Chapman ‘corrected and abridged a great part of the first publication’ and reissued it, adding much additional material. Anti-Shaker newspaper editor Abram Van Vleet of Lebanon, Ohio’s Western Star decided to issue this new edition of Chapman’s Account, expanded with local anti-Shaker materials, for use by Ohio-based Shaker detractors in 1818. This edition, reprinted here, is supplemented with letters written by Mary Dyer to Eunice Chapman, and texts of New York and Ohio state laws granting custody of children to the non-Shaker parent when a person joined the sect and their spouse did not. This printing of Chapman’s Account is the first anti-Shaker work showing a coordinated effort between geographically disparate groups of apostates. Chapman was aware of the earlier works of James Smith, and refer-

Eunice Chapman

83

ences them in her own text. She was also in correspondence with John C. Irvin, Smith’s son-in-law, and published a letter by him in the second edition of her Account. Depositions relating to the child custody battle of the Davis family, some of whom had been members of the Shaker community at Union Village, Ohio, also appear in the Lebanon edition of the Account. Mary Dyer began her own print war against the Shakers in 1818 with the publication of A Brief Statement of the Sufferings of Mary Dyer: Occasioned by the Society Called Shakers.5 Dyer also used affidavits to bolster her claims of maltreatment on the part of the Shakers and her husband Joseph towards herself and her children. Joseph Dyer answered Mary the same year with his own Shakerbacked publication A Compendious Narrative.6 De Wolfe has reprinted both of these texts with full critical apparatus in her book Domestic Broils: Shakers, Antebellum Marriage, and the Narratives of Mary and Joseph Dyer (2010). Union Village, Ohio, Shaker Richard McNemar, the ardent defender of Shakerism in the public press, rebutted Chapman’s Account with his lengthy work The Other Side of the Question: In Three Parts ... comprising a General Vindication of the Character of Mother and the Elders Against the Atacks of Public Slander, the Edicts of a Prejudiced Party, and the Misguided Zeal of Lawless Mobs.7 In this 175-page work, McNemar uses a slew of affidavits to deftly deconstruct and refute the claims of Chapman, Dyer and the Davis clan. Eunice Chapman issued no further publications attacking the Shakers, and neither did the Davises. However, Mary Dyer’s guest appearance in Chapman’s Account and her own Brief Statement were just the beginning of a fifty-two-year crusade against the Shakers. A full listing of Dyer’s publications can be found in the bibliography included in Volume 1 of this collection. Her Shakerism Exposed ([c. 1850]) is reprinted in this collection. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

I. N. Youngs, ‘A Concise View’, ASC 861b, p. 491. I. Woo, The Great Divorce (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2010). E. A. De Wolfe, Shaking the Faith: Women, Family, and Mary Marshall Dyer’s AntiShaker Campaign, 1815–1867 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). For a full account of this mob action, see E. A. De Wolfe, ‘The Mob at Enfield’, American Communal Societies Quarterly, 4:2 (April 2010), pp. 80–91. M. M. Dyer, A Brief Statement of the Sufferings of Mary Dyer: Occasioned by the Society Called Shakers (Concord, NH: Joseph C. Spear, 1818). J. Dyer, A Compendious Narrative Elucidating the Character, Disposition, and Conduct of Mary Dyer, from the Time of Her Marriage, in 1799, till She Left the Society Called Shakers, in 1815: with a few Remarks Upon Certain Charges which She has Since Published Against that Society: Together with Sundry Depositions by her Husband, Joseph Dyer; to which is annexed, a Remonstrance Against the Testimony and Application of the said Mary, for Legislative Interference. (Concord, NH: Printed by Isaac Hill, for the Author, 1818). R. McNemar, The Other Side of the Question: In Three Parts ... comprising a General Vindication of the Character of Mother and the Elders against the Atacks of Public Slander, the Edicts of a Prejudiced Party, and the Misguided Zeal of Lawless Mobs (Cincinnati, OH: Looker, Reynolds & Co., printers, 1819).

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

Eunice Chapman, Letter to Lucy Wright, 4 December 1817. Shaker Collection, Western Reserve Historical Society.

Albany Dec 4th 1817 1

Mrs Lucy Goodrich I have twice been to your Village2 to see you, hopeing an interview with you would induce you to be satisfyed it would be best for your people to restore to me my children – I now call upon you to take the matter into serious consideration & judge whether you had not better hastily restore them, & grant me some compensation for all my trouble on account of your sosciety’s abuse to me & my children & thereby prevent your compleat overthrow – You know on what a foundation you stand – The sword of justice is lifted against you, & you cannot sheathe it unless you comply with the above, speedily – Remember that a woman can be as mighty to pull you down; as a woman was3 to build you up – If you think it is for revenge, remember that a woman can dive deep in that art even to exceed an army – I shall wait till Christmas for an answer from you, before I proceed any farther; mean time I shall be making preparations as I now am – If you treat this letter as your sosciety has every other they have received from me you will not hear from me again very soon only through the hands of others as an instrument. Eunice Chapman

– 85 –

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

Eunice Chapman, Thomas Brown and Mary Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers, in the Case of Eunice Chapman & her Children Written by Herself (Lebanon, OH: Printed by Van Vleet & Camron, 1818).

TO THE READER. In offering to the public the following work, the present publishers deem any apology unnecessary – but will observe that its publication has been repeatedly solicited by several gentlemen of respectability. The circumstances related by Mrs. Chapman are calculated to arouse the honest indignation of every sympathetic bosom, against a people, who, under the garb of religion can act the vile and inhumane part of which they must here plead guilty. The case of Mrs. Chapman was twice before the legislature of the state of New-York, the result of which was a special act putting it out of the power of the Shakers in that state, again, to tear the tender offspring from the disconsolate mother, and place them under strange and cruel masters, who compel all committed to their care to join in the wild delusions of this society; thus wresting from them the right of conscience, in choosing the manner of worshiping God – and violating the Constitution of the U. States, which secures to all that sacred privilege. The validity of what she has stated, with respect to the treatment which she received from the Shakers, appears to be pretty well tested as may be seen by the affidavits of several persons of respectability – but should any be disposed to doubt, by comparing her account of the shakers in Niskauna,1 (N.Y.) with the conduct of those of this neighborhood, (as stated in the depositions of several persons of undoubted veracity, taken and published in the year 1817 and which are added to this work) they will discover a similarity in their general conduct, which is, as we conceive, a strong presumptive evidence of the truth of her relation. Should there still be any unacquainted with the imposing and irreligious conduct of the Shakers, the editors hope, that among the benefit which may result from this publication,

– 87 –

88

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

will be that of laying before the unwary, the melancholy example of those who have been ruined by Shaker cunning and duplicity; that they may thus avoid the rock on which so many of our fellow citizens have split. EDITORS. Lebanon,2 November 1818. /

PREFACE. Sovereign Providence has so ordered this interesting event, that I am again compelled to appear before the public, and expose the errors and crimes of that people who profess to be the peaceable followers of Christ – and have undertaken another painful task which calls my sorrows up afresh, and again bedims mine eyes with tears. Think not my friends, that it is unpopular to listen to the cries of the distressed, because they have so often reached the ears of your honorable body, when the inevitable happiness or misery of thousands will be dependent on the result, and perhaps some of your own dear offspring, when, after you have retired to the shades of declining life, or taken your last farewell of this world of sorrows. Moreover, brethren, this is the second time I have written unto you to stir you up by way of remembrance, of the important and weighty business before you. As we ought to consider it an unavoidable duty to take the most earnest heed, least at any time thou shouldst let them slip. In the days of yore, “there was in a city a judge – and there was a widow in that city – and she came unto him saying, avenge me of mine adversary – and he would not for a while – but afterwards he said within himself, because this woman troubleth me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.” Luke, cap.18. No sooner does the cries of a bereaved widow pierce the ears of the ears of the humane part of our world, than their hearts expand with the keenest sensibility, and desires to administer consolation, to sooth their grief by powerful exertions which they are sanctioned by even Christ himself. See Luke 11. 16. A woman bereaved of her husband and children and they still living, and she having no access to them / is a widow wrapped in all the horrors of wretchedness! – Hence the reader will find in the succeeding narrative, the history of a woman (or widow) suffering persecution from a society of Shakers, after they had prosylited her husband and bereaved her of her children. Although many of her sex have endured similar treatment from the same source, yet they have not been generally known. Hence the writer conceives it her duty to lay before the public, a true account of her trials and sufferings, which will be, in the mean time, relating the afflictions of many other women, only with variation of circumstances. I have corrected and abridged a great part of the first publication, in order to give place for the relation of some important facts which were omitted in the first for want of room. I have published an additional number of pages in

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

89

order to include several new and important depositions respecting the present state of my children, and further particulars respecting my own and Mr. Chapman’s3 characters, and communications from women in similar circumstances with myself, lately received, and a refutation of the Shakers’ remonstrance to the proceedings of the legislature against them, in the session of 1817, written and signed by the people who have lived many years with them. For the sake of obtaining relief for my children and the unfortunate part of my sex, I have remained in Albany,4 and for my support, my time has been much occupied in the business of teaching a school, mixed with anxious solicitude for my captive babes, while tossed on the billows of disappointment and affliction I must beg the candid reader to overlook its numerous imperfections. Imperious necessity compels me to give these additional facts, to the public, and it is with the greatest reluctance, from respect to Mr. Chapman’s connections – but as my friends have suffered the martification of several times seeing my name scandalized in the public prints, by a husband, who has, contrary to his solemn / vows and marriage covenant, forsaken me, without any other cause than that of his being deluded by the Shakers:– Therefore from a sense of duty to my relatives, and justice to myself, I have been driven to the resolution of giving a true account of his transactions. As it was suggested by many, that my first publication was written by a literary professional person, I will state that the printer, Mr. Abbey, can attest that it went from my hands to the press. I thank them for the compliment, and acknowledge I should not have thought myself competent to the task, had I not been driven to it by the torrent of adversity. I thank the public for their patronage, and I thank them for the sensibility they have exhibited on the occasion. If the reader should observe any thing in the following statement, not becoming the meekness which ought to characterise my sex, I wish that reader to consider, it is written by a persecuted woman, who has been hurled from a state of wealth and happiness, and now enduring indigence and grief ! One who has been tortured in the whirlwind of affliction and woe, very aggravating and calamitous. It may appear incredible to many, that any society in this enlightened age and country, should be controlled by such wild enthusiasm, and guilty of such cruel conduct as I have related. But many of the circumstances here introduced, I can prove by candid and respectable witnesses. As it appears that God has singled me out in this furnace of affliction, to be an instrument in his hand of exposing the errors and delusions of the Shakers, I have been so careful in my statements, that I am able to attest to it; and when God shall summon me before His awful tribunal. I may be able to cheerfully render up my account for what I have written. EUNICE CHAPMAN. Albany, January, 1818. /

90

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

A concise history of the dealings of the people called Shakers, with Eunice Chapman and her Children. To satisfy those who have the curiosity to make any enquiry concerning my standing and character, I will state I am a native of Bridgeport, in the state of Connecticut; my father Elijah Hawley, was a respectable merchant in that town, and a deacon of the Presbyterian church; he is now post-master in the town of Broome, in the country of Schorie and state of New-York. My brother, Jesse Hawley, has removed to the town of Rochester, in the county of Genesee, and superintends the custom-house, which is situated on the mouth of the Genessee river and lake Ontario; my brother, Elijah Hawley jun. Esq. lives in the town of Ridgeway, in the country of Genessee, and is post-master; and my brother-inlaw, Peter Penfield, Esq. resides in the town of Harpersfield, Delaware county. In the year 1802, my father commenced the mercantile business, in the town of New-Durham, county of Greene, and state of New-York, where I became acquainted with James Chapman, who was then a respectable merchant in the same town. Mr. Chapman sought many opportunities to pay his addresses to me; but through the disparity of his age, and from some particular prejudices I had imbibed against him, it was with difficulty that he succeeded. But in the year 1804, I left the gay circles of youth with all my flattering prospects, and renounced the protection of the best of parents and was married to the said James Chapman. He was formerly from Saybrook, in the state of Connecticut, of a respectable family. He has a brother, the hon. Asa Chapman, living in Newton, in the state of Connecticut, and a brother, Nathaniel Chapman, Esq. now living in New-Jersey, who formerly lived in Troy, and a brother-in-law Davis Beers, merchant in New-York. From the year 1804, until about the year 1809, I lived with him in the most cordial harmony, stupid / and insensible to his faults – vigilant to make his life comfortable and happy, when he, about this time, had several interviews with the Shaking Quakers;5 after which he gave himself up to a continual intoxication and vice.* When in his sober hours, I, with eyes dissolved in tears entreated of him for the sake of the dear pledges of our natural love, to refrain from dissipation, lest it would result in the misery of his family. With a conscience awakened to horror and despair, he would hurry to the haunts of vice to get a draught to drown his senses and to stifle his conscience. He would frequently return home at a late hour of the night with such a very menacing countenance and conduct, that I often felt in imminent danger of my life. As he would express his intentions, and the rancor of his heart, by twisting his mouth and gnashing his teeth *

I omit to relate the particulars of his infidelity, as being too indelicate to appear before the public, one instance of which, I had ocular demonstration in his own house.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

91

with malignant leers and askaunt looks, which flew like barbed arrows to my bleeding heart. wrent with awful forebodings! At one particular time he took his razor and sat near my bedside, and appeared to be preparing it for immediately executing the vengeance which his countenance bespoke; and I, fearful of letting him know I observed the awful forebodings which were hovering around me, had no retreat but to trust in that God who is able to disarm the greatest tyrant. His own sister observed that his conduct had been so inhuman that she was afraid to meet him alone, and that his treatment to me was such, she considered it dangerous for me to live with him. By his own conversation I learned that he was cruel to his first wife; and his own mother once observed that “James’ conduct to his first wife was so inhuman it shortened her days, as she fell into a decline and died within three years after her marriage; and Eunice, you will yet rue the day you ever saw him.” / His daughter6 once observed that “provided her father had been kind to his first wife she might now have seen her own mother living!” Mr. Chapman’s daughter was 13 years old when I was married to him; in the year 1810, she was married to a wealthy merchant in Delaware. She has ever manifested a perpetual disapprobation of her father’s ill conduct, and even said that, “provided her father had conducted himself as well as her step-mother, they might always have lived respectably.” She, (like her own mother) has the character of an amiable woman, beloved and respected; and for her sake, it is with the greatest reluctance that I expose Mr. Chapman’s conduct; tho’ if it should be the means of restoring her dear brother and sisters from a state of captivity, I am confident she would willingly endure it. When I was daily expecting to be confined and in a very low and peculiar state of health, he was so displeased with me because I was unwilling to be confined in a new plastered room, he forbade my nurse making a fire in any other room, and forsook my lodgings for some time, and would frequently torture me by saying, that when Doctor was called to visit me, he would consider it his duty to take my life. He evidently was divested of every tender feeling even for his children, for during a time when they all lay sick, he would not notice them, and in fact he did not provide for them the comforts of life. – Shakerism was evidently riveted in his breast, as his bitterness to his family appeared to result from dissipation and those flighty impressions that it was wrong to continue with me as a wife; and when I could by earnest solicitations prevail on him to return to his family, he would, in the morning, kneel by my bed-side and beg God to forgive him for sleeping with me; and often when I was caressing my children, he would say “I should never have the privilege of bringing them up.” In March, 1810, I went with him to visit his brother in Troy. His brother’s wife observing his ill conduct and treatment to me, said “were I in your place I would not live with James; I feel afraid his / visit will corrupt my husband’s mor-

92

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

als.” His conduct afforded me the most bitter and corrosive sorrows, which, for their respectability, I bore in silence, so that my neighbors thought me insensible to it; thro’ the means of which misconduct I, from a blooming maid, the picture of health had become reduced to a depicted skeleton. In July 1811, he abandoned his family, and caused them to be stripped of every article of furniture (except my bed) and every morsel of provision, and took the last cow and sheep they had, together with all his money and notes to a considerable amount. He suffered his real estate, which was worth about 6000 dollars, to be sold for 1500 when his personal estate was more than sufficient to discharge the demands of his creditors, and left me with three small children,7 the eldest six, and the youngest two and an half years old, whose delicate constitution was illy fitted to endure the hardships to which they were exposed.* His brother Asa Chapman offered to redeem his property provided he would return to his family and become a steady man. His son-in-law, offered the same. His aged father, often with a heavy sigh, said “Oh dear, I could wish it was otherwise with my son James; his conduct will bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.† But with regard to any tender feeling for family or friends, James appeared to be a confirmed Shaker. In Oct. 1811, Mr. Chapman, (then unknown to me, but I am since credibly informed) went to New-York, and ranged in the haunts of vice! while I, in my low state of health, standing on the borders of the grave as it were, was left with his little orphans, exposed to the chilling blasts of wintry days and nights. Those trying / scenes threw my son into fits which continued for two years! Through many a dreary midnight hour when all nature was hushed in silence, I walked my room in darkness, (as I was deprived of light) when every step appeared like traveling over the tombs and groaned and wept o’er my poor babes when they were lulled asleep, and could not hear my moans! My daughter-in-law and other friends who were abundantly able, kindly offered to take some of them; but it was such a – “Delightful task To rear their tender thoughts,”

Which I experienced for their sakes, that it softened every hardship In Oct.1815, I received a letter from Mr. Chapman, informing me that he had “found the New-Jerusalem, the city of God, &c. and he would soon bring his children from under the power and reign of Antichrist,” &c. He “rejoiced that they never had the mark of the beast put upon them,” (meaning baptism.) *

†

It is necessary to state, that the Hon. Thomas B.Cook of Catskill, bid off the property, and kindly granted me the privilege of remaining in the house free of rent, and other privileges on the land, until my children were taken from me – I then left it out of choice. He died in April, 1814.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

93

In Nov. following he returned to Durham and said he “had enlisted on board an American privateer ship, got the bounty and deserted, and joined the Shakers.” Among the numberless abuses I received from him, he took my two eldest children from me, and put one of them under the care of a woman, with whom I had every reason to believe he had been unlawfully intimate for several years. But he soon grew weary of the expense and sent them back to me, and I was the second time left their sole protector and provider. At length affection resumed the seat of reason, and I consented to visit the Shakers in Niskeuna in company with him and his brother John Chapman, &c. We left James there* and returned to Durham. His brother John advised me not to let the Shakers take my child; – But unfortunately he caught the epidemic and died in a week after his return; and left a bereaved / widow with seven orphans. Mr. Chapman frequently came to Durham and I received many degrading insults from him. He would force the children from the table and say “they should not eat with such a sinner,” & c. He often spit in my face in their presence, and said “it was the filthiest place he could find,” (meaning defiled with sin.) He boasted that he had been guilty of a breach of the seventh commandment, and would go and confess it in order to help me obtain a divorse from him if I wished one. I bore these insults with patience, and often in silence. I taught my children to respect him as a parent. In September, 1814, Mr. Chapman came to Durham, and said that the Shakers had built a house for me and my children to live in, and they would provide things necessary for us,” & c. He had considerable money with him, but said he was forbidden to afford any assistance to his family with it. In Oct. following, I had business to Albany, and rode out to the Shaker village in Niskauna, to see whether they had provided those things for us.† I asked S. Y. Wells8 if there was any house or provision made for the family; he said “Nay.” “We chose you should suffer tribulation, in order to bring you to embrace the gospel, and if James does not bring in his children soon, he cannot remain with us,” & c. After Mr. Chapman had joined the Shakers, he collected notes to a considerable amount, and took the money with him. The morning previous to my leaving Niskeuna, Mr. Chapman told me he was going to the next family, Calvin Wells,9 and I should not see him again. Elders S. Y. Wells and Joseph Hodgson10 both told me that James was at the next family’s. They gave me a little cloathing for my children. They directed me the wrong way to Albany, I got lost and had to wander in the thick woods so great a distance that it was a / very dark before I could find a place where I could put up. * †

I learn that many such characters join them and but seldom leave them, as they make excellent elders. My sister came to Durham and took the charge of my children in my absence.

94

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I resolved to return home and be thankful that my children were not among the Shakers; but to my surprise they had sent James to force them away before I could reach home. When I returned home my house was desolate! No sound of my dear babes’ footsteps was heard running to meet me and welcome my return. My sister with difficulty assisted me to enter again, those dismal apartments; and when I did, they re-echoed to my groans! In vain my friends and neighbors came in to soothe my distracted mind! All my troubles which I thought were insurmountable, fled before this; and I said I never knew grief till now! Those who have had their friends taken captive by the savages, can better realize my feelings than I can describe! I felt disposed to say, Oh, Lord! why didst thou not lay them all a lifeless lump of clay! then I could see and know their end. Mr. Chapman’s brother, Nathaniel Chapman, from Troy, being at Durham at this time, assisted him in finding the children. Judge Barker and Wm. Chapman esq. entreated him to let the children remain until I returned home. But Mr. Chapman declared it was my intention to remain with the Shakers, and that I had sent for the children. In order to induce the children to go willingly he told them they were going to their mother. It was near night when he took them away, and the poor children had been all day in the cold and without food, running from place to place to hide from their father. The day was cold and tedious, and I learn that when they arrived at Albany, it was near night, and that Mr. Chapman went to a public house and left the poor little strangers in the waggon exposed to the inclemenies of the weather. A gentleman who was acquainted with Mr. Chapman, saw them shivering with the cold, took such pity on them as to leave his business to take them into the house. The gentleman / states, that Mr. Chapman told him, they were some poor fatherless and motherless children, who were sent by him to be given to the Shakers; and he had nothing to do but to land them there. Orphans indeed!! Disowned by a father! after being taken like captives by him, and then enslaved for life! The gentleman also observed, that one of the children had lost its shoes, and that Mr. Chapman was ill-natured and inhuman to them. I have every reason to be1ieve that he was intoxicated before he left Albany; and he had then to drive eight miles that night – the dear little captives must have almost perished with cold and hunger! He immediately put an advertisement in the Catskill paper, forbidding all persons “harboring or trusting me on his account. “As soon as possible, I, with my two brothers-in-law, Mr. Penfield and Mr. Spencer, proceeded to Niskeuna. By chance we got sight, of the children. – The Shakers had told them I had “run off with another man and would never come near them again.” It was their intention to prevent my seeing them. They told me that “when my son thought he must give up all hopes of seeing me again, he fell into the greatest distress, fell down and rolled back and forth over the floor like one in the agonies of death!

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

95

cryed and begged of them to let him see his mother; his agony was such, that a strong man could not hold him.” My son was troubled with a pain in his breast; he complained that dancing increased that pain so that he almost fainted and fell upon the floor, and the Shakers threatened him severe chastisement if he did not dance faster. I saw several instances of their cruelty to him. For a son, he was remarkably attached to his mother, and was uncommonly dutiful; he would immediately forsake any amusements and run at my commands. He assisted me much in the care of the family. When I was sick he would stay with me and afford me every relief in his power. I placed much dependence on him, and flattered myself that he would be a great support to me in my declining years. / His first business in the morning was, to take the bible and read several chapters. When he had read it once through, he observed to his little fellows, that he learned by the bible that “Cyrus was the greatest king which is recorded in ancient history.” On the sabbath, after Church, he would teach his sisters the catechism; and after they got through, they would all kneel and say their prayers together. Every night after they had retired to rest he would call on his sisters to say prayers with him. What a loss to a mother to be deprived of such a son!* But I must drop my pen – and vent my grief in tears! My daughters were equally promising. Mr. Chapman had placed Susan, (my eldest) under the care of a woman, whom I have learned by good authority, that, previous to her joining the Shakers, had two illegitimate children, and one of them was by a married man. Mr. Chapman said “she is a beautiful sister.” She was very cruel to my dear Susan and caused her to weep bitterly. She said, weeping, “Mamma, father has bound me here, and Elder S. Y. Wells held my hand, and I did not know what I signed my name to, until after the indenture was completed; and then they told me and tortured me about it.” Little Julia was a very endearing child and my solace in the bitter hours of sorrow. I daily caressed her as my dear babe. She being under the age of seven years, (which is by law, considered as a state of nursing,) they dare not bind her. My brothers wept for them in their unhappy situation, and offered to secure Mr. Chapman from any expense if they would return them to me. The Shakers said “I had well educated and instructed them, and they were fine children and behaved well but they were now Gods children” and no tears or intreaties, could soften and impress their / hard hearts. They intimated that my children soon would he carried to a distant society of Shakers. After my brothers had cautioned me on account of the danger of the Shakers misrepresenting my conduct, and made some provision for me near the Shakers, they returned home. *

See Brown’s history of the Shakers,11 p.287, 358; where he gives an account of several women being deprived of their children and property after their husbands had joined the shakers, & left ‘desolate & destitute.’

96

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Soon after my brothers were gone, I had orders to go out of their house. Here my sorrows were called up a fresh; being forced to leave my clear babes, not knowing whether I should ever behold them again. I went to my husband and Hannah Wells12 (their first Eldress and sister to Elder S. Y. Wells) weeping and begging of them not to take them away. They replied “The gift of God must be obeyed” (meaning the Elders) and as God had taken my husband, property and children from me. I now had nothing to do but to confess my sins and obey the gospel.” &c. In the evening (Dec. 24,) I went to board among strangers near the Shaker Village. On the 28th, Mr. Chapman and another Shaker, Issachar Bates, jun.13 came after me, they carried me to a strange house some distance from my children. They introduced me to Fanny Waterman14 (the Eldress of that family) and told me I must confess my sins to her, and if I wished to see my children I must ask her liberty, &c.* They said I had liberty to stay two weeks on trial and if I would embrace their sentiments it would be a happy circumstance. Sabbath morning, January 1, it being the first day of the week and the first day of the year, I could not attend their church; but I saw the women make / preparation. – They went before the glass and changed their caps at least four or five times in the course of the day. In the evening, I sat with them in their union meeting, and saw the spiritual husbands each with his spiritual wife15 with draw to different apartments. I observed to one of the sisters, that there was a general courtship throughout the house. I was continually kept in anxious suspense about my children, I saw them but very little, and when I was allowed the privilege of seeing them I was not permitted to see them alone, I was even denied the comfort of sleeping with my dear babe, for once, in my wishful arms. I could only look at them, and observe how they delighted to see me, and realize how opposite my situation was to a few weeks ago – When I could enjoy their endearing caresses without control, which softened every grief, and reflect on the awful change! Jan. 3d, as I and my Susan was setting in a room with several Shaker women, she pointed to Lavina Bates,16 and said that she was James’ spiritual wife. Lavina left the room & I did not see her again during that visit† In the evening the different families came in to attend a general union meeting; I was ordered out of the house, *

†

I have since been informed by a respectable citizen in Albany, that, “at the time Fanny embraced the Shaker religion, he resided in the same town with her. He states that Fanny and her brother, (who also joined that society) were very kind and affectionate to their mother previous to their joining them. After that, they called her all the indelicate names they could invent; took from her all her property, leaving her, in her old age, destitute of the comforts of life.” Hannah Train17 told me that Lavina’s husband Issacher Bates,18 was sent to Ohio and it was very grievous to her (Lavina,) at first, but now she would not have it otherwise. A son of Lavina, Issacher Bates, jun. always accompanied Mr. Chapman when he waited on me in a waggon.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

97

but did not obey, and my children were dragged out of the room where I was, and I compelled to stay alone; and while I endured fearful forebodings I was surprisingly alarmed at the astonishing noise and confusion. They sung, talked, and jumped about the floor and pronounced “jub, jub, jub, lobble, lobble, lobble,” &c. &c. – Hannah told me that some of them had a gift to speak in unknown tongues. * Soon after they dismissed their meeting, I was driven out of the house. Shortly after James Chapman’s spiritual wife, was found fallen down breathless. Jan. 5, I visited a family who were not Shakers, when I returned I saw they were displeased; they soon began their worship. I found they were spatting their hands, stamping, jumping and whirling about; and saying “hiss, hiss, hiss!” and crying “hate the devil, hate the devil; chain the devil, chain the devil!” &c. I opened the door, to see them, but the noise so confounded me, and my eyes were so filled with dust that I was forced to retreat. The house shook so tremendously, that I ran out doors for safety. – Surely, thought I, God can never be truly worshiped in such a manner. Next day Hannah said, I might a think strange of their having such a meeting the evening before; but they were obliged to have such a meeting, because I had been among the people of the world, and brought such a host of evil spirits, that they creeped all over them, and even got into their mouths.” I enquired if she could see them? She replied ‘Yea.’ And how did the look? “They looked like caterpillars.” She continued. “We always have such a meeting after the world’s people have been amongst us in order to drive off their evil spirits, and chain them down; and then we enjoy such peace as the world knows not of.”† Hannah hoping to drive the evil spirits out of me, called upon the sisters to join with her and pray over “poor Eunice.” She began to sigh and groan but hearing the voice of a man in the other room she left her prayers and fled into that room. / I often, observed, that when the women heard the voice of a man in an adjoining room, they ran immediately into that room. I saw the sexes were fond of being in each other’s company. – The Elders and Eldresses often sat together evenings. I could hear them over my head in full glee! January 8th, I got liberty to go and see my son, which was the only time I was allowed that privilege. He was in a shop braiding whip-thongs: by which he earned eight or ten shillings a day, which so blistered his little fingers that the flesh was bare. I learned that the children often have their nails eat off by the lime which is in the leather. The women said, that “the world’s people stank of their — and they could even smell them when they came into their church” – they said bah, bah, how they stink. *

†

During the time I was there I accidently discovered a three gallon jug full of excellent bitters in the Elders closet. See Browns history of the Shakers page 297, 289, 290, 291, where he gives an account of Ann and the Elders, being intoxicated at different times. / 1 have been informed, that they often have such meetings, after any of their brethren return from business with the people of the world.

98

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I saw they were anxious for me to depart; but Oh! the agonies of death cannot be more painful, than the struggles in my breast to refrain from weeping, when I saw I must take my last farewell of my dear son. My anxiety to refrain from tears, was to prevent any alarm to my son, and thereby entail those fits on him. On my return I called to see my daughters. The children among the Shakers have only evenings to learn their book: and part of that time is taken up in learning to dance. This being the evening they attend their union meeting, I was constrained to sit alone. As I walked through the hall I passed the door of a room where I saw Mr. Chapman conversing with his spiritual wife. On the evening of the 9th, as I was preparing to go, Hannah Wells came and forced my dear babe out of the room where I was. I immediately sought for her, and found her placed in the corner of a room, crying bitterly! The poor child durst not tell me what she was crying for. Thus I parted with her, reflecting how similar my situation was to those poor mothers, who have had their children forced from their breasts by the savages. I suppose the reason why they tortured me the most about my youngest, was, because they saw I was more particularly attached to her. / The reader may inquire, why I suffered myself and children to be controlled by them? The fact is, I was afraid of having them carried where I could never see them again! I told the eldress, if she would indulge me with the privilege of coming often to see my children, I would be content not to speak to them, if she forbid it. During the time I was there I saw Mr. Chapman attending to the low drudgery of the family, even to feeding the swine; which before he joined that society he never so much as attend to shutting up and fattening his own pork. I asked him if he could not see that it was his duty to take his children and live with me again; he could nevertheless be a Shaker, and teach the children their faith, only grant me the privilege of living with, and nursing them. He replied, “It would be a great loss to me, to live with you again; and I cannot do any thing without a gift (that is liberty,) from the Elders.” The Shakers presented me with an old gown and a pair of old stockings, they at the same time said “Eunice you are a nasty dirty good-for-nothing —; and you are worse than the brutes for being the mother of children. – Confess your nasty dirty sins, and travel out of your carnal nature, and walk in the way of God. Do you not know that you world’s people are vastly beneath the brutes, for being joined in wedlock, and living in the manner you do. Did you ever know the brutes guilty of such [particular crimes] which you people of the world are guilty of.” – Delicacy prohibits my relating all their conversation. They continued, “Eunice, we all testify to you this day, that we live pure and holy lives, we touch no unclean thing!” &c. I heard a continual din, of confess your sins, & put on a cap,19 and forsake the carnal filthy practices of the world, and walk in the way of God. There is no transactions which has passed the most dissolute, but comes out in full & plain

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

99

words in that society; without regard to age or sex! I did not conceive it could enter into the human heart to invent such language. / Hannah accused me of “trying to seduce my husband and declared that provided I could meet him alone, I would seduce him, I plead my innocence, and told her provided I could expose all James’ conduct towards me since he joined their society, she would know that it was not through his goodness that he had been kept virtuous. She (as she often did) bid me hold my tongue and seized hold of my lips and held them closed for some time. Meanwhile she said, Eunice, you know you tell a lie! and all the world’s women are so carnal, that their actions and even their very looks have a tendency to seduce the brethren, and lead them from the way of God, &c. They alternately kissed me, and flattered me by saying that I “behaved excellently well, and would make an excellent good believer if I would join them.” and “Eunice we know you have some faith in us, for it is impossible to continue so long with such pure and holy people without gaining faith,” &c. They many times attempted to frighten me – Hannah says “O Eunice! what a sinner you are! what mercies you abuse, for slighting the offers of salvation that are now held out to you” – she sighs and groans! Oh! what a view I have of the miseries which are coming upon you, like a torrent, in this life! and more especially in the world of spirits! if you do not embrance the gospel whilst your day of grace lasts! Oh, could you but have the same view of them, that I have – but you cannot.* Oh, Eunice, in a very short / time, you will lift up your eye in torment, and behold me afar off ; and you will call upon me dip the tip of my finger in water to cool your parched tongue!” I enquired whether she would give it me? “Nay – I shall not be permitted to do it. I shall sit in Heaven and laugh!” I said, what you sit in Heaven and laugh at the sight of My misery! “Yea, me and all the saints of God here – we shall laugh at your calamity and mock when your fear cometh, and your desolation as a whirlwind!” Here I must confess, that though established in the firm belief of the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion; still, I many times trembled, when I heard them groan and talk in such a manner. Oh, can it be expected that young people and children who are brought up in their superstition and ignorance, will ever leave them? If one mature in judgment is alarmed at their denunciations, thought I, what must be the feelings of youth, when they heap the threatenings of eternal wrath upon them? *

I since supposed that Hannah knew they would soon thrust me into the open world, destitute and unprotected, as they had many women in like cases, and imagined I would be as misserable as some who had lost their reason in consequence of such treatment. There are women who are thus miserable, because they could not join the Shakers in opposition to their conscience. – And a number of women who are now in the Shaker society, were forced to join it, by reason of their husbands first joining them, and taking their children and leaving their wives no means of support.

100

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

On the evening of the 11th, Eider Calvin Wells, (brother to S. Y. Wells) and Mr. Chapman, came into the room where I was, and the women all went out. – Mr. Chapman said “Eunice do you want any of our faith?” I answered No. “Well your gift here is out; you have made the saints of God so much trouble you can stay no longer’.’ I replied that the women often said I “had behaved exceeding well.” Calvin Wells replied, “You are a very wicked woman for having broken our orders in staying so long when you went to see your son; and you shall stay no longer.” This was the only offence they presumed to accuse me of. In reply I made some remarks upon Mr. Chapman’s obligations to his family, and my unhappy and destitute condition. I told Mr. Chapman I was willing to stay during life, if it would be less expence to him. – But I could not embrace their religion: neither would I molest them in their’s. I would conform to them in every other respect. They replied – “Unless you unite with us, you cannot endure to live with such a pure and holy people as we / are; the fire of Mount Zion will consume you;” &c. The women tormented me about that old gown which they gave me few days before, and said if I wore it away it would be a perfect hell to me as it would burn my flesh off my bones. Mr. Chapman soon came again, and told me I “must prepare to go immediately.” Here, like the patriarch of old, when he was commanded to give up his son upon the altar, my faith was put to the severest test – Whether to renounce my belief in the doctrines of the christian religion, and put myself under the control of the Shakers or to leave my captive babes. I plead that I was unwilling to expose my health (as it was then storming) when I was destitute of a home. He replied “you shall go.” I told him my aversion to launch into the world among strangers and unprotected; and when I saw he was inflexible to all my tears and entreaties, I said, with some degree of I temerity, that I would not go, and he should maintain me. I then related several instances of Mr. Chapman’s impositions and abuse to me after he joined the Shakers. I saw it pleased them to think he had traveled so far in the way of their profession, as to be inclined to treat his carnal wife in such a manner. I then thought it my duty to inform the women that since James had become a Shaker, he at different times had driven me from my lodgings to the neighbors at a late hour of the night, by coming to the house and getting into my bed. Hannah said “Eunice do you not think you are a little crazy.” They appeared more anxious for me to depart; and Hannah than took me by the arm and said “you must be obedient to your husband,”* and shoved me down stairs, and held me till the other women put on my coat and hat in a ridiculous manner; tied my socks together and slung / them across my arm, shoved me out of doors, and thrust me *

I did not forget to acknowledge that women should obey the injunction of the inspired writer. “Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord.”

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

101

into an open waggon. – Meanwhile some of the women stood at the door laughing at my odd appearance. I begged of Mr. Chapman, to carry me back to the place where he took me from about a fortnight before – as I had left my trunk and other articles there, and had not with me, a change of apparel. But the Shakers said they were a wicked people there, and would corrupt me. In that situation Mr. Chapman and Isachar Bates Junr. drove me off, without permitting me to see my children to bid them farewell. They drove through the rain to Albany, where all were then entire strangers to me. They stopped at a public house, & left me in the street, without giving me a farthing of money, or making any provision for me. The family, however invited me into the house; but the agitation of my mind was such, together with the ludicrous appearance of my dress, that the young women told the lady of the house that a crazy woman had come! Mr. Chapman, in order to make me appear disgraceful and ridiculous in the view of every citizen, put an advertisement in the public pappers, “forbidding all persons harboring or trusting me on his account.” Being still unwilling to return to my friends so far distant from my children, I wandered the streets in quest of some employment. In a short time the lady, where I had put up, invited me to stay in her family during the winter, and I accepted the invitation. I informed my friends of my stiuation, and one of my brothers soon came to Albany to assist me. On Sunday, February 5, my brother waited upon me to the Shaker village, in company with one of the members of the legislature.20 They went with the view of persuading the Shakers to return me one or both of my daughters. And presumed that a member of the legislature could easily persuade them to do it. The gentlemen stopped at the church and I travelled a / mile on foot to the house where my daughters were; the snow was very deep. The Shaker Elders & Eldresses had gone to church and I enjoyed a comfortable visit with my daughters before they returned. My daughters’ captivity appeared so awful to them they were very solicitous for me to take them away. After the Elders returned, my daughters were taken into a private room and locked up. I went immediately in pursuit of them, and wrapped at a door and one of the women opened it. – Here I found my youngest. As I went to her and pressed her cheek to mine, Hannah Wells (their Eldress) gave me a shove and said “Eunice, begone from among the sisters! you are such a filthy creature, you are not fit to be near us!” She took hold of me, with two other women, and shoved me violently out of the room – and that is the last sight I had of my dear babe. As I stood alone in the hall, trembling and fainting on account of the violent treatment I had just received – Patty Carter21 (their second Eldress,) came to me and said, “you shall never come into this house again!” I replied, “I shall come where

102

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

my husband and children are.” Hannah then came and said “You have got no husband?” I replied “If you give me my children you are welcome to my husband!” Here I must pause for a moment, and adore that Allwise and merciful Benefactor, who hath supported me and preserved my reasoning faculties; and not left me to be a wandering ideot, like many other poor women, rendered so by the unkind treatment of the Shakers.* My brother Elijah Hawley, junr. also came to Albany to assist me. He went to the shaker village on the 8th of February: But he could not see Mr. Chapman or the children. The Shakers told him that Mr. Chapman had gone with the children, they knew not where They gave him a letter which they said / James left to be sent to me. The substance of which is as follows: “There was a dissolution of the marriage contract between him and me.” – And he fully believes in Christ’s Second appearing.*** That all who have wives should live as though they had none. He believes it is his duty to break every bond – and to follow Christ in the regeneration.” and that “God hath called him for the very purpose of bringing his children into Christ’s Kingdom; and he cheerfully obeys the call, yea, and he will obey it!” He has “brought them out from the wicked world of mankind, and they are consecrated to God in his chosen and peculiar people.” &c, “And all the power of darkness cannot remove them.” &c. [Meaning our legislature, as the Shakers began to be apprehensive their would be a law passed for my relief.] He says, “It is probable that he shall remain with the children until they become of age, if he should live so long.” And that “it is not likely I shall see his face again in this life! nor the children of which I was the natural mother.” The few first years after my marriage, I thought, and even said, “provided Mr. Chapman should die and I left alone with my bereaved orphans, I could not possibly survive the loss.” But I have lived through incomparably greater trials; for if I had in succession, buried a dozen of the best husbands in the state with all their children, and I, alternately stripped of all their property, it would have been but trifling affliction compared with my past trials, present and future prospects. The hon. Mr. Paine, (the gentleman who had accompained us to the Shaker village,) was so dissatisfied with what he personally saw of the conduct of the Shakers, that he immediately, laid a petition before the legislature (in my behalf,) and on that account, there was a general law passed, April 17, 1815, authorizing a judge of the supreme court to send a habeas corpus (in such cases) and bring forward the children, and assign them to the mother. Also granting the chancellor / power, in case of divorce, to grant the mother her children. The Shakers immediately concealed my children, and being interrogated about them, said they “knew not where they were.” *

See Brown’s His. Shak. p. 287, where he relates instances of insanity!

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

103

In May following, I went to the Shaker village, and begged the privilege of conversing about my children in a friendly manner with the Elders. This they totally refused; and in defiance of all my tears and entreaties they persisted in refusing to see me. I told those who were permitted to speak to me that I would confess my sins and join their society, if they would let me live near my children! They replied, “If you feel the weight of your sins, go to Calvin Wells and confess them.” – [Which is the place they send new members.] I finally told the Shaker women, that I had a lawful right to demand a maintainance from my husband. They tauntingly said, “you must find him first.” The Shakers have made their boasts, that as long as our government permitted a man to treat his wife and children thus, they have a full and lawful right to do it, no one has any business to interfere. I traveled from one Shaker village to another, and made use of stratagems to get a sight of the little captives. But I never could obtain any satisfactory information where they were, and I returned to my friends. The unkind conduct of my husband so aggravated my friends, that they were desirous I should apply for a divorce. And by their advice, I came to Albany and called on the hon. Mr. Cantine22 and laid the circumstances before him. He presented a petition to the members of the senate, and they appointed him chairman of the committee. The committee treated the matter with great attention, and me with much kindness and indulgence. During the session, I conversed with most of the gentlemen in the Senate and Assembly. It was an unpleasant task for me – a woman, alone, a stranger exposed ta censure, to converse with gentlemen, and / men of such dignified standing. But I was much encouraged to proceed, from the politeness I received, and from the kind attention with which they listened to my history. The Shakers, fearing the result, sent a lengthy remonstrance to the Senate. The Elders, in order to sink me beneath the notice of that honorable body, attempted to defame me before some of the members in language they dare not put upon paper. I thought it necessary, (being a stranger,) to send for one of my brothers to bring testimony, to establish my character. As soon as possible, he came with affidavits, some of which are the following. “Thomas E. Barker, Leml Hotchkiss, and Wm. Chapman. Do solemnly swear and declare, that we have been acquainted with James Chapman formerly of Durham, in the county of Green, and Eunice his wife, from the time of their marriage till they separated, and (as we understood,) he joined the Society of Shaking Quakers. And from the general character of the said Eunice, we have believed her to be a person of chastity, industry, truth and veracity; and managed her family affairs with prudence and economy.

104

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

The said James, sometime previous to their separation, appeared to neglect his business, and made too frequent use of ardent spirits; and of course suffered his property to be sold the several executions to satisfy the demands of his creditors, and neglected to provide for his family. THOMAS E. BARKER, LEMUEL HOTCHKISS, WILLIAM CHAPMAN, Sworn the 11th day of January, 1817, Before me, Joseph Blanchard, Justice Peace.” “Sarah O. Hawley, of lawful age – testifies that she often lived in James Chapman’s family before he abandoned them – that the said James Chapman, by degrees, neglected his business and family, and became very abusive to his wife – spent his time in the haunts / of vice – would be out at night, and return home at a late hour, very morose and spiteful Once in particular, his conduct was such, that I was afraid of my life, and Mr. Chapman’s own daughter left the house on account of his conduct, and slept at a neighbor’s. His wife durst not retire to rest, until after he had gone to bed in an upper room; and I was then so apprehensive of danger, that I retired into the room with his wife and children, and fastened the door for safety. His negligence to his family was such, as not to provide food, clothing or fuel in the most extreme cold weather. When his wife was sick, I was obliged to pick up wood to make his family comfortable, when Mr. Chapman was at a tavern. He would not hear the least complaint without retorting with the most abusive language. I was present when Mr. Chapman and his brother Nathaniel took the children. Mr. Chapman said his wife had agreed to stay with the Shakers, and had sent for the children. This I disputed, which made him very angry. George, (the oldest) when he saw his father was going to take him off, went and hid of his own accord; and in the mean while, I sent Susan, (the next oldest) to her uncle Spencer’s, about two miles distant. Mr. Chapman pursued after her, and took her – (he had got the youngest before.) He and his brother, then searched the neighborhood in pursuit of George; and finally hired boys to find him, and tell him if he would come to his father he would not be compelled to go to the Shakers. Mr. Chapman then told George he was going to carry him to the ark of safety, and into Christ’s Kingdom. When he saw his father would compel him to go, he wept bitterly, and begged of him to let him stay until he could see his mother Mr. Chapman told him he was going to see his mother, and promised the children if they did not like to stay with the Shakers, they could come back any time. Mr. Chapman was then intoxicated. I was knowing that Mrs. Chapman was always kind to her husband, and had the best the house afforded / reserved for him when he returned home; and nursed him kindly when he was unwell, and took pains to have such food pro-

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

105

vided for him as he chose; and saw nothing that made unhappiness between them but his own ill conduct and perverse temper.” “On the 20th day of March, 1816 – Personally appeared Sarah O. Hawley, & made oath to the above. ELIJAH HAWLEY, Justice of Peace.” [Several depositions here tho’t unnecessary, are omitted]23 “I Peter Penfield – Do solemnly swear and declare that on or about the 22d December, in the year 1814, went with Eunice Chapman to the Shaker’s to see her children, and persuade the Shakers to give them up, as I understood by them and the children, and also by their father that they were bound by indenture. The children appeared to be very unhappy, and cryed and took on in such a manner that my heart ached for them. I told James and the Shakers that they ought to give them up to their mother, and Brother Spencer and myself would see that the children were provided for. But the Shakers wholly refused and James likewise. I then told them that if they did not let Mrs. Chapman have some of her children, or let her visit them when she pleased, I would try to get some law passed in the Legislature for her relief. James appeared to bid defiance to any thing of that nature. In the month of February, 1815, I came to Albany, took Doctor Payne, Mr. Skinner, and Mrs. Chapman, into my sleigh, and went to see the children at the Shakers. We retired into a private room with Mr. Chapman, in order to intercede with him, to give Mrs. Chapman one of the girls, James said he would as soon commit suicide; and all the arguments which could be used would not prevail on him to give up either of them. Mrs. Chapman begged to see the little boy; but they said the doors would be fastened against her if she went to the house where he lived. PETER PENFIELD.” / “Sworn to before me, this 27th day of March, 1816, Richard S. Treat, one of the Aldermen of the city of Albany.” During my second visit to the Shaker village, (a few days previous to their taking my children,) I saw Catharine Bonnel from New-Jersey, she came to visit Elias Bonnel her Shaker husband and brought her youngest child with her, (only three years old) hoping thereby to excite some parental sensations in his breast and induce him to return to his family. They had taken the child from her, and kept it concealed in some of their rooms, and told her that they knew not where it was. And oh! the agonies of the poor distracted mother wandering from house to house weeping and groaning, for the loss of her dear babe, was indiscribable. I could not prevail on them to restore the lady her child, and they prevented me from affording her any consolation. Tho’ she was a worthy woman, they represented her as manifesting a disobedient litigious spirit towards her husband, and likewise being very troublesome to them. I have lately received Mrs. Bonnels deposition.

106

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Mrs. Bonnel states that, she and her husband lived nearly three years after their marriage in a state of harmony Mr. Bonnel was a pious man, and provided well for his family; five years ago last July; unknown to her, he went and joined the Shakers; which caused her many grevious hours. He often told her that he never should leave her or be slack in providing for her and her children. He continued with his family one year and three months after that time, during which, he thrice visited the Shakers. Then he sold his property and settled his business; and frequently said, that his time here, was short, and asked her if she would move near the Shaker village, where he could go to their meeting, and promised to provide well for her and her children. But she being unwilling to go with him, after he had embraced such sentiments, he left her, with two small children, and went and lived with the Shakers; and / advertised her, forbidding all persons harboring or trusting her on his account. – He again retturned, and promised her that he should not live within some miles of the Shakers, if she would consent to go and live with him; she went, and he took her among the Shakers, and there she lived in the same house with him, from spring until the next fall; but in no respect as a husband and wife. And thro’ a pretence to visit her friends, he persuaded her to return with him to New Jersey. When they arrived there, he told her that she should never live with him again, and he should no longer provide for her. About a year after that she took her youngest child & went to visit him; her husband’s salutation to her was thus, “You have come, with your old carnal affections; I wish to see none of them about me.” She was ill treated by them, &c, Her husband tore the child from her arms by violence, just at the time she was preparing to return home; he kept himself and the child concealed, and she continuing there for several days after that time, & strove all in her power to see them again, but could not. She was obliged to depart full of anxious grief without seeing them.” Signed, Catharine Bonnel. September 30, 1816, Amos Potter, one of the Justices of the Peace, in the County of Essex and state of N. Jersey, attests, that the said Catharine Bonnel personlly appeared before him, and made oath, that what she had written concerning her husband & child was the truth. But, to return to circumstances attending my own history. Elders S. Y. Wells and Joseph Hodgson were summoned to appear before the Committee, to whom was referred my petition. Before the Committee retired to examine my witnesses, these Elders publicly defamed me in the Senate room, in very offensive language; the Committee told them they / would injure their own cause to say any more upon the subject, as there was sufficient testimony in support of my character.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

107

Examination of witness before the committee, to whom was referred the petition of Eunice Chapman – taken this 20th March, 1816 – Present Messrs. Cantine and Dayton. Elders S.Y. Wells and J. Hodgson were first questioned by the committee. Question. Were the children bound? Answer. By Wells, Nay. Mr. Penfield’s deposition was then read, and other testimony produced, to prove they were bound. – Wells pretended to recollect himself, and acknowledged that the children were bound. Q. To whom was the eldest daughter bound? A. I cannot say. Q. By Mrs. Chapman. Can that be possible, when the child said S. Y. Wells held her hand, to sign the indenture? A. The child was mistaken. Q. Was not that child capable of knowing, and relating such a circumstance? A. Well, come to recollect, she was bound to such a one – (calling him by name.) Q. By the Committee. Where is Mr. Chapman? and where are the children? A. I cannot say. Q. How did Mr. Chapman and the children go away? A. I cannot say. Q. Did he take waggon and horses, or sleigh? A. I cannot say. Q. How could Mr. Chapman take the children and go from your house, *without your knowing it? / A. I cannot say. Mr. Deric Veeder,24 who had lived with the Shakers sixteen years, and acted in the capacity of a deacon, stated that “it was impossible for any of the Shakers to take horses and carriage, and go off without the Elders’ knowledge. Elder S. Y. Wells asserted that a “James had actually hired [such a particular house] for his family to live in. Mr. Veeder said “He knew that James had not hired that house, Wells then acknowledged that “He did not know for a certainty as James had hired a house.” Mr. Veeder, stated that “He had lived with the society of Shakers as a member for sixteen years; left then about two years ago; was there when James Chapman came amongst them, who was immediately owned and acknowledged *

Mr Chapman & two daughters lived in the house with Wells & Hodgson. The mind of all present appeared convinced that the Elders knew when, & how and where Mr. Chapman went with the children, (if gone.) /

108

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

as a member. He spoke of his wife as being an honest, industrious and prudent house-keeper. Assigned no reason for his leaving her, other than he believed it his duty to forsake all for Christ’s sake, Mr. Veeder said “He knew James had not hired a house for his family, and at the time he (the said Veeder) was a member of the society, he expressed his dissatisfaction at keeping James there, without contributing to support his helpless family, who were out, which observation highly displeased the Elders.” Mr. Veeder further attested “That Eunice Chapman’s statement concerning the Shakers, which she laid before the Committee, in his opinion was correct as it was according to their manner of conduct.” The said Veeder, on being questioned, attested that “He knew T. Brown’s history of the Shaker, was true.” (This testimony so alarmed Elders Wells & Hodgson, that they arose from their seats, faced Mr. Veeder, and attempted to dispute him.) Mr. Veeder replied, “Brother Seth you need not contend against Thomas’ book, for he wrote as much for thee as against thee. I have personal knowledge of the most of it; and I being so well acquainted with / Thomas’ know him to be so candid, that he will not misrepresent any thing.” Mr. Veeder further stated, that “when Brown’s history was first published, the Elders purchased and read it; then condemned the book as being pernicious and corrupt, and forbid any member of the society reading it. – Nevertheless, about twenty of the young Shakers read it privately, which came to the ears of the Elders. They called the young people before them, and made them kneel and confess that they had read it, and sinned in so doing, and ask their forgiveness. He was one of the number who read the book. They called on him to kneel, before them and confess and ask forgiveness. He told them he would kneel, in conformity to their discipline, but not as reverential of them. He kneeled and said he had read Thomas’s book, and he knew most of it was true. He could not say he was sorry he had read it. The Elders took a private opportunity to tell him he had done wrong in speaking so before the young people, to hurt their faith. He replied, as the young people looked to him for an example, he considered it his duty to speak as he did in their hearing. Mr. Skinner stated, that he lived at Mr. Andrew Cooper’s at the time Mrs. Chapman came there. Mr. Chapman came with her from the Shakers, and. Left her in the street. She was invited into the house, & she continued there for a length of time, and conducted herself with propriety. Mr. Skinner also stated, that he went with Mrs. Chapman, in company with Doctor Paine and Squire Penfield, to the Shaker village, and was informed by them, that Mr. Chapman’s children were bound. Mr. Skinner said that Mrs. Chapman behaved properly, and did not speak unbecomingly; and she was refused the privilege of seeming her son, by Mr. Chapman, and others of the Shakers.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

109

Catherine Geddis testified that “she lived with the Shakers from the age of ten to twenty years, during which time, she saw sick children treated very inhumanly.” She said “the Elders and Eldresses / lived on the most sumptuous food, when the youth had to accept of the most ordinary.” She was knowing to the instance of the inhuman and rediculous manner of the Elders and Eldresses whipping those three young women, mentioned in Brown’s History of the Shakers, [page 335] it was in the month of April and after they were almost exhausted with the chastisement he saw the Elders and Eldresses drive them into a mill-pond where they were forced to stay half an hour. She is also acquainted with similar circumstances at different times. She further testified, that she was knowing to the similar rediculous & barbarous case mentioned in the aforesaid history, [p. 323.] The Elders influenced a young woman (a natural sister of the abused young woman) to appear in court against her and take a false oath to clear the Elders from the severity of the law, and has since heard her confess she “wronged the truth.” Mrs. Geddis also stated, that “the Shakers are not allowed to receive a letter from a friend until it has been examined by the Elders. She said that when her mother called to see her, she was ordered by the Elders to tell her not to come there with her carnal and old natural affections, disturbing the people of God, and then leave her. They were forbid using pen and paper, to learn to write; and they were forbid reading the bible, except particular passages.” Mrs. Geddis related, that “at the age of twenty, her father sent a writ of habeas corpus after her, and the Shakers took her at night, in the month of March to another village. On her way, she had to ride over hills, rocks and logs, and swim her horse across a deep creek, and then they made her ride ten miles in her wet and frozen clothes, which caused her a fit of sickness. Meanwhile the Shakers told her father she had drowned herself.” After an examination of those witnesses, and a perusal of Brown’s history of the Shakers, and the Shaker’s bible, “Christ in his Second Appearing,”25 the committee made a favorable report to the senate, who ordered it to be printed, and a copy presented to / each member of the Legislature. All of which proceedings so engrossed the time, that the subject could not have an investigation in both houses, in the session of 1816, & it was referred to the session of 1817. In the session of 1817, the business was resumed before the Senate, and each member was presented with a copy of my statement concerning the Shakers, which was cordially received by them and in return, several individuals, liberally rewarded me, which helped me to defray the expence of printing.*

*

At the same time a number of respectable ladies also liberally rewarded me for those copies which they had subscribed for; and their sensibility on the occasion evinced their general interest in behalf of their sex.

110

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I believe the book met with general approbation; and even my greatest opposers did not attempt to reproach me or the book. One of them called it the “artful pamphlet.”* The Shaker Elders, on being questioned by the committee persisted (as heretofore) in saying they “did not know where Mr. Chapman or the children were.” The committee presented a bill before the Senate entitled “an act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other purposes.” The Shakers after all their sanctified declarations that they did not know where James Chapman was then, brought him forward! and he, for whom I had ventured all my happiness and even risqued my life in opposition to his most solemn covenant vows! just at the time I stood most in need of a friend, as in several other trying scenes heretofore, through which I had to pass, appeared as a formidable foe! And they remonstrated with a pamphlet of 16 pages26 and laid on the table of each member. The book contained such palpable misrepresentations that it operated against them – Those who felt an interest in behalf of the afflicted, advocated the / cause and read the most prominent parts of my book which occupied a day, and the bill passed the Senate for the first clause, 24 to 6; and for the general law, 18 to 9, (as I was informed.) It went before the committee of the whole and experienced a lengthy debate in the Assembly. Dr. Sargeant, was a powerful vindicator of the cause.† Mr. Ostrander, of Albany, did honor to himself and justice to the cause, by being the means of the last and very essential clause added to the bill. Mr. Irving., from New York, said “The husband having abandoned his wife without any provision, had violated the marriage contract, and had no right or power to hold her in the bonds of marriage.” He described in pathetic terms the abandoned and disconsolate situation of the wife in this case. The divorce for a breach of the seventh commandment, was on the ground of its being a breach of the marriage contract. Every case where this is violated, whether by abandoning the party or otherwise, gave a right to have the marriage contract dissolved. The case was much stronger here, where a man had joined a society, whose – principles tended to demoralize and corrupt the youth who joined them and the community at large. As this case was now before the Legislature, they might with propriety decide upon it; for even the petitioner’s earnings might be taken from her by the husband, without her having the means of redress. He appealed strongly to the feelings of the committee, and depicted in glowing colors the sensations they would experience if their bosom friends and nearest relations were treated in the manner this woman had been treated, and urged the propriety of passing the law. * †

It was the artless history of simple facts. I have been able to obtain but a small part of the speeches.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

111

The next day, after some debate the bill passed the Assembly, for the first clause 67 to 37, and for the whole bill 51 to 41. The editor who published the / speeches in behalf of the Shakers, observed that “the ability and ingenuity with which the debate was managed has probably, seldom been excelled on any occasion in the Legislature of this state.” Many who voted against the bill, were convinced it was a barbarous method the Shakers had taken to destroy families under the sanctity of religion, and thereby abuse the rights and liberties of man; but still felt delicate lest they, by voting against them, should intrude on those rights. From my not being able to get through with the publication of my books in time, the business was delayed until the last of the session; and when, it came to the Council of Revision, most of the judges were called to attend court, and as the bill was estimated as being of consequence, it was laid over to be reconsidered when the judges could all be present. (Meantime the Shakers had opportunity to exhibit their inhumanity and stubborness, in still withholding my dear babes from me!) After all the trying scenes and vicisitudes through which I have had to pass, I still feel a humble confidence that our wise and benevolent council will see and feel the infinite importance of rescuing helpless children and unprotected defenceless mothers from such barbarous outrage, and axcept the bill, as far as their conscience feel the limits of our constitution extend them power.* But I trust the voice of humanity / will have a more powerful impression on their hearts than all the eloquence of speech! The objections to the bill were, 1st “It is wrong to grant a divorce except &c. – (as Christ said.)” – Has there not been enough substantiated to convince the impartial and candid that there are direful and deep died crimes committed among the Shakers which Christ if on earth would say was as rational a cause for divorce as any cause whatever! Would Christ acknowledge a people to be his meek and inoffensive followers, who thus inhumanly treat their companions and children? would he not say “verily, verily I say unto you, I know you not! would he not say as in Mathew 23d chap. verse 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28. 2d. “If the legislature should grant a divorce they would be thronged with such petitions.” If there are a hundred as extreme and interesting cases as this, our Legislature may, with justice and propriety, grant them a divorce; and they may pass a *

Our constitution says “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship – shall be allowed within this state to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.” Do not women and children, make up a part of the community; and if the Shakers are permitted to continue their present course of destroying families, where is there a woman or a child whose peace and safety is not in danger?

112

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

reasonable law, whereby other defenceless women may be protected without experiencing the numerous disparagements of applying to the Legislature for a divorce. 3. “It is wrong to take children from their father, as he is their head,” A man is and ought to be the head of his family, even as Christ is head of the Church, (Eph. chap. 5.) to nourish, cherish and protect them; and a family thus represented is a beautiful similitude of the Church of Christ – but when a man abandons his family and for years seeks only to afflict and destroy them, our constitution allows such a man to be “disfranchised by the judgement of his peers;” when a man joins the society of Shakers he “disfranchises” himself; he has no controul over his children or property! he has even sacrificed his own freedom! The passing of that law would only be taking the power from those pharisaical Elders the garb of sanctity and innocence, who have subtly allured men into their snares. Under their shroud of sanctity they have published to the world, in their “Christ’s second appearing,” / page 506, v. 9th, thus: “Youth and children, being under age, are not to be received as members or under the immediate care and government of the church, except by the request, or free consent of both parents, if living; but if they are left by one of their parents to the care of the other, then by the request or free consent of that parent, together with the child’s own desire.”* I have proved that Mr. Chapman left his children solely to my care, which urges the necessity of passing the law. Can it be depriving a people of their liberty & rights to establish by law their covenant and church articles which themselves have published to the world as their rules of life? is it not rather strengthening them in the way of their duty. 4th. “Granting a divorce merely for the opposite party joining the Shakers, would be treating them like culprits in state prison,’ In “Christ’s second appearing” page 311, 312, they assert that “Luther made a solemn covenant vow to live in a state of celibacy.” and he broke his vow and married a nun,” They observe thus: where is that court of justice on earth that would not deem it perjury, to violate what they had solemnly confirmed by an oath? or that would not forever after reject the testimony of such a false swearer?” Is it not as absolute perjury for men to violate their solemn covenant vow made before God to live with, “nourish cherish,” and protect his companion, as to break a vow made to celibacy? and why not treat them like culprits in stateprison; perhaps those culprits in state prison never broke the marriage covenant! 5th. “It it giving a bad precedent, to pass such a law, as unprincipled men will forsake their wives and / join that society for the sake of obtaining a divorce?” The imbecility of the argument scarcely gives room for a reply, but it appears important to observe, *

I observed to the Shakers that I, after reading that clause in their book believed they would not retain my children, provided even Mr. Chapman should wrest them from me and take them to their society. They replyed “We have other gifts now.”

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

113

that our laws give unprincipled men such unlimited bounds that they need not be secluded among the Shakers three years to gain a divorce for their unfortunate companions as they may very shortly commit those crimes which will give their companions a divorce, and our laws inflict no fines, or corporial punishment upon them. They may with impunity, even boast of their success, in the seduction of our unfortunate unprotected defenceless sex and triumph over their virtues!! The Shakers in their remonstrance before the legislature of 1817, say: “Whereas the said Eunice Chapman has published certain false and libellous statements and gross misrepresentations concerning the character and conduct of the said society evidently with the intentions of inducing the Legislature to pass a law injurious to the society.’’ – Such broad and general assertions without the attempt to disprove a single fact which I have stated, leaves me without the means, and the public without the necessity of a replication. I have already proved some of those facts from their own writings; for the others I have endeavored to be prudent in getting living testimony, by which I can prove them, and the Shakers know it. – They intimate that they know the, “sources of my information, and the assistance I have received,” – and why did they not impeach it with something more than a malignant innuendo? As to their oblique hints and allegorical denunciations against my character which frequently occur in public and private, they are similar to what every unfortunate unprotected woman like myself receives from them after they have proselited her husband and bereaved her of her property and children; and provided they had proved them to have been true, they would have been no reasonable excuse for Mr. Chapman’s abuse to me, nor rational objections to the / justice of passing the law. Therefore I shall walk over them and proceed in the way of my duty. And with respect to their several reflections on the Legislature of this state, they appear like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame, – Jude. 1, 13. Also that they are self-willed and dispise government and are not afraid to speak evil of dignities, 2, Pet. 2. 10; and to whom the whole chapter may be applied. But I shall leave it to the good sense and innate dignity of that Honorable body to endure or refute. (Here follow a number of depositions which go to establish Mrs. Chapman’s character, &c. from which the following are selected.) I Elijah Hawley testify – ” that at the time of my daughter’s (Eunice Chapman,) marriage, I was a regular standing merchant in Durham. Shortly after her marriage to James Chapman, I discovered that he drank spirituous liquors to excess; and in process of time he gave himself up to vicious habits and negligence, so that I was forced to send my daughter provision to make her comfortable when he was worth some thousands of dollars &c. I saw all my child’s furniture and

114

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

provision sold at auction, and James rejoicing at it, &c. I then sent her provision which James was the means of its being lost; he soon after absconded. I can prove by his letters that he then had at command about one thousand dollars – also, by a respectable gentleman that he had deposited notes to the amount of about $600, & yet suffered his real estate to be sold for $1500, which was worth $5000. I know the children were never a charge on the town. Deacon Benj. Chapman, Lydia Chapman, and Wm. Chapman are related by nature and marriage. Thomas E. Barker is a judge of the court in the county of Green; Samuel S. Allen is a justice of the peace in Green county; Nathan Raymond has held office in the town of Middleburgh for a number / of years; the others who have given their affidavits are all persons of truth and respectability’ ELIJAH HAWLEY. Sworn before me, GERSHAM STEPHENS, Justice Peace. Dec. 26, 1817. “I, Josiah Terry, do solemnly swear and declare, that I lived in the Shaker society in New-Enfield,27 state of New-Hampshire, at the time James Chapmen came with his three children; and a Shaker man from Niskeuna came with them (as I understood) and returned back to Niskeuna soon after their arrival there, George Chapman was taken dangerously sick with an inflamation in his head; since his recovery he can breathe out of one ear.* As it was my lot to work in the same shop with James, I frequently conversed with him about his family affairs.§ †He declared to me that he had no desire or thought of leaving Niskeuna, until about one hour before he started; he had orders from the Shaker Elders to go and take his children, to prevent his wife from gaining access to them, and he went much against his will. The said James also stated, that he after parting with his first wife by death, had resolved never to enter the contract of marriage, till he became acquainted with one Eunice Hawley, whom he thought to be one of the most amiable of her sex; and finding she possessed superior talents and respectability, he unavoidably entered the solemn contract. Time and experience proved her to be such a woman as he expected and wished, and she made one of the best / of wives, and she was very discreet in the management of all her family concerns. I often heard him [when he saw women indiscreet] observe, how opposite their conduct was to that of his wife; and he wished every woman on earth was just such as she was. A volume could scarce contain the praise I heard him give of his said wife. *

†

From an infant, George was troubled with a dangerous complaint in his head. The change from a fur cap, (which he always wore during cold weather) to a flat Shaker hat, and his being taken off in the night was, no doubt the cause of that fit of sickness. Josiah Terry state that he often saw James Chapman intoxicated.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

115

James stated that he got faith and belief in the Shaker doctrines, by conversing with a Shaker who often went to Durham (the place where he then resided) on business. I, discovering so much fallacy in the Shaker Elders, lost my faith and left them in Dec. 1816. I have since read Eunice Chapman’s statement of the Shakers. My own experience and knowledge of their conduct compels me to verily believe it to be true. I have also read James and the Shaker’s book in opposition to her’s. I have no doubt but that James was compelled by the Elders to put his signature to a statement so opposite to the general character he had given of his wife. The Shakers have, [in their book] positively denied the facts of their general conduct. I know many instances of their parting men and their wives & children. One particular woman, named Mary Dyer,28 [of a very respectable family and standing,] who stole her youngest child from them and they forced it from her again. Previous to her taking the child, she went and demanded her support from her husband, (who had a large estate;)the Shakers kept her in a lonely apartment, where none could have communication with her except the Elders – she was obliged to accept of such fare and treatment as they pleased to give her. She made complaint to the people of the world of their cruelty, and the Shaker Elders sent out men from their society to defame her character. – After that she came to the Shakers to see her children, and I saw her thrust violently out of doors by the Shakers, where she sat in the street until her husband and James Chapman came and put her into waggon and drove her out of sight!! / I know of a woman made crazy by the means of her husband joining that society and taking his children and property from her. I know instances of children being treated with savage cruelty by the Elders, who will torture them & make them go contrary to the word of God, and their own conscience, by commanding them to walk by faith and not by sight; that is, not by what was plain to their own conscience, but believing the Elders to be all powerful and able to make them either happy or miserable forever. – Should they deviate from the paths marked out for them by the said Elders, they will set them in a lonely place in a very torturing posture and withhold from them their necessary food and pour their threats and eternal denunciations upon them, until being thus starved and tortured, they are completely divested of their own will, and can come, in willing obedience to the Elders, and on their knees, solicit their pardon. They are still, sometimes kept months (by the Elders) in the most agonizing tortures of mind and body, under the sentence of their indignation, which the Elders say, “is one of God’s strange works, as they then hold the soul in one hand and whip the devil with the other.” (Holding the soul, is their faculty in binding the child to believe that they have power to judge and damn the whole world and even angels, which makes them willing to endure any a temporal torture, rather than suffer their eternal wrath and indignation.) The Elders say they keep some

116

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

in that situation to terrify and excite the rest to a willing obedience; though they nevertheless, declare the fault is in the one who suffers; and if they should speak of their torments to one of their brethren, and it should reach the ears of the Elders, it would greatly enhance their misery; they would then be tormented with the name of heretics and reprobates, and sentenced to damnation, &c. which is so powerful on their minds, that it many times drives them into a state of delirium. During the time I was a member of that society, / I was, contrary to the constitution of the state, compelled by the Elders to act in opposition to my own conscience, and in contrast to the superior senses of the soul; and for a trial of my faith, (when at work) I was compelled by one Elder, to throw aside my working tools, and use but a part of the set, and then for a punishment, I was ordered by another Elder to go by myself and remain in a very torturing humiliating posture, without my necessary food, until I could, by laboring in my mind, know what was my duty to do, or what would then at that time, be the most pleasing to them, either to work in that manner or disobey him. Though pen cannot paint, nor tongue describe, those agonies and tortures of mind while under the sentence of indignation from those Elders, whom we are forced to believe as standing in the very place of God, and have full power to sentence us to eternal wrath in an instant, I have been compelled ‘by them to undergo many severe scourges, when they doubted whether I was stedfast in their faith – I have been ordered by them to retire into a mountain, after I had returned from work in the evening with my clothes which I had on all wet and the ground covered with a moist snow, and there remain three days and three nights, without food, or any place to rest my weary emaciated body, and endure the above mentioned torments – (I at that time had sound faith and belief in all the Shakers doctrine and pretended power,) and none except the Elders, knew but I was enjoying the bounties of nature in some of the families & after my release I durst not mention it to the brethren. The Shakers, have lately printed a book called Mother Ann’s sayings,29 (much of which they pretend is communicated by her departed spirit to the Elders, when in close communion with her,) which the Elders carefully keep in their own hand and often read to the young people It contains a numerous account30 of the awful judgements and calamities which has befallen those who have left them, and their miserable and wretched end, many of whom have been poisoned by / people of the world, and given up to commit all sin, and come to an untimely end, without the priviledge of returning back to them and confessing their sins and obtaining mercy – Oh! it would cause a stout heart to tremble! it also states the inevitable miseries that will befal those who will hereafter dare to leave them. The Elders and Eldresses have a far greater intimacy and close connection together than the other class. They say it is a privilege allowable to those who have travelled to such a state of perfection; as then no good thing is withholden from them.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

117

James Chapman observed to me, that “the Elders in Niskeuna were more severe in their punishment to children, as they kept a room in the barn, furnished with whips, where they took children to chastise them, which they often did effectually.” When I left them they refused to pay me any thing for four years work; and I came off without the value of half a cent wages. The Elders being apprehensive that I would expose their misconduct, told me if I would not, I might be assured of having their good spirit to attend, bless and prosper me in time and in eternity – but if I did expose them, I should meet with their disapprobation. Consequently nothing but unavoidable judgements and calamities will befal me in this life and the life to come. – I have lately been to Neuskeuna, and solicited those Shakers to sell me a little leather to braid a few whip thongs, that I thereby might be able to set myself up into business which they refused to oblige me with. They observed that it would be a vain attempt for Mrs. Chapman to employ agents, or go herself to obtain her children, as they would be moved from one village to another as fast as she could pursue them. Thus have I given up a small sketch of the Shakers’ dealings was me and others. N. B. They hold that no person who goes from their society into the world can tell the truth, though / they give an exact statement of circumstances, because they are reprobates and possess the spirit of the devil! JOSIAH TERRY. Sworn before me the first day of August, 1817. WM. CAMPBELL, Justice Peace.

Extract from a New-Hampshire paper, about the Shakers “Among the subjects brought before the Legislature of New-Hampshire, at the last session, was the case of Mary Dyer, which underwent a public hearing last week and excited an extraordinary interest. The subject of her petition was, that about fifteen years ago, she was married to Joseph Dyer31 – that they lived together happily for a series of years, and by their industry increased in goods and became easy in their circumstances – that becoming acquainted with the society called Shakers and their tenets and mode of life, they were induced to join them – that after having lived with them for a time, she began to doubt their rectitude, and whether they lived according to the professions which they made – that these doubts encreased insomuch that she became miserable and unhappy and finally left them – that afterwards she was refused all access to her children, and that her husband had conducted towards her, since he joined the Shakers, in a manner which evinced he had lost the affection which is natural from a husband towards a wife. Mrs. Dyer appeared on the floor and told her own story; and she discovered that she was not wanting in talent, to make an impression on her audience. She portrayed in strong colors, the misery of her unhappy situation –

118

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

she stated that the society called Shakers did not lead the lives indicated in their profession – after they had arrived to a certain state which they called perfection, abominations were committed under a pretended sanction of divine authority and these abominations were kept from the world, and from the sight of those of the society who have not been initiated – that the very outward / professions of the Shaker proved them destitute of all natural and social affections. She stated their tenets to be, that their perfect brethren were considered to be equal to the Son of God, who was no more than their elder brother, &c.

Extract of a letter from Mary Dyer to Mrs. Chapman. “I received your letter and pamphlet, which I esteem as a favor. I am not insensible of your anxiety about your family. I feel it an inexcusable duty to render you all the assistance in my power. The report of the pamphlet concerning the Shaker, I know was true, and it is a confirmation of what I had before reported in this place. Great are the tribulations of those who are caught in their wretched snares; none can sense it but those who have experienced the same. I feel in some degree a willing sufferer! that thereby, their wickedness may be made known. I really hope their treachery and wickedness will be made so manifest to the public that the general authority will feel it a duty to remove the oppression. I have not seen my children for almost two years; they threaten removing them to Ohio, if I come among them, (unless I become a Shaker) which I could sooner give up my life than do. Trust in that power that is able to remove mountains, and your doing may be blest.” MARY DYER. Guildhall, Nov, 5, 1817.

An extract from Mrs. Dyer’s second letter. “Mrs. Chapman – It is with pleasure, I relate the doings of the Legislature in my case. The petition was introduced a number of days before I was requested to appear. In this time the Shakers got information of it – when I was called before the committee, the Shakers appeared and endeavored to make void the petition, likewise the grievances which it contained. But as I had the liberty of vindicating myself, and my affidavits were such, they found themselves weak, they plead for an adjournment until my husband could appear – it was granted. In this time they got printed a composition your husband composed against you!* and oth*

I think the Shakers need a heavy bank to forty all their hiding places, for from various informations it appears that they have hired the editors of public papers in every state, where the name of Shaker ever went, to defame my character!!! It is extremely wounding to the delicacy of a woman, after being taken from the protection of a father, to be kept bound to a husband by which the Shakers like so many hounds may maul and mangle her only dependence for existence – her reputation.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

119

ers who should speak against the Shakers! I was then requested to appear before the house and speak for myself. This was a great weight to me, but I knew it was impossible any one should know my sufferings, unless they heard me repeat them! And to retain the different change of scenes, for six years, so particular as not to be disputed by my enemies, who were watching for catches, was trying to me. I spoke first – Providence so assisted me, I was enabled to speak so clear and particular, my husband acknowledged that I spake the truth, except what I reported concerning their base conduct, that, he said “I had surmissed” the other Shakers did not presume to say any thing against me, yet they denied “living after the manner which I asserted! This was no more than I expected. When they found I was dissatisfied with living with them on this account – they earnestly requested me not to divulge it.* I observed I should – they said “if I did it would make me the liar, for they should not own it, as the world never knew it, nor never was to / know it – I knew I could not be justified only in the truth – in that, I find my strength. After Mr. Dyer observed that my “surmise separated me from them” he began to excuse himself on account of his oppression against me in going to the Shakers – he spoke some things so hard and pointed that the speaker of the house stopped him speaking – Then the Shaker’s lawyer wanted to read the piece they had got printed; but the court would not suffer it to be read. They chose a committee of twelve to form a law – I think it consisted of every thing necessary to avoid such afflictions – it appeared to be a case that tried every tender feeling ! It was the last case that was tried, and it was almost a universal vote. The act was carried to the governor, but was not returned before the Legislature arose. This was thought to be strange!! Had it not been kept from being returned until the Legislature arose, it would have become a law, and it will no doubt become a law at the next session – I endeavor to wait the movings of Providence and be reconciled at all times.” MARY DYER. Guildhall, Dec. 25, 1816.

Thomas Brown’s refutation of the shaker’s remonstrance. To Peter Dodge,32 Seth Y. Wells, and Joseph Hodgson. – You have publicly written33 to the Legislature during last session, in behalf of the Society which you belong; relating to your “Principles and conduct respecting husbands, wives and children.” When I finished my history of the Shakers, I was in hopes I should never be constrained to speak of you again in public. As that history has never been *

I learn, Mrs. Dyer when among the Shakers was one of the head women, she was a preacher among them, she well knew all their secret abominations. See the extract of the New Hampshire paper. Page 41.

120

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

contradicted by you it was considered by many as a tacit acknowledgement of the facts therein stated, so my silence on the subject of your publication may be considered (and as has already been intimated by some of you) as an acknowledgement that what you have written is the truth – I shall therefore briefly note the following, Page 2, you say “we disclaim / any agency in parting man and wife, or in breaking up families, nor is it a principle of our faith that the act of joining our society, disannuls the marriage, covenant.” I have often heard you Elders say that the marriage covenant is a covenant with death, and that the gospel disannuls that covenant and it was contrary to the laws of Zion. Read your own publication; called “Christ’s second appearing,” particularly chap. 4, part.2, and see whether joining your Society does not disannul the marriage convenant. You say “any man and woman who are married, may live together all their days, and bring up their children till they become of age, if they choose to do it without any constraint from the Society.” This is as far from the truth as if you had said, any man or woman may join your Society and be held in union without confessing their sins – You say “no married woman is ever received into the Society without the full consent of her husband, and even in that case very few are admitted.” But this is what you have done in many instances, tho’ you would fain make men believe they need not fear their wives joining the Shakers. You say it very rarely occure that a married man is received into the Society without his wife. “Very rarely occurs”!! why I am surprised that you should say so!! It has often occurred, and it is well known that many women have been left to mourn the loss of their husbands and children, by their husbands joining your society. See my history of the Shakers page 287, 357. Page 3, you speak of a man’s providing a house for his wife and children, and she refusing to live with him, and of her being left to act for herself, & reap the fruits of her own refractory conduct. Her own refractory conduct is, in not believing and confessing her sins, which if they refuse to do, the husbands are counselled (by the Elders) to have no union with their wives and the terrible consequences of standing out, have been thundered in their ears, and it is no wonder that some poor women who have been / thus tormented refuse to live near their husbands, and they have been glad to get away as I have often heard said, when among you “No one can live long in or near the fire of Mount Zion, unless they will confess their sins, and be obedient, for it burns hotter and hotter against every disobedient soul – You say “children are not brought up in ignorance;” they are not brought up in ignorance of your faith and gospel, but you do not speak the truth, by saying they are not brought up in ignorance of what the world calls learning. I have given a pointed statement of your practices concerning that in my history, p. 227, 229, 249. You in a note, page 4, say that “Eunice Chapman is the only woman we know of in this state, whose husband is among the people, and she is not with them

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

121

herself ” – Then you know very little indeed of what is among the people, and you are not fit persons to write on the subjuct.* It is astonishing that / you can make such assertions. You say “all back sliders have faith, but those who have read your publications cannot have so much faith as a grain of mustard seed; my faith has got reduced to a very small grain indeed. Page 5, You say “James took the children and went where he thought proper, and we had no right nor disposition to control him in the matter.” He took his children and went where there was a gift for him from the Elders to go; for you hold no one in union unless obedient to the gift or counsel of the Elders, “Be obedient to the gift Thomas,” the Elders used to tell me. You say “It has been intimated that we have concealed the children among us.” As James is among you, he obeyed the gift, and he has concealed himself and children in some of your convents, and fine snug hiding places they are. Consequently being among you, according to your own words he is under the care and government of the church; thus the church acts contrary, “to the most essential particulars” of its own covenant, which says, “Children being under age, are not received as members, or under the care and government of the church, except by the request or free consent of both their parents.” (See your book “Christ second appearing,” page 509.) Page 6, “no members are ever prohibited from seeing and having an intercourse with their relations, who are among us, when they choose nor have any parents or relations from without been prohibited from seeing their children or kindred at any time when they come in a civil manner, and conduct themselves peaceably.” How dare you tell the Legislature such monstrous stories? Two years ago I went among you in a civil, peaceable manner, and requested to see my wife’s sister, I was told “nay” – If I had not told you, I would not be treated as you treated others who came to see their relation, and I would not leave / the house until I had seen her, it is probable I should not have seen her, I requested to see my old friend, Benjamin Youngs,34 but I was told “nay, he has no gift to see you, Thomas” Have you forgotten a man who came to see his sister who 1ived in your *

I Know one Theodore Bates, in Niskeuna Shaker society, whose wife is not in the society, and he told me himself that “his wife loved him from a child, and married him in opposition to her parent’s will, and she was a mild, sweet and amiable wife, and after he got faith it was like disjointing the body to part from her,” also “Through the deception and intrigues of his wife’s mother, the children had been taken from him after he became a Shaker.” I have since been credibly informed that Theodore Bates wanted to visit his wife and children and go in order and union with the Elder and to mortify his “carnal affection.” The Elders sent him on foot from Niskeuna to New-Lebanon, (33 miles) to get a gift (or liberty) from those Elders to go and see his family, but the poor deluded man was denied! Lest the sight of his famly might induce him to stay in the “carnal world” – on his return from New-Lebanon he stoped at a certain house in Albany and at the sight of a man with his wife and children about him! Burst into tears and said “I can’t get a gift to go and see my family”!! The shaker women told me “they thought much of Theodore because he had taken such a cross.”

122

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

church order, but he was not admitted; and being loath to go away without (as he had not seen her for six years) after some time she got a gift to come to the window, he said “How do you do, sister I am glad to see you,” – “Go to the old sow” was her reply & shut the window; and she was told to say so, and you Elder Seth was so pleased that you have repeated it, and laughed at it. The sole reason why I left you, was because I could not swallow every thing I saw and heard among you. There have been instances of people’s being turned out of doors by you, when they came to visit their friends. I have often heard some of the Shakers say, your church was similar to the Free Masons, only they were travelling the road to hell and you the road to heaven. Truly as you say “the way you are in (which you call the way of God) is a strange way, a “marvellous work, a wonder” – There are many turns and twists and intricate windings, when a person is out it is hard to get in, (and see through all your intricate windings) and when a person is in it is hard to get out, and many after they are out, are long affected with the rubs and squeezes (as you call them) which they have received from you. Elder Seth, you say “The gospel is like a tunnel the further we travel in the narrower it grow.”* According to your faith “the truth lies deep, and the carnal mind is such, it cannot comprehend it – nor understand a man of God?” It has been said by your Elders “speak the truth, & spare the truth.’’ We may speak in such a manner that it will be truth to us, but by the carnal lying world, who have not the light of the truth to them, it may be a lie; and it / is their own fault, because they are governed by a lying spirit” – I am sorry to have it to say that equivocations, prevarications and colourings, so abound among you, that it is necessary for one who is perfectly acquainted with your equivocations, &c. &c. to explain them. Give me the honest man, the candid man, the man of truth enduredth for ever, for God hath styled himself the God of truth.” THOMAS BROWN. Troy, Jan. 10, 1818 In the month of May last, Catharine Bonnel, called on me and informed me that her husband Elias Bonnel, had become deranged in his mind, and left the Shakers at Niskeuna, and she had been out to get the property he carried there and some reward for his five years labor. She got no reward and but a trifle of the property, and that her husband, when he left the Shakers, was forced to borrow money to carry him home. During the time she lived at the Shakers’ with her family, she states, that for bread her family was forced to eat the dead grain and smut that was winnowed out of rye, and her husband had no other bread to eat through harvest, which caused him to have a violent putrid fever; and he laid *

And I think a tunnel may be compared to a mouse trap, when one gets well in they can’t get out with a whole skin. E. C.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

123

twenty days dangerously ill, and the Shakers would not allow her to call a doctor, neither would any of them watch him during that time, &c. &c. In the month of August last, I rode out to New Lebanon to see Lucy Wright.35* I had the vanity to believe I could persuade her to let me see my children. I put up near the Springs36 and distributed my / books among the inhabitants, which excited a general interest in my behalf. I rode to Pittsfield,37 and there distributed my books. The Shakers pursued after me and threatened to prosecute me for publishing a libel, to destroy them. I returned and went to the Shaker village, accompanied by a respectable gentleman and his daughter. As they introduced me the Shakers with litigious spirit said, “why does she come here? and what does she want? We have heard quite enough about her, she must know we do not wish to see her.” It was with difficulty my companions constrained them to treat me with civility. I portrayed them my solicitude in behalf of my children – and begged the privilege of conversing with Mother Lucy, and those that accompanied me there interceded for me. I even went the second time, but did not succeed. The women said we love mother Lucy too well to let you see her, and “it would be of no use.” &c. I observed that provided Lucy should order my children restored to me I could have them. They replied “we have no power over other churches, but if our church should advise any of the churches to give up children, I suppose they would conform to it.” – I gave them my book to read, and informed them that after the book came out there were five hundred people ready to come even to Lebanon to wrest my children from the Shakers. They replied, “If you have so many men at your command you had better come out and show what you can do.” The gentleman advised them for the sake of their own credit to restore me my children, and give me a handsome support and buy all my books and prevent the exposure of any more of their cruel conduct. They were afraid lest I should pick something to publish, and some of the women even refused to tell me their name. They gazed after me as went through the village. The gentleman who accompanied me, observed that he “with some gentleman from the southern States, visited the Lebanon Shakers, and solicited the favor of seeing their head Mother, (Lucy Wright,) / their reply was “nay” she cannot be seen” They assured them that they had honorable, motives, after some time the messenger came with “yea;’’ after waiting one hour, she came into the room dressed in white, and a servant under each arm, supporting her as she stood, and by the history, she appeared with as much splendor as Queen Esther *

Lucy Wright, is vicegerent to Ann Lee, and now stands in her stead, and professes to have as much view of, and converse with departed spirit, and another world as she has with this. She is considered as standing on the middle wall between time and eternity: she rules and governs all the churches, and to her the head Elders of every other Shaker church must go and confess their sins.

124

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

did when she entered the Royal Palace? The gentlemen were amazed and confounded, and durst not speak! During her stay, they assumed confidence to ask her various questions which she barely answered, tho’ stood in the same position. The gentleman declared that (tho’ such a particular friend, he had visited them “five hundred times”) he never had seen their Deity or Goddess, only that particular time.”* The same gentleman also observed thus “I attended a court & heard the trial of a man who had taken considerable property, and joined the Shaker society in New-Lebanon, and signed their covenant, and he grew dissatisfied and borrowed a horse and saddle of the Elders, to ride eight miles towards Albany, and rode to Greenbush and sold them, and did not return to she Shakers. They immediately prosecuted him for stealing; he proved that by signing the covenant† he had a partial right to them besides his having liberty. The Shakers saw their danger of being defeated and turned about and proved (by their own society) that she horse and saddle was individual property, & the man is sent to State’s Prison. I asked the gentleman if he would attest to the truth of that? – He replied, “I could if I should be called to do it.” I was also informed of a man by the name of Riley who was then in the Society of Shakers in New-Lebanon. / They said Riley had a wife and an infant child; he was young, and in flourishing business. After the man had joined the Shakers, he and the Shakers sought to take infant from the breast of its mother! The inhabitants in dead of night [to save the child] were forced to take it from the bed and arms of its mother, and hide it where the Shakers could not suspect it was, and keep it in one place & its mother in another, until they could send for her father to come & take her and the child away! The father now has to support the mother and child! Since my return from New-Lebanon I have wrote a letter38 to “Mother Lucy” portraying what might be the result, provided they did not immediately restore me my children and compensate me for their abuse. I received in reply, “I can wash my hands in innocence before God & all men, with respect to any abuse towards you or your children.” I wrote not again, for I concluded that they could daily wash their innocent hands before God and all men in the tears of bereaved mothers and orphans!! A gentleman of veracity and high respectability informed me that he had been a member of the society of Shakers in New-Lebanon, and he observed thus: “I knew the conduct of a Shaker Elder, Noah Wheaton,39 to a young woman, which was so execrably cruel, that he ought to have been executed.” The delicacy of the circumstances will prohibit any author from publishing them; but I have * †

It is supposed she could not sit in the room where the world’s people were, lest they should polute her with sin. † Signing the covenant, is to give up all their property, and never bring debt against the church, for their services, see “Christs’ second Appearing,” p. 505, 506, 507.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

125

seen men hang on the scaffold for vastly less crimes. I learn that he was once a privateer in the African slave trade, and whipped several of those victims to — He may now be called a privateer in the American slave trade. In the Shakers’ bible, entitled “The Everlasting Gospel, or Christ’s Second Appearing, they represent Ann Lee as belonging to the Trinity,40 and is co-equal and co-eternal with God. In page 553, they say, (in the character of the Holy Ghost,) that “she is unchangeably one with the Father, in union and / essence, and is everlasting with the father, before ever the world was, or ages set in order.” See page 551, verse 24, and a poem in the sequel, where they say she counselled and assisted God in the creation of the world. In page 550, verse 17, and 551, verse 23. they represent her as being the mother of the Son of God. In introductory pages 26, 28, she styles herself “Ann the word,” (meaning the word of God) In page 439, verses 27, 28, that “Ann Lee was chosen of God to finish the redemption of man,” and “she became the temple of the Holy Ghost.” Page 440, verse 32, “The man who was called Jesus, – and the woman who was called Ann, – are verily the two foundation pillars of the church of Christ – and the two anointed ones.” The Shakers dwell together in large families; the men and woman have separate apartments, and eat at different tables; they have fifteen minutes to eat their meals, five of which are taken up in kneeling and a silent form of grace; their appearance very sanctified; their food and raiment plain, bread coarse, and an established rule not to eat it until the third day after it is baked. Every house has a large bell, which calls the family up – children and all are forced to to rise at half past four in the shortest days, and half past three in the longest, each attending strictly to their daily labor, or stent, excepting the Elders, who have a deep labour in spirit in behalf of the church. Each family have their Elders and Eldresses, to whom they confess their sins, and whom they must reverence with holy fear, even to pulling off their shoes and walking softly when in their presence. – Those Elders say they have the keys of Heaven and Hell in their hands, and can save or damn souls. Every family have their Deacons and Deaconesses, to take care of their temporals, and oversee those who are under their care. Each church has a head Mother and Bishop, who dwell in the church garret,41 and / have their victuals carried to them, and to whom all the other Elders and Eldresses confess their sins, and those head Mothers and Bishops confess their sins, to Lucy Wright, of New-Lebanon. Every Christmas* they have a general confession of their sins in thought word and deed, for the year past; then reprobation and damnation is so preached to them that it throws terror all about, and “Mother Ann’s saying” read to them, which causes the house to echo with groans & tears. Then they have such a meeting as represented in page 17, *

No person from the world is allowed to be in the Shaker society on Christmas.

126

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

which completely cleanses the sanctuary, and as near as I can ascertain, they have a union dance. All their old clothes, which they can spare, are given to the poor, with other necessary articles of clothing made for infants, &c. &c. all of which they price and keep and exact account of, and occasionally publish to the world. All who join them must be in a perpetual subordination to those Elders, and must give up their property, companions and children, and infants from the breast, lest they should be like Ananias and Sapphira.42 The companions and children are separated and sent to different families and villages, and perhaps not allowed to see each other in case of life and death, as they hold that all natural affection is sinful and must be eradicated.* Children are kept as ignorant as possible of literary knowledge, or the true doctrines of the gospel. 1st. They say that all the world will yet be subject to their government, consequently the more they diminish the world, the sooner will they hold the reigns of government. The Shakers weaken and intimidate their minds by telling them frightful and ominous stories, and by reading “Mother Ann’s sayings” to them, and thereby / make them fear to go to the would least they should become monsters! &c. If they are discontented they have to suffer by hard labor and penance. – They are locked into their rooms at night, and are not allowed to go from one family to another without liberty from the Elders, neither are they allowed to go out of the sight of their house alone. They are daily kept at hard labor, no school to educate them in, their education consists on being obedient to those Elders: instead of being taught not to offend God, they are taught not to offend those Elders! Their family and Church worship is to sing songs of their own composition (no form or appearance of prayer) in adoration to Ann Lee, in the most merry tunes, such as Yankee Doodle, and Over the river to Charley, &c. &c. with the most rediculous gestures, and motions and dance, and their appearance is so farsical, that it is difficult for spectators to tell whether they are in a Church or a Theatre! They do not make it a practice to carry a Bible into their Church, but they exhort their spectators to forsake their carnal filthy practices, and flee to their pure and holy Church, which they call the ark of safety. They have their spiritual husbands and wives, the spriritual husbands’s room on one side of the hall, and the spiritual wife on the other, each opposite the other. The spiritual husband and wife are chosen by the head mother of the church and changed at least once a year. See their Everlasting Gospel43 from page 442 to 446. Every Sunday and Wednesday night, they have their union meeting, and the spiritual husband and wife sit opposite each other, though so near as to get fire from each other’s pipes. They converse together in any little chit chat, as the people of the world do – The Elders have their Eldresses *

The Shakars say the best halter they can get about a woman’s neck to bring her into their society, is to take her children from her.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

127

for their spiritual wives, and the Deacons have the Deaconesses; the Elders and Eldresses, sit at the head of the company forming the letter A, consequently they can have the shortest stems to their pipes; they also eat melons, apples and nuts, and drink cider, and sing their merry love songs, such as / I love the brethren, the brethren love me, Oh! how happy, how happy I be; I love the sisters, the sisters love me, Oh! how happy, how happy I be. How pretty they look, how clever they feel, &c.

Then the spiritual husbands each with his spiritual wife, withdraw to different apartments.* The Elders and Eldresses, and Deacons and Deaconesses, have their separate union meetings in the church garret, and they feast on the richest dainties, with the best of spirituous liquors. They have their union dances; but I cannot particularize what these are; but if ever they have abommations committed among them, I believe it is in the union dance. I have proved by the Shakers’ own creed that they profess to be gods and christs. I have also proved by the same that they add to and diminish from the Bible. Jehovah says “I am God and there is none else; and my glory I will not give to another.” – Christ says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and “I am the door,” &c. and “he that cometh in through me shall be saved, but he that climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber;” and “the way is so plain that a wayfaring man though a fool cannot err therein.” Rev. xxii. 18, 19. And “if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” Some influential characters acknowledge the Shakers’ religious tenets are that of Fanaticism; but still say, It may be pitied as / a delusion, but it ought not to be regarded as a crime, and they even contend that the Shakers shall still have the power to kidnap defenceless children, whom Christ has shed his precious blood to save.† They even insult me for askng for relief and protection. But I shall persevere in pursuit of my sole object, my children; believing that he who hath declared he “will be a God to the widow, and a father to the fatherless,” will bless my exertions, until I can again clasp my long lost babes within my wishful arms! *

†

During the time I was with the Shakers, I was invited to sit in their union meeeting – when they withdrew I sat in silent amaze and curiosity. – I cannot describe the ludicrousness of the scene, and when I heard them carrying on their union meeting all over the house I was wonder struck. While Christians are praying for enlightening the foreign Heathen, let them not forget this society of Heathens.

128

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I have lately received Mary Dyer’s deposition, (the lady mentioned in page 50) it was not received in time to publish with my other depositions, or lay before the committee, but it was referred to by the honorable gentlemen who advocated my cause. With Mrs. Dyer’s affidavit, she has sent me copies of affidavits in support of her character, signed by fifteen different persons of the highest respectability in the different towns in which she was acquainted, from ten to twenty-five years, and some of them attest to considerable of the abuse of Mr. Dyer and the Shakers towards her, as stated in her deposition.

An extract of Mrs. Mary Dyer’s deposition. “I Mary Dyer, was lawfully married to Joseph Dyer in the year 1799; we resided in Stewardstown in the county of Coos, and state of New-Hampshire, and lived happily together eleven years, and had five children,44 and were in good circumstances. We were united in a hope of salvation through Christ. My husband becoming acquainted with the Shakers, was induced to join them. After passing through many grevious and indescribable sufferings on the account, in Jan. 1813, I was compelled to follow my children who were previously taken to the Shakers, in New-Enfield, in the state of New-Hampshire. I began to have a favorable opinion of them; when I confessed / my sins, the Elders said I had not committed sins enough, and they would rather have thirty of the wickedest persons I could name to make a Shaker, than one like me. They soon took all my children from me again but one. Then the Elders called on me to sign a bond, which would debar us from ever taking our chidren again, even though they should treat the children ever so cruel. It did not bind the Shakers to give them any thing when they became of age, nor to keep them in case they should, through misfortune become unprofitable to them, but they might cast them upon the town; and the Shakers are very severe with children. The Elders said it was not done to take my children from me, but to try my faith, as Abraham was called to give up Isaac, and I if I would sign it should have my children, &c. my husband signed it and compelled me to sign it. I then had more privilege with my children for a short time. – At length the Shakers took them all from under my care, and said natural affection must be destroyed; and I need not be anxious about them, they were none of mine, &c. I was then compelled to pass by them when they were sick, and see their wishful eyes follow me, and was not allowed even to enquire after them. Twice they were so sick that their lives were dispared of, and I did not know of it till afterwards, though one of them was in the house where I went to eat my food. Oh deplorable to a mother! I was a hundred miles from my friends. I offered to live with my husband as a slave, provided I could have the care of my children, but they forbid my even conversing with him.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

129

The father and the mother of that church came to see me; they said Mr. Dyer was “no more my husband; the gospel had separated us, and none were married but by order of the head of their church; & the gift of God would find the man and the woman who were created for each other, and this was the intent of God from the creation. The woman was created for the man, & this was the crown of Glory which the man was to receive, and no man could be a true / and real Shaker without a woman,” &c. And they “were Christ, and when they spake it was the word of God, & what liberty or orders they gave we must improve and obey, and it would be no sin.” They selected out a man for me, who appeared to be filled with the spirit of earth!! I told them I believed they indulged those practices which they so much condemned in the people of the world. They said “you do not understand the gospel; Mary, you must not be afraid of loving the brethren, we consider it as a privilege for the brethren to love the sisters, and the sisters to love the brethren, and if you are faithful and obedient, you will find the fruit of the gospel.” &c. &c. I now became more and more convinced of their evils, and I was so unhappy that my health began to decay. The man who was selected for me was placed in every possible situation to meet me without being discovered by the lower order; I pretended ignorance and kept at a proper distance; they said, “you must not be so shy, the worlds people think we are afraid of each other, but they do not know the liberties which we take.” They said, “Mary you must be separated from that sprit which you call God, and be filled with a Shaker spirit then you will thirst for the same thing we do, and will be willing to comply.” I continued melancholy and in bad health. The father and mother of the church came again to see me, and said, “we have got a gift for you to take another step in the kingdom; you have never been willing to give up soul and body; Mary you must obey the word of God, which we speak to you, and you must endure a certain torture, to prepare you for our Paradise, though we do not know as you will be able to endure the scene and live through it.” (I must be excused from writing any plainer,) but they talked as plain as language could express, and became so bold that I was obliged to defend myself. They used every art to decoy and oppress me, many of which are so unaccountable that if I should state / them, they would appear incredible.* I was convinced they were the most vile people on earth! I mentioned it to some others, and the elders chastised me and said I should not tell a word which they had taught me, for they did not teach all alike, but instructed each according to the situation in which they meant to place them. Those awful *

Josiah Terry observed to me, that from particular circumstances, he did not hesitate to believe of the higher order, the same as Mrs. Dyer has stated – See page 46. A man of veracity, and a judge, observed to me, that “a young woman once came to him, and wished to make oath before him, of the deplorable situation she was in, after being compelled to be obedient to these Shaker elders, and that they had turned her out of doors, destitute and unprotected.”

130

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

scenes were horrible unto me, when I reflected on the deplorable situation of my helpless children, who must be trained up to deny God, and be obedient to those elders. Even children are compelled to rise at half past four in the winter, and half past three in the summer. Orval, one of my little sons was very much out of health after he went to the Shakers; one very cold morning in the month of January, I was providentially led to a large dark closet.* As I opened it I saw a person start; – it was my sick Orval; – I told him he need not fear, it was his mother; – he came to me and smiled; – I asked him why he was put there? he answered, because I was cold, and there was no fire to warm me, and I cryed, and Moses† put me here and said “he guessed that would warm me.” The child was not full clad, and he had lodged in the garrett; from thence he had to go down out of doors about forty feet to a pump, and wash then go in, when the latch of the door was so frosty / that he could hardly get his wet hand from it; then stand in the hall and wipe, all of which this poor sick child had passed through before he cried with the cold!! – I could relate many similar circumstances, but they are lengthy, and even the recollection of them almost overcomes me! The Shakers do not make allowance for children; then think they must be man and woman. A person who was an eye witness, informed me of a boy seven years old, and of a rude disposition, whom one of the Shakers took down by the side of a pond, and tied a rope around him and hung him on a limb of a tree, and told him he should stay there all night! When he thought proper he went back and took the child down. After that they concluded that they could not subject him to their minds, and they sent for his father, who was a Shaker. The child was then put into a shop, and there kept alone night and day, for two weeks, and even his victuals sent him. After that his father bound him to the Shakers; and they inflicted many severe punishments upon that child. The Shakers’ outward appearances are all pleasant and delightful, all civility, when within are task-masters, bondage, and slavery, and no one is allowed to utter a word of it. The elders forbid me telling my troubles, and observed that “if each was allowed to tell the other their troubles, their society would be broken to pieces within one month; now they are all in trouble, and none know of any but their own.” Through my trials my health still decayed, until the Shakers said there was no cure for me, and did not afford me any medical aid, and I was obliged to leave them and go to my friends. The thoughts of going any distance from my children was desperate, but to stay was death!! I obtained the liberty of conversing with my husband, though only in presence of the Elders, – I begged for some relief from him, and for some of my children. He said he “had as good a right to take the care of any other woman as me, and as for the children they were none of his to * †

The Shakers have their closets made in their different houses, and they are so intricate and artfully made that a stranger cannot discover them. A Shaker man or elder. As near as I can ascertain, this child was about six years old.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

131

give, &c.” I earnestly entreated of him to let me / have my dear babe. Oh! – I felt the sorrows of an affectionate bereaved parent – every tender feeling of my heart was rent. Every one in the house said they had naught against me, only I had not got their faith. The Elders charged me not to expose the freedom which they had attempted to make with me, and said, “if I did they should deny it and make me the liar, for the world never knew it and never were to know it.” They believe is pleasing to God to tell a lie to screen them from apparent evils! The Shakers forbid my going with my husband, though he was going immediately to my friends. They set a watch over me and my babe. In January, 1815, I made my escape with it, which was the only deceiving thing I did while among them. I had the comfort of riding eight miles with the dear little creature in my arms – the child said “Ma’ma, why did you not take care of me when we were at the Shakers,” and “the Shakers said you was tired of me, and did not wish to take the care of me,” &c. The Shakers followed me, took my babe from me,* and my husband advertised me.45 I felt unhappy on account of my children, and in March, 1815, my friends went with me again to the Shakers, & made my husband promise to take “christian care” of me. The Shakers put me into a room alone, and forbid my going out or speaking to any person, except in their presence, or writing to my friends, or keeping a journal, or going to any but a Shaker church. They forbid me having any access to my children. They put a mistress over me, who made me spin tow and set me a stent. I became unable to sit up – I took the yarn and began to knit – then my husband and James Chapman came into my prison and tore my work from me, one held it while the other ravelled it out, and carried it off. James Chapman usually accompanied my husband, and they frequently came into my prison and talked very ridiculous to me, and set me to weeping. I told Mr. Chapman / I imagined, that he had a wife some where whom he had treated similar to his treatment to me. He said he “never had a wife.” I shortly after learned, that he had brought several children there, to conceal from his wife. Some friends from the world called to see me, and told me and the Shakers I must not be delt with thus, I took liberty, walked out and got sight of my children but might not speak to them. They then said “if I did not go away they would take my children where I could not find them.” My husband would fly at me in a passion, and rub his fists in my face and say, “confess your sins, and join the people of God, or you will go to hell,” “& if you do not do more work you shall suffer,” &c. &c. My health was so low, that I begged for some relief, and they left me in a house alone during a very cold night, with a trifle of fuel; in the morning it was with the utmost difficulty that I drest myself, and was unable to kindle a fire, and remained in the cold until eight o’clock! It appeared as though I must die there alone. *

* See Josiah Terry’s Deposition, p, 47, 46.

132

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

At length a friend called to see me. I improved the few moments to inform him of my case. Then the Shakers sent my husband twenty-eight miles and hired my board. They said “this ground is holy ground, and none but the Shakers can stay on it.” I begged for one child, but they thrust me out of doors, and forced me into a carriage, and my husband and James Chapman drove me away, and I continued in lamentation. My husband said, “Mary, why do you weep, you have done the best you could” He once told me that he was obliged to treat me so bad, that it appeared as though he could not live. He was once the best of husbands, and I verily believe, he would still have treated me kindly if it had not been for the Shakers. After my husband left me I felt apprehensive of a delirium. I went back to the Shakers – they said my husband was absent. I wandered about the village to get sight of my husband and children until my grief and fatigue brought on a sickness and fainting, so that I, a number of / times, had to lay on the ground, and thought I could never rise again. As I wandered I thought I must fall down and expire in the street. I returned to the place where Mr. Dyer had hired my board, & stayed until the time had expired, and got better in health. I again went to the Shakers, and told them in the presence of Judge Evans that, provided they would once more let me see my husband and children, and converse with them absent from the Shakers, I would retire to my friends and never trouble them again, which the Shakers refused, and ordered me to leave their house, At length my husband came, and he in a great passion, seized me in order to thrust me out of the door, I held fast to the door casing until he tore my clothes very badly; one of the women un-clinched my hands so suddenly that I fell backwards on the floor: when I came to myself and opened my eyes, my husband, James Chapman, and two Shaker women were standing by me:* when they saw my eyes open, they clenched hold my feet with my clothes, dragged me out of the doors, down four steps to the ground; then dragged me through the door yard, and through the gate, into the street. They tore off my cap & handkerchief, & left me lying on the ground – this was a cold evening, in the month of Oct and in this situation I was left, without a friend, without a home. I saw my husband take my trunk with all my clothing and my mantle, and they were carried out of my sight. In about half an hour my husband came to me and said I had better be going to some house for shelter. I asked him to finish my days, and, as he had separated me from every thing but life, I was willing to die in their hands!! After this, my sufferings were severe, but the recollection of them are so wounding and distressing to me I can write no farther. When I reflect how I am cut off from the society of my dear babes by my once kind partner in / life!! I cannot express my grief ! – Oh! how heartrending and no remedy! MARY DYER.” *

Probably their spiritual wives.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

133

“Guildhall, Co. Essex, State of Vermont, January 12, 1818. “Mary Dyer personally appeared before me and attested, that the foregoing was the truth and nothing but the truth. Timothy Fairchild, Justice of the Peace.”

Extract of a letter from Mr. John C. Irwin, Esq.46 Post Master in the town of Oxford, state of Ohio, dated February 23, 1818, in answer to my letter. “Dear madam – I have carefully read your pamphlet, and do very sensibly feel for one in your situation; having myself been an eye and ear witness to a number of cases similar to yours. I find that the Shakers in every part of the country are alike, & am well satisfied they are equally bent on the downfall of civil government, & the destruction of the innocent. It has been, perhaps, twelve years since my step brother, James Smith, first joined the Shakers, He was then in the possession of a handsome living; had a very virtuous wife and three very promising sons; his wife being a very pious woman could not be prevailed on to join the Shaker society. They then lived in the state of Kentucky. He declared to her, that if she would consent for him to sell their possessions there and come to the State of Ohio, that he would not compel her, or her children to live among the Shakers. He hitherto being a man of truth and respectability, she consented. But, alas, to her utter surprise, ere she was aware, he landed her in Shaker town, on Turtle Creek!!47 Every entreaty was make use of, but all to no purpose! She remained with them several weeks, and then sent for myself and one of his brothers to come and see her; which we did. We stayed several days, she then obtained leave of her husband to go home with us, to stay a few days, and return. His father Col. James Smith48 / and others took her back at the appointed time. But to her further surprise she could not obtain a sight of her dear little children for several days. All the money and property she had was given to the Shakers and herself advertised in the public papers as having forsaken and left her husband, without any just cause or his consent. None, but yourself and others who have suffered the like treatment from those unfeeling people, can have any just idea of a tender mother’s feelings at such a time. After some time the poor woman obtained her youngest child by stratagem and some money. She has since obtained a divorce and is now living in Kentucky. There were a number of others in this country who suffered in like manner.” I have received the pamphlet,49 which contains 44 octavo pages. It appears to have been written by the Rev. Col. James Smith, a gallant officer in the revolutionary war, and own father of James Smith junr. who joined the Shakers. It appears that Col. Smith had given the public and the legislature a correct state-

134

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

ment of the conduct of the Shakers to his unfortunate daughter-in-law, and that the Shakers, in a lengthy publication,50 call him a libeller, and attempt to impeach his character; and they hired their lawyers and editors to cry out, “The bulwark of our religion is in danger! the constitution will be broken down, in case our legislature should stigmatise, thro’ a law, the peaceable inoffensive people called Shakers!!” The book which I have in keeping, contains a number of affidavits given under oath, and stating the repeated deceptions of the Shakers and their unmerciful abuse to the lady, as mentioned in the foregoing letter, and the same gentleman’s deposition, together with that of the unfortunate lady. Col. Smith, by several different affidavits, dated 1810, proves that the Shakers had for “three years been artfully and subtilly exciting the Indians to fall upon the defenceless frontiers, belonging to the U. States,” and actually supplied them at different times / with provison, ammunition and money, for their use. And that the Shakers told the Indians, the Bible was good for nothing, as it was not the word of God, & that ‘a Shaker woman died & Elder David51 told them that the Indians could not be saved if that woman had not died for them & for the sins of that people. And that the lower order of people pull off their hats and shoes on entering Elder David’s apartment, because they call it holy ground! and they take hold of his garment and say “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world;” and that, the women have to kneel before Eldress Ruth and kiss her feet, and say Behold the Lamb of God, &c. &c. And that the Shaker Elders assert that the soul of Gen. Washington came to them after his decease, and confessed his SINS!!! And also the ancient PROPHETS!” And “that the Shakers have nothing to do with civil LAW among themselves. Elder David’s mandates are their law; he administers rewards and punishments. His authority is absolute, and is punctually obeyed. Col. Smith observes that, “Shakerism is a despotic government already erected within our state, fundamentally and practically opposers of the Unites States’ government, and enemies to the peace and happiness of mankind, which as far exceeds popish bondage as they thing that was ever known to exceed another in the world, which includes in it all kinds of political evils. It disturbs the peace of families; separates husbands and wives; robs women of their tender offspring; destroys natural affection; dissolves the marriage covenant, which is the main pillar of any state or kingdom. It takes people’s money without any compensation; it is raising a young generation systematically enemies to American liberty; it enslaves mankind, and if it predominates, will finally depopulate America: and are all these injuries to be admitted, and patiently borne with, under the pretence of worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience?” He concludes by saying, “When we consider the many falsehoods that have been proved against them, / and that their system is founded on falsehood, and supported by secrecy and deceit – who can believe a SHAKER?!!!”

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

135

“An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other purposes.” Passed March 14, 1818. “Whereas Eunice Chapman, in the year one thousand eight hundred and four, was lawfully married to James Chapman, by whom she had three children, and with whom she lived until the year one thousand eight hundred and eleven, when the said James Chapman abandoned his said wife, without leaving her any means of support, and soon after joined the socity of Shakers, at Niskauna, in the county of Albany: And whereas, the said James Chapman, since joining the society of Shakers, has taken from his wife her children, and now keeps them concealed from her, and insists, that the marriage contract between him & his said wife is annulled, and that he is not bound to support her, and has publicly forbid all persons from harboring her, and declared, that he would not be responsible for her debts: Therefore, Be it enacted by the people of the state of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, That the marriage contract between the said Eunice Chapman and her said husband James Chapman, be and the same is hereby declared to be dissolved, and the said Eunice Chapman entirely freed from the same: Provided, that the dissolution of such marriage shall in no wise affect the legitimacy of the children thereof. And be it further enacted, That in all cases where any husband or wife, having any child or children of the marriage, shall hereafter separate the one from the other, & shall or have attached him or herself to the said Shakers; and shall also take, or have taken with him or her, such child or children, being under age, the chancellor, or any judge of the supreme court, for the time being on the application of the husband or wife not having joined the said Shakers, and being and inhabitant of this state, may allow a / habeas corpus to bring such child or children before him, and if, on the return thereof, such child or children cannot be found, and it shall appear that such children is or are concealed or secreted, by and among any society of Shakers in this state, it shall be lawful for the chancellor, to judge, as the case may be, in his discretion, to issue a warrant directing the sheriff, or other proper officer, of the county where the said society resides, in the day time, to search the dwelling house and other buildings of the said society, or any members thereof, for such child or children; and, on bringing such child or children before the chancellor or judge, he may on due consideration award the charge and custody of such child or children so to be brought before him, or any of them, to that parent who shall not have joined the said society of Shakers, for such time, and under such regulations and restrictions, and with such provisions and directions, as to the said chancellor or judge shall seem proper, and as the case may require; and the chancellor, or any judge of the supreme court, shall at all times thereafter, have power, on sufficient cause shown, to annul, vary or

136

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

modify the order so to be made; and such warrant of the chancellor or judge, shall justify the sheriff or other officer, and those who by their order shall come to their aid, in making such search as aforesaid; and if sued therefor, may plead the general issue, and give this act, and the special matter in evidence: And further, If any member of the said society of Shakers, or any other person, shall send or carry, or cause to be sent or carried, any such child or children, out of this state, or shall secrete or cause to be secreted, within the same, any such child or children, so that the said writ of habeas corpus cannot be executed, such member of the society, and every other person concerned therein, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor; and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding six months, or both, at the discretion of the court, before whom such conviction may be had.” /

“State of New York, Assembly Chamber. March 30th, 1818.” “This may certify, that I Aaron, Clark, Clerk of the Assembly of the state of New York, do declare, that having examined the affidavits ser forth in the preceeding pages, as made by Thomas E. Barker, Lemuel Hotchkiss, William Chapman, Maria Barnet, Mary Spencer, Sarah O. Hawley, Peter Penfield, Benjamin and Lydia Chapman, Nathan Raymond, Giles Ingraham, Samuel I. Allen, Delieucena Backus, Elijah Hawley, and Josiah Terry; I find that so much thereof as is set forth in the preceeding pages, are correctly transcribed from the original on file in the Assembly Chamber, upon which was predicated in part the bill entitled, “An act for the relief of Eunice Chapman, and for other purposes.” AARON CLARK, Clerk of the Assembly.” “State of New York, “I, John F. Bacon, Clerk of the senate, do certify, that the foregoing certificate of Aaron Clark, Cl’k of the Assembly, is true. “Dated, Albany, March 31, 1818. “JOHN F. BACON, Cl’k of the Senate.” (Some observations of the authoress here follow, which, as they are uninteresting to the people in this country, are omitted, as has also been frequently done in the preceeding pages, when passages occurred, with which our readers were acquainted, or alone concerned the people, where this work was first published,) /

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

137

APPENDIX, CONTAINING Extracts from the depositions of a number of competent witnesses, relative to the proceedings of the Shakers of Union Village, near Lebanon, Ohio; together with other matter concerning this society, who pretend to be the peculiar people of God. The affidavits were thought too long to be copied in this work without abridgement. – We have therefore dispensed with their introductory and concluding forms, and only made such extracts as are sufficient to show that Shakerism is Delusion, & that the heads or leaders of the Society are Infidels, Impostures, Worldings, & Tyrants.

Extract of a letter from Mrs. Chapman to the Editor of the Western Star, dated Albany, June 16, 1818. “As soon as I laid my case before the Legislature in Feb. 1818, the Shakers ordered Mr. Chapman to abscond with my children to another state. From that time until May 1817, I knew not where they were, when providentially, I heard of them by a young man who left the Shakers & came to Albany. He first informed mw of Mrs. Dyer, she resides at Enfield, N. Hampshire and has since often written to me about my children. – On the 9th May I went secretly to Enfield. I had sent my books by mail – / they were read, and excited indignation against the Shakers and spread terror amongst them. They even said, they expected the inhabitants would shoot them down in the streets. I kept concealed for ten days – mean time I got a person who had children among them to go and see theirs & get sight of mine, to ascertain whether they were there or not. When the Shakers heard I was there they were much terrified, and every moment expected an insurrection amongst the inhabitants. They kept a guard all night, and the inhabitants watched all night on every side of the village, lest they should take the children off to some other village. The day after they heard I was there (May 24) I with several men and women together with a member of the Legislature of that state and his lady, were admitted to see my children – Mrs. Dyer was admitted to see hers at the same time. My son, 13 years old, first came to me and said “Eunice, how do you do?” I wept but he was no more that obedient child he once was, he was unaffectionate and impudent – When I saw my daughter Susan, the next eldest, I clasped her in my arms, groaned and wept aloud over her, & bathed her pale, sallow checks with my tears. She is no more that cheerful, sprightly child that could soothe my griefs in the most distressing hours of adversity: she is in a low state of health; no doubt it is occasioned by her close confinement so contrary to her natural disposition. And oh! when I saw Julia my dear babe, I clasped her in my arms and called her

138

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

my long lost babe – I was more overcome at meeting with her than with either of the others. The scene excited painful and pleasing sensations – (I now stop to weep.) Those who accompanied us, even the men, at the sight wept like children. My dear Susan and Julia both called me “Eunice.” They, like two parrots said over what had been told them to say, in case I should ask them how they were treated or how they liked to be there &c. Without asking them, I took my Julia into my lap, but she sprung out and said “It / is contrary to order to sit in lap.” I gave her & Susan some toys which they took; I shewed them a fine dressed doll, but they said they did not want it – Mr. Chapman was present during the time, and he looked like a ghost. As I cast my watry eyes towards Mrs. Dyer, I saw her with her five children, one son & daughter grown up; as she was talking to them I saw one of the head Shaker men stand behind them (satan like) pushing the eldest son & daughter forward to fight their mother as she was talking to her younger children, and they faught her until they dragged all her other children from her out of the room. After we had been there some time Mr. Chapman left the room, and I took my little girls to go out, but before I got to the gate the old Shakers sent Mr. Chapman & he took them from me, – At this time our company was gone, Mrs. Dyer & myself were alone. On the 26th a number of the inhabitants collected; a criminal writ was got out for Mr. C. for his abuse to Mrs. Dyer. I with one man and two women went to the village, they refused to let us into their houses, we asked for Mr. Chapman, they said they did not know where he was and even denied us the privilege of going into their door yard – we sat in the street, and told every traveller as he passed, of their conduct. Shortly the inhabitants collected; they talked very plain to the Shakers. The Shakers contradicted themselves – they said they did not know where Mr. Chapman was, and again, they said he was in the woods with the children &c. – About dusk he was seen going to the house: the inhabitants caught him and solicited him to come to some agreement with me and divide the children, but he would not. The Shakers said they had no control over him or the children, but they often took him aside and counselled him what to do. I solicited him to let me have my daughters; he said he would sooner put them on a log and set them adrift upon the pond. The officer then took him & put him under keepers. They then searched for my children and found my son in a barn on the / mountain – a dozen Shakers followed us when we took him away, but dared not take him from me – the little girls were found in the church house, but we dared not break the doors. We travelled several miles with my son and left him, and went back for the girls; but Mr. C. having obtained his dismission I was obliged to flee to this state or loose the child I had got.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

139

DEPOSITIONS. August 25, 1817. JAMES BEDELL52 being duly sworn, saith, that while a member of the society of Shakers, (as well as he recollects) in the fall of 1811, he was present when Francis Bedell53 and Amos Valentine,54 also members, conveyed or gave up their land to Pease,55 Wallace,56 and Sharp57 – that there were several others in the room when the business was transacted – that Pease, Wallace, and Sharp had a bag containing about 50 dollars, which they handed to one of the persons who conveyed his land as aforesaid, (whether Bedell or Valentine was first called he does not recollect) – that the person first called took the bag of money, and after holding it a short time, one of the Shakers present observed to him, “well, I reckon you are tired of holding that; let me hold it a while” – that the money was handed to him to hold, and that the same bag of money was thus handed round until it came to the Shaker who paid it out – and that the same bag was again handed to the same person, counting so much more – that it went the same round until it counted the amount of money at which the property was estimated. And when they had thus paid the one for his property, they proceeded in the same manner to pay the other with the same bag of money – that the persons who had conveyed the land were asked if they were now paid – that they answered “Yea,” and at the same time the bag of money was in possession of the purchasers, Pease, Wallace, and Sharp – that this deponent was called on as a witness to the payment of the money, and that he saw no other money than was said to be in this one bag. / September 23, 1817. JONATHAN DAVIS being duly sworn, saith, that in 1815, he and Susanna his wife,58 joined the Shaker society; that about two years after, the Gift of God (as the Shakers call it) was for this deponent to admit other families to gather together and live with him; (he was then living on his own farm containing 250 acres, about two miles from the Shakers’ meeting house) – and that the said families should form themselves into family order, that is, the brothers to reside in one part, and the sisters in the other part of the house; and although there were married persons in said families, no husband & wife were permited to have any more intercourse with each other than if they were not married; that husband & wife were instructed to have no more affection for each other than for any other person, and to abstain from sexual intercourse at the risk of their salvation; that it was preached to them repeatedly by the Shakers, that the institution of marriage was not of God, but proceeded from the Devil and the lusts of the flesh:– That a few months after they were formed into family order as aforesaid, Elder David came to this deponent’s house, and appointed him Elder of the family of brethren, and his wife Susanna Eldress of the sisters, that is, rulers or managers of spiritual affairs, and his son William Davis59 ruler of temporal affairs:60 Elder David said this was the Gift. He also saith, that all this

140

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

time and some time after they were made Elders, he had his children under his care: when some of the leading members came and told him and his wife, that the Gift was, for the children to be gathered together into a family, & to have two of the brethren and two of the sisters appointed to take charge of them, in the Gift of God. Though this deponent and his wife wished to keep their children under their own care, yet as they were made to believe that it was the Gift of God, they suffered their children to be taken away. This deponent further saith, that in January, 1812,61 Richard M’ Nemar62 with another Elder came to him with a Gift. That the family should be broken up – that this deponent should / go and reside in one family and his wife in another, which were about four miles apart; and that in April following another Gift came to him and wife & several others, to wit, that they should give up their real property – that they could travel no longer in the Gospel with their property – the Shakers having previously preached that they could not get to heaven with one or two hundred acres of land on their backs, &c. – that a day was appointed & deeds were drawn for the conveyance of the land – that this deponent refused to sign a deed conveying his land, telling them he meant to keep it during his life, and divide it among his children at his death – upon which Peter Pease promised, that if he would give up his land & other property, an inventory of the whole should be taken, and it should be so divided that he, the father, should have twice as much as the mother, the mother twice as much as the son, and the son twice as much as the daughter ; and if the father, mother, son, or daughter, remained with them, these should be their respective shares, and that in case any of them left the society, his or her share should be given up, as this deponent understood; on the day appointed, he, his wife, and several other land-holders, met and being collected in a room, this deponent, contrary to his expectation, was called on to receive money for his property. John Wallace, sitting at a desk, handed him five rolls of dollars wrapped up in paper, and told him each roll contained 50 dollars, and on his receving the rolls, Wallace observed to him, that there were 250 dollars. Immediately one of the brothers, standing next to him, said to him, “I reckon you are tired of holding that, let me hold it for you;” upon which this deponent handed the said rolls to him the said brother, & thus the said rolls were handed from one to another until they came round to Wallace: & as soon as they came to said Wallace’s hand, he handed the same again to this deponent, saying “there is 250 dollars more,” and the said rolls were again taken from this deponent as before, and they were handed round in this manner six times; and said / Wallace, on handing them the last time, observed to this deponent, that Susanna, his wife, ought to have part of the money, and gave the said rolls to Susanna, saying, this makes 1,500 dollars in payment for your land – that the money this last time also was handed round as before and laid on the desk: That they then proceeded and paid Samuel Sering,63 Samuel Hollaway,64 Jos. Patterson,65 & Elijah Davis,66 in

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

141

the same manner, and with the same rolls of Dollars; and that the said rolls were then put into the desk and shut up – & that then this deponent, with his wife and the others who gave up their property, signed a covenant, the contents of which he knew not then, nor does he yet know. [In the remaining part of this affidavit, the deponent states, that his wife became dissatisfied, & a Gift came from the Elders, for her to be conveyed to the Shaker society on the Wabash.67 She refused to go; but being persuaded, went. The society on the Wabash being broken up, soon returned, and shortly after left the Shakers. Within two months her husband left them also, and afterwards took from them his daughter Hulda. He affirms, from certain knowledge, that they are in the habit of concealing children; married women, and others, to prevent their relations from getting them, and of denying that they know where such persons are, when they well know. He says he has learned, that when any thing is necessary to be done to accomplish their designs, the Elders meet and consult, and their decision is given out as the Gift of God. Finally, he deposes, that, at a certain time when a suit was depending in the court of common pleas in which David Derrow was a party, he heard the Elders instruct certain persons, who had been summoned as witnesses, to give in evidence such parts of what they knew as would be favorable to them keeping back the rest.] ELIZABETH DAVIS, being duly sworn, saith, that in the year 1805, she lived with her parents, Samuel and Sarah Sering,68 who were then shakers; that, June 4th, of that year, she married John Davis69 / whose parents also were Shakers; that she lived with her husband at her father’s house, three months; during which time the Shakers constantly endeavoured to pursuade her husband to join them, frequently gave her abusive language, and prevented them from keeping house together; that in August following, her husband joined the society: shortly after, the Shakers treated her very ill, telling her she was so filthy that she corrupted John Davis and even the family with which she lived; that she must unite herself with the society, or she should not live any where among them; that she refused to do so until they promised, that if she would join them & take up so much of the Cross as not to have any sexual intercourse with her husband, she might live with him and do as she pleased otherwise. In consideration of this promise, she consented and joined them; her affection for her husband being too great to leave him entirely – that they lived together at his fathers house about eighteen months, after her joining them; at the end of which time, one of the Eldresses came to her and told her that she must go home to her father’s house, for it was nothing but the Devil that connected her to Davis. Shortly after, Lucy Smith, another Eldress, came & told her that they, the Shakers, could feel no union with her unless she would obey the Gift of God, and leave the house where her husband lived. She mentioned it to him, who said he thought it would be better for them to seperate, as they could have no comfort as they were.

142

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

She thus was induced to take her infant, leave the house, & go to her father’s. Her husband wished to see her and child once a week: but she was forbidden to suffer him to come to the house or even to speak to him. An injunction was also laid on her father and mother to prohibit her husband from coming into their house & from speaking to his wife. – Shortly after, the two Eldresses above mentioned commenced flattering, and persuading this deponent to give up all thoughts about, and regard for her husband; without which she could never succeed to get on in the Gospel. And if she would be more / faithful she should have a BETTER MATE than her fleshly husband; upon which this deponent said that she did not want any other than her husband; to which they replied she should not have him, as he was the choice of her carnal nature; and that when she became more faithful, she should have A BETTER MATE ACCORDING TO THE GIFT. [The deponent here states, that her husband, dissatisfied with his situation, determined to leave the Shakers, and take her with him; but she, having become in a measure reconciled to her situation, did not then wish to leave them. The deponent was informed, that Elder David felt on the subject, and that it was the Gift of God for her to be removed back to the house where her husband lived. She returned thither, but he was still irreconciled and persuaded her to quit the society and go with him, which she refused to do. He left them, declaring he would not desist from attempting to get her away. – The Eldresses told her if he succeeded in getting her away, that she might embrace an opportunity of returning; the Shakers would conceal her, and placing her in a large chest with a suitable opening for breathing, they would convey her in a carriage to some foreign branch of the society. She proceeds in her affidavit as follows.] About 3 or 4 weeks after this deponent’s husband left the society, the Shakers knowing his determination, on a Sabbath morning a great number of the heads of the society met in council, to consult respecting the safe keeping of this deponent. It was determined to be most expedient to take her to the place of meeting: accordingly she was placed in a carriage, which was guarded by fifty persons to the aforesaid place of meeting. Upon a discovery of a number of persons in company with her husband, coming to rescue her from said society, she was taken to the upper part of the house, where by a trap door she was put into the garret apartment. After some time, as she was informed, Elder David said that she would be very unpleasantly situated, and sent and had her brought into the circle of the society, / where they were dancing. Exertions being made by her husband and others to seize and take her away, she, this deponent, was taken by dragging and carrying her into the same garret, where she remained until nearly the setting of the sun, after which she was guarded back to her habitation. On Monday, her husband came with a civil officer and writ, accompanied with eight or ten men. The Elders having previously agreed to admit no person into the house, ordered

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

143

this deponent to retire to a back room, and fastened all the doors. The officer and his company, after arriving at the house inquired after Elizabeth Davis, two or three of the others instantly replied, that there was no such woman there; the officer with others, after threatening to break open the doors, gained admittance into the room and seized her to bear her off, when instantly a number of the Shaker women who were in the room, seized hold of her also, & the two parties handled her so roughly that she was very much hurt; the Shakers holding to her as long as they could, but her husband and his party prevailed and took her to her brother Samuel Sering near Lebanon.70 For several days after some of the Shakers visited the house in which she resided, endeavoring to persuade her to return, and Peter Pease told her she should go into Court and make oath that her husband and brother S. Sering had abused her, and by that means she would obtain a divorce. The members of the society still continued to frequent the house in which she, this deponent, lived, until by her instruction her husband told them that she did not wish to see them. This deponent further says, that from her own experience, and from what she heard from, and saw in others of said society, that it is in consequence of the awful imprecations, and threatened judgements proceeding from the Elders, that many are held in, & made to summit to, the injunctions of said society – that frequently many of them manifest great dissatisfaction & distress of mind, who are prohibited (when know by the Elders) to speak their minds to any person, especially to those of whom they may have doubt / respecting their fidelity to the Shaker cause. And this deponent has also frequently seen grown and even married females, at the command of the Eldresses, humble themselves on their knees and make confession to such as are in authority. August 30, 1817. October 20th, 1817. JOHN DAVIS being duly sworn, saith that in the month of June 1805, he was married to Elizabeth Sering,71 daughter of Samuel Sering, that the parents of this deponent and his wife, were then members of the Shaker society; that he and his wife lived at his father’s for about three months after they were married; during which time the leaders of the society were constantly endervoring to persuade him to join himself to the society; that in August following he was induced to join them: that shortly after he became a member, the Shakers frequently came to his father’s house to preach, a number of the members being gathered and residing there in family order, & while preaching, would rave & stamp and repeatedly exclaim, that if husband & wife continued to dwell together, they would be lost, go to hell, &c. that it was the influence of the devil that caused them to marry, that the cursed affection of the husband for the wife; the wife for the husband, the parents for their children, and the children for their parents, would sink them to hell; that if they felt any affection for their

144

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

wife, husband, child, &c. they should turn their thoughts from them, should not speak to them, nor do any thing for them until they had lost all that natural affection, &c. and would also often aver that Elder David possessed the power to damn any one that lived in disobedience, or conducted contrary to the Gift that by these exclamations and averments together with many awful denunciations, he, this deponent, and many others were driven to a separation from their wives and children, & that he was absolutely prohibited from visiting his wife, and not even allowed to notice her – that some time after he and his wife were separated, one of the leaders of the / society told him that if they allowed man and wife to live together with their children, they would be so selfish they would want to lay up all their earnings for their children; but if they were separated, and all conjugal and paternal affection destroyed, they would have nothing to work for but the support of the gospel; which conversation together with other sayings and improper conduct caused this deponent to suspect that their pretentions were base and deceptions: and beginning to be dissatisfied with his situation he resolved to leave them, and sought every opportunity to persuade his wife to go with him, but could not prevail on her for the subtitle reasoning and awful influence of the Shakers; that in the year 1818 he left the society without his wife; that afterwards he went to the family where she resided, in order to get her away, but was prevented by the Shakers, who would not suffer him to take her, nor even to have a private interview with her – that finally obtaining a search warrant he went with a civil officer and others and took her away – that frequently afterwards, some of the leaders of the society came to the house where this deponent had his wife, & endeavored to persuade her to leave him and return to the society. He further saith, that, his mother, Susannah Davis, expressed a desire to leave the society, that the Shakers in order to prevent her escape, began to make preparation to convey her to the Shaker society at the Wabash in Indiana; that this deponent on receiving information that his mother was dissatisfied amongst them, and that they were about to remove her to a distant branch of the society, went to the house where she resided, and succeeded in obtaining a short interview with her, at which time she requested him, to attend at a certain place in the evening and under cover of the night she would make her escape; meet him and go with him to his home; saying at the same time, that she would not go to the Wabash if she could avoid it – that this deponent, accordingly attended at the time and place, but being discovered by the Shakers, was obliged to return without her – that the next / morning he went again to see her, when she told him with tears in her eyes, that the Shakers on discovering him in the evening, suspected their design, and confined her to the house, or she would have met and went with him; but that now she supposed she would have to go to the Wabash;” and the Shakers being ready with their horses took her off immediately, very much against her will, as he verily believes.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

145

This deponent further saith that while he was a member of the said society, the Shakers would hold mock meetings, in which they would mimic the different denominations, in order to cast the greater contempt upon other religious sects – that in mimicing the Presbyterians and Baptists, they would sing, read & pray after the manner of those societies, and put on “long face,” (as they called it) and when through such ceremony, they would curse such a God and such a Christ as these people worship, in the most horrid and blasphemous manner; and when mimicing the Methodists they would seat themselves in order for class meeting (as they said) when one would act the part of a class leader, by going round and asking one after another what the Lord had done for their souls when one would reply that the Lord had done so and so; and another that the Lord had done this or that for his soul, upon which they would pray and bless the Lord, &c. and would again curse such a God and such a Christ as these people worshiped – and in mimicing the New-Lights,72 a number of them, after much exercise after the manner of the New-Lights, would fall down and lie motionless for some length of time, while others would collect around and pray over them, and that they would then spring up and sing and shout Glory to God, &c. while others were shaking hands and blessing the Lord that “another poor soul had come through.” This performed, they would again curse God, &c. and after all this mockery would commence dancing in, their own way, and exclaim that they wanted a God that they could see (meaning Elder David.) – This deponent further saith that in the month of July 1817 – a cousin to this / deponent, a lad aged about 15 years, by the name of Jonathan Davis, made his escape from the Shakers and came to the town of Lebanon aforesaid, and asserted that he could not live any longer with the Shakers – that on the 31st day of said month of July, as this deponent and the said lad were at work in a woods about one mile from the town of Lebanon, five of the Shakers, to wit: John Wallace, Nathan Sharp, Thomas Hunt, Lewis Waits and William Davis; surrounded this deponent and the said lad, and being armed with clubs and one dirk or spear, with force and violence seized the said lad and bore him off to their village – that on the said 31st July, this deponent was at the Shaker village, at the house where his sister Polly Davis resides, that his said sister invited him into her room, saying she wished to converse with him, that as he was assending the stair way which led to his sister’s apartment, Richard M’ Nemar and Samuel Rolands,73 with force and violence prevented him from going to his said sister’s apartment, and absolutely refused to let him converse with her; though, at the same time, she appeared at the door of her room and told them that she had requested him to come up and converse with her, and wished them to let him come, yet they persisted in preventing him from having any interview with her.

146

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

August 5, 1817. JONATHAN HAMPTON, being sworn deposeth, that in the year 1816 he was a member of the society called Shakers, at Union Village, in Warren country; that a Patty Rude, a member of said society, was confined to bed and very ill; that this deponet and Job Babbet, junr. discovered that the said Patty was shamefully neglected by the said society, that she suffered greatly and continued growing worse, until this deponent and Job had employed a physician, Dr. J. F. Moore, of Lebanon, to attend her: that a few days after, Nathan Sharp and other Shakers reproved him, saying he did wrong by paying any attention to the said Patty, that she had passed / the charity of God, and that the Shakers could do no more for her, [The remainder of this affidavit states that the deponent, with his wife and four children, left the Shakers, and that they held and concealed his eldest son, fourteen years of age, and repeatedly denied that they knew any thing of him.] September 3, 1817 JOHN HAMPTON being duly sworn, saith that his father Jonathan Hampton got information that his son Jonathan [whom he left with the Shakers as stated in the preceeding extract,) was at the branch of the society at Beaver Creek,74 near Dayton; that on the first day of this inst. (Sept.) this deponent with eight others, proceeded to Beaver Creek aforesaid, and there found the said Jonathan his brother, and took him from said society – that the Shakers had changed his name from Jonathan Hampton, to William Lockwood and that he heard one of the Shaker women call him by the name of William – and this deponent further states, that he verily believes the Shakers did convey the said Jonathan from the village near Lebanon, to the said Society at Beaver Creek, to prevent his father from getting him. August 30, 1817. HULDA DAVIS, being duly sworn, saith, that at a certain time while she was with the Shakers, John Wallace put a daughter of Jane Evin’s, 8 or 9 years old, into a barrel that was standing in the house yard and covered the barrel with a tub just large enough to go over its top; that the said girl was left in that situation from some time in the afternoon until after dark in the evening, when said Wallace rolled the barrel over the yard with the girl in it, pretending that he was the devil, that he was hunting for bad girls, and happened to find her there; asking her if she was a good or bad girl, if she would be good he would leave her, and continued rolling the barrel for some time, making a very strange noise, which so frightened the girl that she cried and screamed loud enough / to be heard half a mile; and after leaving her a while longer, he returned, took off the cover from the barrel, and asked her if the devil was gone, and said he would take her out now the devil was gone if she would be a good girl. This deponent further

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

147

saith, that the elders of said society frequently frightened, or caused the children among them to be frightened in the most shocking manner. August 23, 1817. JACOB RUDE, aged 19 years, being duly sworn, saith, that in the year 1815, he went with his mother to the society of Shakers; that he with 7 other young persons attended an evening school in the winter of 1815 and 1816, that one evening after they had gone through the exercises of the school, John Woods,75 who taught the school, rose up & taught them, saying that they must hate their parents: and if their patent spoke to them, they must not answer them; or if they did, they must answer them in a scornful sneering manner, frown and look surly at them, &c. And then put the question to them in general, whether this was not their faith; they all answered Yea, except this deponent, who was silent – which Woods perceived and immediately put the question to each one separately, beginning at this deponent, who stood first in the class, & who though conscious of the error, through fear, answered in the affirmative. – And, that Woods repeatedly endeavored to instil such principles into their minds. August 27, 1817. HENRY BAILY, being sworn, saith, that, in Nov. 1816, he, with his wife, joined the society called Shakers; that about Christmas following, at a Wednesday’s meeting, when the said society engaged in a dance there were two lads about 15 years old, James Irwin and Samuel Hill, who did not engage in the dance, but stood by the fire. After a few minutes, Richard M’Nemar, who had the command of the dance that day came forward and took hold of one of the lads by the arm with the one hand and by the throat with the other, and pushed him backwards over / a seat on the floor, where he, maintaining his hold, got on the boy with both his knees, and pressed him against the floor with all his strength – after which he caught the other lad and served him in the same way. Then the said M’Nemar went back to his former stand, and after a short space of time returned to the boys and repeated the abuse rather more severely – for he appeared to be in a great rage, while he said The devil is in you, and I will beat him out of you !! The boys standing by the fire bemoaning themselves as if they were much hurt, he made an attempt to approach them a third time, but was stopped by a young man of the said society, which excited a warm dispute between them. After meeting was over, this deponent went down to John Carson,76 a member of said society, and informed him that he was dissatisfied with such conduct, as he did not expect to find such proceedings. Carson told him he must not be alarmed at what he saw, for it was a customary thing among them. The same evening this deponent informed Thomas Boyd, who was not a member of said socity, but lived with his son William77 who was a member, of the above mentioned circumstance. And the said Thomas took his son William to task

148

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

respecting the said proceedings; and William positively denied to him that any such treatment was exercised by said Richard towards the lads. On the next day, this deponent observed to William “I have been informed you say that Richard M’Nemar did not abuse the boys in meeting yesterday.” William replied, Yea, I said so; the gift is such, that none such of out proceedings is to come to the knowledge of the world, or words to that amount. – This deponent informed him that he was determined not to live under such a tyrannical government any longer. Shortly after which he was separated from his wife, as to having any coversation with her, and positively forbid to speak to her, unless before some particular members of the society: and that after much difficulty, by stratagem and the aid of his neighbors, he effected his escape, with his wife, in April, 1817. /

REMARKS. The following remarks on the preceeding depositions, are extracts from the Weekly Recorder78 of Oct. 1817. In this week’s paper, we have completed the extracts which we promised to make from the depositions of a number of competent witnesses, relative to the proceedings of the Shakers. From these extracts it must be evident to our intelligent readers, that Shakerism is hostile to the religion of the Bible; that it violates the most sacred obligations, bursts asunder the most endearing ties, saps the foundation of domestic society, and aims at the extinction of congugal, parental, and filial affection. The Bible says that marriage is an institution of God, and honorable in all: but Shakerism says that it proceeds from the devil and the lusts of the flesh. [See the depositions of Jonathan and Elizabeth Davis.] The Bible says, what God hath joined together let not man put asunder; but the Shakers do not hesitate to separate persons who are united in marriage according to the ordinance of God. [See the same depositions.] The Bible says, let every husband love his wife even as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband: but Shakerism instructs married persons to treat each other, not only with indifference, but also neglect and total abandonment. [See the deposition of Elizabeth Davis.] The Bible says, thou shalt not commit adultery: but from the testimony of one witness [the last mentioned] it appears that Shakerism is a mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. The Bible says, children, obey your parents; honor thy father and thy mother: but Shakerism teaches children to hate, dishonour, and scornfully treat their parents. [See the deposition of Jacob Rude.] The Bible expressly forbids all injustice, fraud, and coveteousness, which is idolatry: but the leaders of / the Shaker society take advantage of the credulity

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

149

of persons who have been induced to join them, and fraudently get possession of their property. [See the depositions of James Bedell and Jonathan Davis.] The Bible says lie not one to another; speak every one truth to his neighbor: but Shakerism violates the truth without hesitation, to conceal its own deformity and accomplish its iniquitous designs. [See the depositions of Jonathan Davis, Jonathan Hampton and Elizabeth Davis.] The Bible says be merciful; be kind one to another, tender hearted: but Shakerism shuts up the bowels of its compassion from the distressed, and treats with wanton cruelty those who are placed under its dominion. [See the depossions of Jonathan Hampton, Henry Bailey, and Huldy Davis.]

An act providing for the relief and support of women who may be abandoned by their husbands, and for other purposes. Whereas, it is represented to the general assembly, that a sect of people in this state, called and known by the name of Shakers, inculcate and enjoin upon all who become attached to them, that they must lead a life of celibacy; in consequence of which, women have been abandoned by their husbands, robbed of their children, and left destitute of the means of support: Therefore, Sect, 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Ohio, That if any man being joined in the marriage relations, shall renounce the marriage covenant, or refuse to live with his wife in the conjugal relation, by joing himself to any sect, whose rules and doctrines require a renunciation of the marriage covenant, or forbid a man and woman to dwell and cohabit together in the conjugal relation, / according to the true intent and meaning of the institution of marriage, it shall and may be lawful for the wife in such case, to file her petition in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas, or of the supreme court, at least two months before the time of the sitting of said court, and shall also serve the adverse party with a copy of said petition, within, one month from the time of filing the same, which petition shall state the true cause of complaint. And, in case he shall not reside in her county, she shall publish such notice in some newspaper published in said county, or in the next adjacent county in which a newspaper is published. Sect. 2. Be further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the clerk of such court, where the petition is filed, to issue a summons requiring the person complained of, to appear before the said court, to answer the allegation of said petition; and if the party complained of shall not appear, or appearing shall deny the facts stated in the petition, the court shall proceed to hear and determine the same. Sect. 3. Be it further enacted, That if it shall appear to the said court, that the woman complaining has been lawfully married to the man of whom complaint

150

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

is made, and that he hath renounced or violated the marriage covenant, by joining such sect as above described, the court shall take such measures as to them shall seem right, to ascertain the amount of the property, real and personal, of such husband, and shall decree such part thereof to the woman as shall appear just and equitable. Sect. 4. Be it further enacted, That if the said husband and wife shall have a child or children, (yet being in a state of minority,) the husband so violating the marriage covenant, shall be considered as having renounced and divested himself of all the authority he could have otherwise exercised over his children, and the court shall decree such part (or the whole) of the remainder of his property, real & personal, as to them shall seem right, to the use and support of the child or children aforesaid; and such child or children / shall be and remain under the care and direction of the mother: Provided, That the court shall have power, if they shall deem it necessary, to appoint a guardian or guardians for such child or children, agreeably to the provisions of the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth sections of the act, entitled “An act for the proving and recording wills and codicils; defining the duties of executors and administrators, the appointment of guardians, and the distribution of insolvent estates,” passed February tenth, one thousand eight hundred and ten: And provided also, That if the court shall deem it necessary, they may direct such child or children to be bound to apprenticeship, agreeably to the sixth section of the act, entitled “An act for the relief of the poor,” passed February 19th, one thousand eight hundred and ten. Sect. 5. Be it further enacted, That all gifts, grants or devises of money or property, real or personal, which may be made by any man as aforesaid, violating the marriage covenant, to such sect as before described, or any members of such sect, which may tend to deprive his wife or children of that support to which they are entitled, according to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall be utterly void; and all money or property so given, granted or devised, may be recovered at the suit of the party injured. Sect. 6. Be it further enacted, That if any person shall, with an intent of causing any married man or woman to renounce the marriage covenant, or abandon their wives husbands or children, entice or persuade such persons to join any sect or denominated of persons whatever, whose principles and practice inculcate a renunciation of the matrimonial contract, or the abandonment of wives and children, or either of them, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the marriage institution, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, at the discretion of the court having by law jurisdiction; and that all fines, incurred under this section, shall be paid into the treasury of the proper county, for the use of the same: Provided, That nothing in / this section contained shall be construed or understood to extend to any person for delivering any public sermon, exhortation or address.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers

151

This act shall take effect and be in force from the passage thereof. EDWARD TIFFIN. Speaker of the House of Representatives, THOMAS KIRKER. Speaker of the Senate. January 11, 1811. /

SHAKER TENETS The religious sentiments of the Shakers, being more fully disclosed in a Poem,79 found at the close of their writings entitled, “The testimony of Christ’s second appearing,” than in the preceeding pages; we presume, it will not be uninteresting, as it contains a short abridgment of THE TESTIMONY SPOKEN OF in those writings. “GOD of salvation pow’r & grace, Unknown to man’s apostate race – Thy glory, veiled within a cloud. Eludes the searches of the proud: Thy nature and eternal law, The wisest mortal never saw; Nor can thy works be truly seen, But by the soul that’s pure and clean. Now from a carnal nature free’d, Thy everlasting name we read: And love that full parental name, From which our living spirits came, Long e’er this fleeting world began, Or dust was fashion’d into man, There Pow’r and Wisdom we can view; Names of the everlasting two, The father’s high eternal throne, Was never fill’d by one alone: There Wisdom holds the mother’s* seat, And is the father’s helper meet. This vast creation was not made, Without the fruitful Mother’s aid; For, by the works of God we know, The fountain-head from which they flow, ‘Let us make man’ was rightly said, And in God’s image man was made One flesh and blood, two in one name, Both naked, yet no cause of shame *

Ann Lee. /

152

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 While in one form alone he stood, His maker saw it was not good, Nor could his order be complete, Until he found an helper-meet. To be as Gods, before the time, Was man’s temptation and his crime, While in his weak and infant state, It was not for him to create: But tempted by a pois’nous brute; He took of the forbidden fruit, – And cleaving to his kindred dust, Became a slave to his own lust. Now on inferior pleasures bent, His soul forgets its true descent: But tho’ vain man became a beast, The law of nature never ceased’ By male and female join’d in one, The old creation still goes on: But sure they must be born again, Or linger in eternal pain. When the old world of flesh & blood, Was swept away by Noe’s flood, The ark preserv’d a chosen few, To tipify what Christ would do; But circumcision first reveal’d The seat where lust had been conceal’d, And in the flesh of the foreskin, Was found the root of ev’ry sin. The law gave a still sorer wound, And made th’ offence of sin abound, And tho’ in Moses many trust, His law condems their carnal lost, Succeeding prophets saw the day, When sin and lust should pass away, / Till under John the work began, Which introduc’d the Son of man: Before John’s mission had begun The Holy Ghost conceiv’d a son, And when he grew to proper age, He shew’d his heav’nly parentage Renounc’d the flesh in branch and root, Condomn’d the tree and all its fruit And through his sufferings did create The substance of a better state.

Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers Four hundred years the tidings spread, That Christ was risen from the dead; And such as kept his new command, Arose in one united band:– Tho’ persecuted & revil’d, They kept their doctrine undefil’d, Till wicked priests the pow’r did gain And Antechrist began his reign. The monstrous beast and bloody whore Reign’d 1400 years & more, And under foot the truth was trod, By their mysterious three fold God; But while they placed in the he – Their sacred co-eternal three, A right’ous persecuted few Adored the everlasting two. The Holy Ghost at length did bear Th’ anointed one the second heir, A virgin soul – a holy child – A Mother pure and undefil’d: In her the heirship is complete – In her the types and figures meet, And God’s last building stands upon the sacred truth of two in one. The law and prophets all unite To seal this true eternal light. – / Two tables did the law complete – Two cherubs on the mercy-seat, Two silver trumpets plainly shew That gospel truth proceeds from two And tho’ the priest one goat did slay The second bore their sins away. The order of eternal rest, Next by the temple was express’d. – This building was laid off in two, The one conceal’d from public view, Thus in the female and the male, The flesh was still the parting vail: But when this vail is rent and gone, The building is complete in one. The prophets saw in visions clear, By whom redemption would appear That ‘two anointed ones’ should stand.

153

154

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 Before the God of all the land. Two olive trees suppli’d the bowl As life from Christ supplies the soul, And certain as the vision’s true, The male and female are the two, Ezikiel saw a river wide, With many trees on either side: The tree of life appear’d to John, And truly there were more than one On either side the tree was seen, While living waters flow between – This tree of life on either side, He calls the spirit and the Bride. We surely know by what we feel, Their leaves will yet the nations heal Ye lame and blind ye deaf and dumb ‘The Spirit and the Bride say come’! Let him that heareth swell the sound, And let it go the nations round – That all who will their sins forsake May everlasting life partake, / Since Christ is in his glory come We’ve found our everlasting home. Our parentage in all its height Is by the gospel brought to light. The ’ternal truth is on our side – The quick’ing Spirit and the Bride, With all the bright and heav’nly host, The Father and the Holy Ghost.

[ANON.], INDOCTUM PARLIAMENTUM

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum (1818).

Indoctum Parliamentum is unique among anti-Shaker writings for being an anonymous farce written in doggerel verse. It lampoons everyone involved in the Eunice Chapman case from Eunice and James Chapman themselves, to a number of members of the New York State Legislature. If anything it is more anti-Eunice Chapman than anti-Shaker. The play was published in early 1818 when the ‘Act for the Relief of Eunice Chapman’ was in final debate before the New York State Legislature. Chapman biographer Ilyon Woo has decoded the cast, all of whom are real individuals represented by a comic pseudonym. Eurice General Radix The Disorderly Sargeant Lucifer Lignum

= Eunice Chapman (wife of James) = General Erastus Root, Republican Assemblyman, Delaware County, New York = Dr Isaac Sargeant, Republican Assemblyman, Washington County, New York = Assemblyman Michael Ulshoeffer from New York County, New York = David Woods, Speaker of the House of Assembly

The identity of other characters such as Diabetes, Rein Deer, Broad Brim, Hodge, Dewbery and Big-Knell remain a mystery. James Chapman is referred to as ‘Old Jemmy’ by General Radix who asks Eunice by the look of her ‘woful phiz, I guess you wish that shaking quiz, Old Jemmy, late your dear be-spous’d, In Tophet, or the Mohawk sous’d?’ (p. 158, below) Eunice is presented as a scheming enchantress who brings the men of the legislature under her spell to accomplish her ends. It is unknown if the play was ever performed. Only three physical copies survive.1 Notes 1.

See Woo, The Great Divorce, pp. 267, 274.

– 155 –

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum (1818).

INDOCTUM PARLIAMENTUM. A FARCE, In one act and a beautiful variety of scenes: SCENE 1ST Enter Gen. RADIX, followed by a [crawl] of Et-ceteras General.

Now gentles all, by this good light. Your wrongs I swear to render right: And brows, which erst were bruised by quarrels; To wreathe with never fading laurels! Each rascal’s, and each vixen’s cause, Shall be, the protegee of Laws: Good principles; and sober thinking, Shall sink beneath infuriate drinking! And Tag, and Rag and Bob Tail too, Nay even Buckstail’s ruddy crew, Shall wallow in perennial joy, Without satiety, without alloy!

SCENE 2d. Enter EURICE, supported by Gen. Radix’s DIS-orderly Sergeant. And followed by Young Lucifer

– 157 –

158

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

General.

Dear Eurice from your woful phiz, I guess you wish that shaking quiz, Old Jemmy, late your dear be-spous’d, In Tophet,1 or the Mohawk sous’d? Sworn in his youth, bone of your bone, He’s left you years to sleep alone; No arm to rest your lovely head, Nor spousal heat to warm your bed;– But check fair Eurice, check those tears, And pour your griefs in Radix’s ears.

Eurice.

Dear General, since you condescend To be bewitched widow’s friend, I will a plain unvarnish’d tale, Of all my woes and all my wail, Unto your sympathies dilate. And leave the rest to fools and fate. Perhaps, sweet sir, you are aware As oft you rode from Delaware, That my beloved, cold old Jim, Who now has caught a quaking whim, Once did inter another wife. The plague and comfort of his life, That I, to her, when sick was nurse, And peradventure made her worse, But since prolixity’s a sin, And you and I are sure to win The palm, on that auspicious day, When I shall weep and you shall bray! Suffice to say, his first wife dead, To comfort him, I filled her stead, And to him, tho’ I say’t myself, Was a more witching tender elf Than ever met the fond embrace Of any son of Adam’s race. Oft would he utter, darling Eurice! You, are, of me, the lovelier slice – And never, never, will we part, ’Till extacy shall burst my heart; Alas, to me, fond foolish joys! Jim would get drunk, I did bring boys,

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum

159

’Till as our house with brats I fill’d, My Jimmy’s love, like gin distill’d, Oozed through the cranies of his hide, And left to weep his widow’d bride!! General.

Forbear thou too pathetic fair! Lest I for grief should pull my hair, Run wild, and to some grog-shop go, To break my heart or treat my woe! You know my hate, and shrewd derision Against this Council of Revision, And rest assur’d, my cherub, I, Will baffle all their schemes or die! And I will shew in my first proem, To curse, you only need to know ‘em, This huge cabal of supervision, Who treat my mandates with derision! But let us not digress too far, As I’m athirst and seek the BAR, And Lucifer is here in time To council how this monstrous crime Against the CHASTITY of Eurice, May be presented in a trice. [Exit Radix

SCENE 3d Lucifer.

No donkey more than I perceives, Why, Eurice snivels so, and grieves, And willing I embrace her cause With all my lungs, and both my paws, Resolv’d to achieve this matron’s right, Tho’ I, all Law and Laws affright! Blast that old Jim! to go a shaking! And leave this DIAN nightly waking? Th’ offence is rank, and steams so high, I snuff it in the breezy sky! On Spiting devil’s, winding stream, I dream’d or thought I dream’d a dream, Concerning all those honey’d joys Which spring from raising girls and boys!!

160

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Of love, two little squalling pledges, Ere I had cross’d the nuptial hedges, Gave me assurance doubly sure, That tho’ its smiles awhile allure Like meteor ray it blaz’d to blind, And left a darker void behind – Then sacred be the nuptial knot, Tho’ it should bind a sylph and sot, And no religious scruples sever, Such dove like nestlings, never! never! Eurice.

Squire Lucifer, my trusty spark, Whate’er you mean, you miss the mark! Do you suppose that I have pray’d Two years, for Legislative aid! Just to retrieve that fool so prim, Whese spectre-form is old and grim? No – puppy! know for age, at once, Had I no other views, you dunce, To Radix, you, and all your mass, I’d tell you who might, or might not [Exit Lucifer, mad

SCENE 4th Dis-orderly SERGEANT, (hiccupping.) Well said, my doughty, lively limb, (Sad hap, a branch of wither’d Jim,) Which from his trunk I vow to sever, Or cease to Doctor hence forever! Why dam’me! what I will I do it, And who opposes I!! – will rue it. Some sober asses war by light, But howsoever dark the night If I’m but drunk, I love to fight! I court that dark sublimity Which low’rs o’er whisky-mill’s proximity, And when great Radix deigns to rail Like canister to mad-dog’s tail, I rumble after, and impel ’Till Radix, sves and I, are lost in night.

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum

161

Here Eurice [__] this morter’s pestle, A solemn pledge that I will wrestle, Scuffle, scratch, bite, gauge, pull hair, and swear, ’Till, from the gripe of Him you’re free as air!! Enter EIGHTY-FIVE wiseacres in home-spun who having severally danced a waltz with Eurice, a hogs-head of whisky is rolled in, and the curtain falls.

SCENE 5th Enter Mr. Diabetes. followed by Hodge and 20 or 30 thousand ragged ruffians of all nations, colors and languages. Diabetes.

Dear Hodge, my antient worthy friend, And you, sweet sirs, my words attend – Which not or Law or writ can move, Hear them ye Scum, ye Filth approve! As in kitchen oft you see, A sturdy menial drunk with glee, The manners of his master ape, Keep scullions, cooks and drabs agape, To hear the brainless iteration, Of such buffoonish imitation; So shall you learn that, my report From th’ upper story of our court, Shall meet the cordial approbation, Of nether powers in Legislation First of our friends is Bubble-Burst-O! Nicknam’d by wags, my Fiddlebow. He with his squeaking eunuch’voice, The common cause will aid from choice, For he like me has sorely learn’d How deal offices are earn’d, By those who never thought nor read, Beyond degree of Logger-head – And how so oft the prize of knowledge, Has fled from us to imps of college, Insulting thought! to crouch to letters? And own these Quid Pro Quo’s our betters! No Hodge! Sooner than this, I swear, To raise such whirlwinds in the air,

162

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

As edicts late or pandects past, Shall sweep by one AEolian blast, From off the surface of our state, Tho’ science shriek and Jurists prate! Hodge.

Hold, hold, thou Giant Diabetes, Tho’ well I see how fierce your fret is, And know how willingly our cause Against decorum, sense and Laws, In either house you would support, And lift aloft the Justice-Court, Yet I, for one, feel deep regret, “The Town Courk lingers” aft as yet, Could this, my cock, become a law, I’d kiss the nails from off your paw, Hug you all but to death, myself, And each and every loving elf, That follows me should buss your face, And mark you their’s, by mark’d embrace!

SCENE 6th Enter Rein-Deer, Big-Knell, Dewbery and Broad-Brim. Diabetes.

Dear deer, with you, a word apart – You know my love for you, my hart, And readily would brace a nerve, Upon a pinch your friend to serve? Here’s Hodge, a boisterous noisy dunce, Through whom I got elected once, By subtle dint of craft and gabble, And from that hour I’ve been so busy, In mounting up, I’m almost dizzy, But tho’ so wide from smut I’ve parted, I wont forget the place I started! Now understand me well my friend, I would promote this Hodges end – Break down the Courts, the Lawyers, Law, And all things else to cram his maw, Sooner than have the secret blown, That chaps, like you and I have grown,

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum

Into greatness, power and pride, By means, the Devil would deride!! Rein Deer.

Cease, cease my friend to wag your chin, I follow you through thick and thin! Good master Hodge, to you I speak : Whate’er you in your wisdom seek, To aid yourself or friends, believe, You’ve ne’er a want but we’ll relieve.

Broad Brim. Provided thee like me will wear Unblushingly within thy hair, A sturdy Buck’s-tail, stiff and strong, To shew to whom thou niys’t belong: Then I will patient hear thy gab, And grant thy pray’r, or dawn old Drab. But, friend, indulge one question yet. Where thou this murky throng could get? And what their object can be here? Puzzles my wig, they’re clad so queer! Hodge.

Worthy sir, except five hundred, Which from the rest I’ve shrewdly sunder’d, “Chief Justices!” to hold that court, Where gentlemen like me resort. The rest, taylors, cobblers, smiths, sawyers, Pick-pockets, tinkers all, are Lawyers!! Wights, who unread by genius learn, In Law, their bread and soup to earn.

Big-Knell.

Dear Drab forbear nor treat with scorn, These friends of your good friend, old horn, Or peradventure, honest prig I should incline to comb your wig

Dewbery.

When I attempt to speak I stammer, Yet sink my anvil vice and hammer, Nay, burn my coals and burst my lungs, But I will check these Licens’d tongues, Who drain the purses of the age, And keep our Hodges from the stage! Eight lusty lubbers style me Dad,

163

164

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I’d disinherit every lad, Ere I would suffer one in college, Or see him READ to gather knowledge, You all do know that I’m no fool, Tho’ I never went a day to school, Yet I am here, the child of nature, A lofty limb of Legislature! [Exeunt omnes.

SCENE 7th A tumultuous meeting, Lignum, chairman. Lignum.

If any member here sees fit, To urge a point or crack his wit, The field is open now for all, And he first heard who first shall squall, But I’d premise before the storm. This meetings’s call’d to make reform! That is, old systems to disorganize, And prostrate all the maxims of the wise.

Radix.

Most worthy chairman I would move That Eurice here, a wounded dove, Be left at liberty to love, As many as her charms may please, Or lust enough her pains to ease – If any one approves my notion, He’ll second this my friendly motion.

DIS-orderly Sergeant. Great Radix. I approve your plan. And second it with zeal, I swan! Lignum.

Hodge.

As many as the whim approve, That Eurice have free scope to love, Will signify’t by saying aye, Aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! Odds, bless my heart its carried, And Eurice clean unmarried! Any business ‘fore the meeting? Speak to him Burst, my little sweeting.

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum

Burst-O.

Mr. Chairman since Diabetes, Has miss’d a sop and in a pet is, It falls on me in Hodge’s cause, To move repeal of all the Laws, Which tend our courts to elevate, Or raise our dignity of state, That justices have twice the power, To raise the Deil, they had before, That Lawyers learn’d, be cropp’d and branded, And then on Jemmy’s island stranded.

Lignum.

Those gentlemen who have the nerve, To murder sense, will please observe, To signify’t by saying aye, Aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! aye! [Ex. Omnes-Eurice led off by Hodge

FINIS

165

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

DOTY, AN ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE AT UNION VILLAGE

Daniel Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village,1 and a Solemn Warning to the Whole Human Family Against Shakerism and Delusion (Lebanon, OH: Printed by Van Vleet, 1820).

Daniel Doty was born 23 March 1765 in New Jersey. He journeyed to Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1790 and lived there for a time. In 1796 he returned to New Jersey and married his second wife Elizabeth Crane. They immigrated to Ohio, initially settling in Warren County. According to one source Doty ‘lived out-doors for more than two weeks, cooking and sleeping in the open air while his cabin was going up’.2 Doty and his wife eventually settled near modern-day Middletown.3 A number of other New Jersey families moved to Ohio in the wake of the Dotys, including the family of Dr Calvin Morrell. Doty and Morrell were very involved in the New Light, or Schismatic, movement that flourished in south-western Ohio in the wake of the Kentucky Revival. The New Lights were mostly former Presbyterians who had followed some of their clergy, including future Shakers Richard McNemar and John Dunlavy, out of the Calvinist Presbyterian Church. Instead, they formed a new Presbytery based at Springfield, Ohio, and taught free-will salvation. They worshipped with extreme physical manifestations of the spirit, singing and dancing. When Shaker missionaries arrived in Ohio in March 1805 the New Lights were truly willing to receive their message. Doty was good friends with Morrell and McNemar. Although he associated with the Shakers during the excitement surrounding their arrival, he was heartily disappointed when many of his friends and neighbours dissolved their families and embraced the celibate Shaker life. In his Address Doty suggests that he had been a spiritual mentor to Morrell and McNemar, writing: I am the same man, Richard, that I was when you said that I was far before yourself in the light of the gospel. That was before you lost your senses; & my friend Calvin Morrell acknowledged to us after he had unfortunately joined the Shaker society, that

– 167 –

168

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 he well knew I had more of the light of God than all the people for ten miles round, when we were sitting together in the prairaie. (p. 182, below)

Doty’s printed attack on the Shakers, and McNemar and Morrell in particular, was provoked by McNemar’s Other Side of the Question, which was issued in September 1819.4 Other Side was a response to Abram Van Vleet’s republication of eastern anti-Shaker Eunice Chapman’s Account (see pp. 87–154). Chapman’s work (as published by Van Vleet) included information from Enfield, New Hampshire, apostate Mary Dyer, as well as a slew of affidavits local to Union Village, Ohio, accusing the Shakers of financial misdealings, spiritual wifery and child abuse. In an appendix to this work McNemar chose to take issue with a brief statement about the Shakers contained in a publication issued by the ‘Rational Brethren of the West’, also in 1819. Doty and William Ludlow were key members of this quasi-religious/scientific association. In their Belief of the Rational Brethren of the West they stated Some have endeavored to excite a prejudice in the minds of the people, by declaring us Shakers. Although the Shakers, in some respects, are an example to a legal-thieving world, yet we believe, that they are guilty of opposing the providence of God, in his wise order of creation.5

The Rational Brethren concluded that if Shakerism prevailed that the world would shortly be depopulated – an outcome not intended by God. McNemar railed against the statements of the Rational Brethren concerning Shakerism in his Other Side of the Question.6 This, combined with the mobbing of Union Village on 7 August 1819, by men from Middletown, Ohio, to rescue a young woman named Phoebe Johnson, set McNemar and Doty at odds.7 Doty’s house had also served as a safe harbour for boys running away from Union Village, a fact that did not endear him to the Shakers. Doty was surprised and apparently caught off guard by McNemar’s attack in Other Side. Counting on the former friendship he had shared with McNemar, Doty went to Union Village on two separate Sundays to talk with him about the controversy. It was at one of those meetings that Doty claimed McNemar called him ‘a hardened wretch [who] ought to be hung by the neck’ (p. 174, below). This incident laid the groundwork for Doty’s 1820 publication An Address to the People at Union Village. Doty’s narrative is a lengthy remonstrance of the Shakers that plays on the well-worn themes of popery and financial chicanery on the part of the Shakers. What makes it unique is the bitterness with which Doty recalls his former friends McNemar and Morrell. According to Doty, McNemar told him that through Shakerism he ‘had learnt more off God in five minutes, than [he] ever learnt in all [his] life before; and that at that time [his] senses were entirely null’ (p. 175). Doty chose to believe that McNemar had willfully blinded himself to

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

169

the folly of Shakerism, and lamented ‘it is truly a grief to me when I see you fixed just like a stool pigeon, with the eye of your understanding closed, and trying to deceive all that pass by. There you have to flutter, dance, and to use your tongue in uttering falsehoods to try to bring other poor undiscerning souls to do sacrifice to that shameful thing’ (p. 175). Doty concluded that if Ann Lee had been as void of sense as McNemar was, the Shakers ‘ought to be dealt with according to the act made for insane persons’ (p. 180). As for Calvin Morrell, Doty reminded him of a dream he had shared ‘of How you was pursued by Richard, and David Spinning, to castrate you’ (p. 179). He implored Morrell to go back to his wife Rhoda and live by God’s commandment as husband and wife. Doty’s co-author, and fellow Rational Brethren member, William Ludlow taunted Morrell, questioning his intelligence: ‘Now Calvin … I believe you are a mere follower of your leaders, from a personal knowledge that I have of your mental faculties’ (p. 190). Ludlow believed that while Morrell was an innocent dupe, McNemar was ‘more like the wolf dressed in wool, than that of the lamb, in innocence’. A lengthy poem by Ludlow concludes the Address. It contains one couplet that is tragically prescient in the case of Richard McNemar: For reason’s power, will the world protect, From all deceivers, fools and visionists;

Richard McNemar would be, in part, undone by just such a visionist in the tumultuous events that unfolded at Union Village in 1839, during the Era of Manifestations, but that is a story for another time. The conflict between McNemar and Doty seems to have petered out after this. McNemar dealt with many more apostates in the remaining nineteen years of his life, including, eventually, his own son and namesake. Doty lived until 8 May 1848. He is remembered as an axe-in-hand, Indian-fighting settler and founder of Middletown, Ohio. A history of the town published in 1908 dedicated three pages to Doty – the ‘first white man’ – and noted his anti-Shaker activities: In the latter years of his life he wrote a pamphlet on Shakerism, many copies of which are still in existence. He did not like the fundamentals of the Shakers and he did not mince his words about saying so.8

Notes 1. 2.

3.

Union Village, Warren County, Ohio, was the chief Shaker community west of the Appalachians. It began in 1805 from converts made at the Turtle Creek settlement. History and Biographical Encyclopaedia of Butler County, Ohio, with Illustrations and Sketches of its Representative Men and Pioneers (Cincinnati, OH: Western Biographical Publishing Co., 1882) p. 39. For biographical information on Daniel Doty and his family, see J. Littell, Family Records or Genealogies of the First Settlers of Passaic Valley (and Vicinity) Above Chatham (New

170

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 Jersey) (Feltville, NJ: Stationers’ Hall Press, 1851–2), pp. 142–3. For a more colourful account, see H. Simms, Middletown in Black and White (Middletown, OH: Journal Printing Co., 1908), [pp. 2–4]. ‘Daily Journal of Current Events’, V:B-236, OClWHi. Belief of the Rational Brethren of the West (Cincinnati, OH: Printed for the Society, 1819), pp. 119–20. See McNemar, Other Side of the Question, pp. [160]–4. ‘Daily Record of Events of the Church Family’, V:B-230, OClWHi. Simms, Middletown, [p. 4].

Daniel Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village, and a Solemn Warning to the Whole Human Family Against Shakerism and Delusion (Lebanon, OH: Printed by Van Vleet, 1820).

It is not the manner of Americans to deliver any man to be hung by the neck with a rope, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself, concerning the crime laid against him.

ALSO, AN ADDRESS To Calvin Morrel1 and Richard M’Nemar,2 {…} PREFACE. ALTHOUGH in making many books there is no end – yet every lover of truth and the rights of man, who reads the following; I ask, is there not a cause. Has not the enemies of truth and our dearest enjoyments invaded our borders, and been tearing asunder the husband and wife, parents and children; and spreading shrieks and groans, lamentation and bitter weeping, distraction and death, insomuch that even the female part of man have raised their cries to heaven, and likewise to men in authority, regardless of the reproaches that those lying deceivers would palm on their delicate sex, who was formed by the unerring wisdom of God, to stand for the glory of man. – Must they cry and there be none to deliver!! Wonder, O heaven! Be astonished O earth! Let those who hold their peace at such a time as this be ashamed to own the noble name, MAN. This attempt was not undertaken by the author, supposing that he was the most capable; but for the love he bears for the mother of all living, chastity and truth. / – 171 –

172

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

To Richard M’Nemar, Calvin, Morrell and all others whom it may concern. Both of you were once my particular friends, and I must now say that I cannot forget, the many agreeable hours we have spent together, under the influence of a gospel desire to advance the kingdom of God. And I can truly say that I am very sorry that you are lost to yourselves, to truth, and to the human family; for it once appeared that the spirit of truth was with you, and that you were travelling to the New Jerusalem of truth, where knowledge and friendship reign. But my old friends, I am grieved that you have departed from the truth that you once appeared to have, and have believed a lie. And it grieves my soul to think, that you are partakers of that lying spirit, that must first have introduced the Shaker faith, that is so much in opposition to the word of God; whose disciples are striving to end the existence of man on earth. Yes, Richard, I am sorry to think that your mind has become perverted and that you are striving against God, whose works declare that man ought to exist to enjoy his mercies and his bounties. Some matters and facts have gone out to the world within the last six or eight months, that require me to say a few thing, at this time, concerning some little boys, who left the Shaker village3 and came to my house and Middletown.4 And for doing what I thought right, under the best feellings of humanity, you have acted towards me like a man wanting both charity and righteousness. / I shall now mention that some time in June, I think, of 1819, there came a boy to my house, by the name of Aaron Woodruff, and informed me that he had come from the Shaker village without leave. I treated the boy kindly. The same day his father came, and seeing the boy at a distance with my son, called to the boy to come to him, but the boy made off. The old man his father then ran and overtook his son. The boy’s countenance bore the marks of a wounded spirit. His father took him to Shakertown.5 Some short time, perhaps a few weeks, after Woodruff took his son away there came another youth to my house by the name of Huston;6 and told me he had made his escape from Shaker village through the swamp, he being somewhat muddy. He told me a good deal about his living, &c. and said he was not treated hard, but that he could not get to live with his parents, but would be willing to return if he could get to live with them; and observed that Aaron Woodruff now lived with his parents. I could persuade him to eat nothing; he returned I believe the same day. Shortly after there was another boy enquiring the way to Daniel Doty’s, he was directed to go to Middletown, but I never saw him. In a few days after, being from home one day, I was informed on my return by my wife, that there had been two little boys at our house from Shaker village, and had gone up to Middletown. I then began to think that the spirits in prison were

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

173

crying for help, and was truly moved with compassion for the poor imprisoned creatures. – Matthias Dean being at my house, we both started up to Middletown, and found the two boys at / Samuel Millican’s, in bed. – When viewing these poor creatures that had fled from prison – forsaking their task masters in benighted superstition – my heart swelled with pity, and my eyes could no longer hold the tears, that kindly came to relieve and soften my sorrows – and my recollections brought to my mind that Jesus wept. Altho’ my affections were much wrought upon by seeing those little boys under these circumstances, yet I must truly say that the kind sympathies of my heart was increased, when I heard the pitiful voices of these innocent children proclaim their desire of getting to be with their parents. One said that his father was dead, but his mother was alive. I asked them if they had any friends in the country, who had not joined the Shakers? They said that they had a grandfather by the name of Valentine Pegg; but that they knew not where he was – and one uncle, who used to live in Carolina; but had not seen them for a great while; only that they saw them once, after their parents had moved to Shaker village, and then they appeared to be moving, and whither they had gone back to Carolina, or some where else they did not know. The boys said they shook hands with them, and that was the last they had seen of them. Friend Millican, myself and others were truly affected with the children’s story – so much that my voice failed me further to interogate them; for with truth I can say that I wept for these innocent harmless children, who where lost and seeking protection from strangers to avoid the iron arm of that Molock7 of superstition. We left the room and stepped out into the street, when we was informed by some of the people / in town, that they were going to meet, to see what could be done for the children; at which meeting friend Millican, Deen and myself attended. As two of those children informed us that they had made their escape from their masters or those who had rule over them, in hopes that they might get to live with their parents; & as we felt bound to protect them from their masters that they might get to those who were their parents, or that would be so by kind treatment to the children. We therefore, from a kind intention, and in conformity with what is written in the book. See Deut. xxiii. 15. Thou shalt not deliver unto the master the servant that is escaped from his master. The next day I understood that some of the Shakers were after the children, but did not find them. At this time we got word where their grandfather and their uncle lived. Our intention then was, to convey the children to them; for we believed that their masters would likely be after them. But for my part I never saw the boys since the next morning after I first saw them at friend Millican’s; for I left them to the care of a man, that I could with confidence leave my own children with – and who informed me that he was well acquainted with their grandfather and uncle. In a few days there came a man by the name of Caleb Pegg,8 and told me that

174

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

one of the little boys was his son. I told him I had seen the children, but did not know where they were at that time, and if I did I would not tell him. – He used many entreaties to get me to tell him, observing that I could have my children to live with me, but that he must be debarred that privilege. I told him that the complaint of the children was, that they were debarred the privelege / of living with their parents. I informed him that it was my desire that he should enjoy all the blessings of life that I did. In two or three days the said Caleb, with two women came to my house, and said they were the mothers of the two children. I asked them if they set more store by those children than they did by other children? they answered, they did, and I might well think they did. I observed to the man that it was strange they could love the children and curse the cause by which they were produced. The mothers then got down on their knees before me. This action of submission on the part of the women, had its origin in their minds, I believed, from the submission that exists among the Shakers in favor of their elders, and was beheld by me as man-worshiping. The act was therefore offensive to me, although I pitied the poor deluded women; and I told them their feet was as holy as their knees – observing that I was a worm of the dust like themselves – and was no Pope, and if they worshiped any thing, to worship God, and not worship the creature any more. I gave the women no certain information where the boys were, for at that time I did not know whether the children had gone to their grandfather’s or not; but I have since heard that they found the children at their grandfather’s. I have been particular in relating the story about the little boys, for I want all to know the motives that guided my actions, for some considerable talk has gone forth-into the world concerning the matter; and Richard M’Nemar has declared that I am a hardened wretch and ought to be hung by the neck, for my conduct. / About the first of October last, I was favored with a book entitled The other side of the question,9 (written by the Shakers) which I perused with attention; and I verily think it exceeds all books I have ever seen. I thought I would once more visit the Shakers – I did so, and took the book with me, and shewed them some of the absurdities: particularly the passage in which they deny the omnipresence of the good spirit. Jesus says there is none good but God. This absurdity will be found in the first of their appendex. But the reader may easily see their object, in thus detracting from the attributes of the deity – for if they did not they could not find room to multiply their gods, whereas they have multiplied to themselves as many as three gods and a goddess; and when I was last with them, I heard them singing praises and giving glory, in their public form of worship, to the young couple, and would repeat Glory to Jesus and Mother Ann!! And yet they say, they are not to be understood as meaning any thing more than one undivided Deity!

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

175

But only look at the difference in the administration of the law. Oh! my brethren of the human family, do we not know that all human nature, and all the powers of nature, speak the language that is written in the bible, to “Go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it to its author, and the great first cause of all good. But the worshipers of the late female goddess10 oppose and exult in opposing, as far as they can, the omnipotent power which supports all nature. They deny, and that in public print, the omnipresence / of the good spirit, which I acknowledge to be the only wise God, our saviour, in whom we live, move and have our being; whose power created all worlds, and the same power that supports all things, both animate and inanimate, and hath formed all our bones in the womb. I must confess that I could with as much propriety deny my own existence as to deny the power and means through which this my tabernacle was produced, and the same power that now preserves me visable – preserved me while I was yet in the loins of my father, according to the flesh – and this power I call my heavenly father, the will of whom I want to be done on earth as it is in heaven; whose goodness has preserved me and others from the iron arms of that murderous monster, superstition, which has made so many prisoners in Warren and Butler counties, and is now holding them bound slaves to falsehood: among whom are many of my acquaintances and former friends, namely: Calvin Morrell and family, and all the family of John Kitchell, Esq. deceased, and Richard M’Nemar, and family. Oh! Richard, I have not forgotten the friendship you shewed to me in times past, before you fell a victim to that awful delusion. And it is truly a grief to me when I see you fixed just like a stool pigeon, with the eye of your understanding closed, and trying to deceive all that pass by. There you have to flutter, dance, and to use your tongue in uttering falsehoods to try to bring other poor undiscerning souls to do sacrifice to that shameful thing. And you told me the second time that I called to see you last fall, that you “had learnt more off God in five minutes, than you ever learnt in all your life before; / and that at that time your senses were entirely null.” This was in the presence of Thomas Conover, Samuel Serring11 and others. This, Richard, was at the time when I went to expostulate with you about what you said when I was over there the first time last fall, when Ashbell Kitchell,12 Nathan Sharp13 and others, after they had falsely accused me of being a man-stealer and a kidnapper, and ought to go to the state prison, for protecting those little servants who had escaped from their masters. You then Richard, gave your voice against me in the following words: “The hardened wretch would not tell them poor weeping mothers where their children were when they got down on their knees to him. He ought to be hung by the neck with a rope.” But this fact you can deny as you have said you would, if I published it; and have tried to get clear by laying it on Nathan Sharp, in part, as stated in a letter addressed

176

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

to Thomas Conover, and myself, which I will lay before the public, which is as follows: Union Village. Oct. 26, 1819. Friend Thomas, As I understood from thee that Daniel Doty came last Sabbath week to clear up his character in relation to his taking unlawful possession of Caleb Pegg’s boys, & as he turned the matter entirely into another channel, charging me with expressing an idea which never had entered my mind, I have felt to present to thee a brief statement of the facts according to my best recollection, and the most correct information from those who were present on the occasion: all that I have conversed with expressly say that they heard no such expression from me as Daniel stated, but that such / words were uttered by Nathan Sharp, is not denied, though not immediately addressed to Daniel. It is recollected that Nathan appealed to thee in words to this amount: “What would you think of a man that would take your children and conceal them in such a manner. &c? Would you not think that such a fellow ought to be hung up by the neck?” Now, this we are disposed to believe, from good information, was the fact, whether you recollect it or not; nor can I believe that such words were uttered on the occasion in any other form, or by any other person – which was merely appealing to the feelings of a parent, and not giving judgment in the case. I said then, & I will say, that I felt nothing against Daniel Doty, yet his conduct in the affair I highly disapproved of, and I freely expressed my disapprobation in terms that I would be willing to use before any assembly, without feeling or venting any malignant passion or wishing any evil on my fellow creature. But Daniel, instead of receiving conviction of the evil, or even admitting that he was influenced by the same spirit with the more open and avowed enemies of the society, felt wounded with the very thought that such a fellow should be punished. But why he would charge me with dooming him to the gallows, is unaccountable, when for many years I have declined the idea of judging any man according to the law. – The transaction of taking and removing these boys from their parents, I am told to say, was not according to the gospel, and no follower of Christ would or could do it, because it is a pointed transgression of the law; and as long as any person is a transgressor of the law he is under the law, and therefore cannot be in Christ / or walking in his footsteps. The law is good if a man use it lawfully, and to use it lawfully is not to break or violate it, knowing that the law was not made for a righteous man, but for sinners among whom menstealers are expressly classed; then, as those who are under the law are to be judged by the law, where was the impropriety of asking the question – “would you not think that such a fellow as would steal your children ought to be hung up by the neck?” This action, according to law, is a capital crime. See Exodus 21.16 and Deut. 64 7. “If a man

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

177

be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Isreal, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, then that thief shall die, and thou shalt put evil away from among you.” Then if the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, neither thieves or covetous – that thief shall surely die, but according to the gospel every man is to search out and crucify that evil nature in himself, and until that thief is searched out and put to death, the soul of the man can find no union with Christ, or any inheritance in the kingdom of God. This is the unchangeable doctrine of both law and gospel in harmony. Therefore if Daniel hath any mind to clear himself in this matter, the way is open on our part for him to it. We are free and open towards all our fellow creatures; and if they have been led by a false or malignant spirit, it is a satisfaction to us, when they become honest enough to confess and put it away, and be reconciled to the harmless and inoffensive. Moreover, we wish you to understand that it was not our intention, by calling this matter into question, to debar Daniel or thee from the privilege of free conversation on those points of doctrine which / were introduced. We have no objections to answering you freely on any of those subjects, at any time that you may call upon us, and conversing with you to your full satisfaction; so I submit the matter your consideration, desiring that every subject ground of offence may be removed, and that the truth may have free course and be established. Yours, &c. RICHARD M’NEMAR. Oh Richard, what can you do to establish truth, when you publicly say that you learnt more of God in five minutes, than in all your life before, and that at that time your senses were entirely null? Now if your senses are null and void, how must you preach, and how must you write? Why just as you do. But Oh Richard, if ever you come to your senses again, you will hardly believe what you have said to your real friend Daniel, and others. Now, would you believe that you have stood and mocked poor weeping women, as you did &, I heard you, proclaiming in a large assembly, How they wring their hands and weep, saying, Oh! I am ruined. And, then, as though addressing her, you said, why woman what is the matter? Oh my husband has joined the Shakers! Well, what does he do? does he get drunk? Oh no, Does he abuse you? Oh no. Well, what does he do? Oh! says the woman, Oh I don’t just like to tell all about it – but I am ruined. – Now, if you could only see how different such conversation is from the gospel; but you cannot. Why, Richard, the gospel is glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. / Now Richard, it is no secret, that you and I, and Calvin, and John Thompson,14 and others, have had a great friendship for each other; and on my part, my friendship was true. And Richard I do not want you to think that I believe those on whom the

178

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Shaker tower has fallen, are sinners above all the world. I tell thee nay; but except they repent they shall all likewise perish, under the power of king craft and priest craft. But Richard, had you been the man after God’s own heart, you would have taken one of the five smooth stones, (which were typical of our five precious senses) you would have been able to have destroyed this ungodly Goliah who is defying the armies of the living God, and who had enlisted and barbarized our eastern brethren, viz. John Mitchem,15 Issachar Bates16 and Benjamin S. Young.17 But this Goliah’s scull is as soft as a pumpkin, with little or no brains, when properly examined. But alas! Richard now you despise all the five talents, and have been trying to bury them, and those of others with them. You appear quite fearful of them: you are afraid to hear, see or feel. As yet you indulge your taste, I suppose; but you dare not small for fear it will produce another sense, which is feeling; and you are afraid to hear, least it should produce mental sight. Now, Richard, when I was over at your village the first time last fall, (the first time in five or six years,) and was conversing with you, relative to the false statements you had made in your book, entitled the “Other side of the Question,” the greater part of the persons in the house raised great noise and clamor, because Ashbell Kitchell said his soul was grieved because I had said / WE. Some said let Daniel speak – others said nay, nay; such a fellow ought not to speak in the house. Now you were all afraid to hear me speak, for fear some of you would see the propriety of what I was advancing, and the impropriety of your book. When I was over the third and last time, because I was pointing out the iniquity of manstealing, and endeavoring to prove that the Shakers were the persons who were guilty of it, and enslaving their children; Ashbell Kitchell uttered an unfounded falsehood, and asked Matthias Dean if the children did not run away from him and Daniel, after they had got over the river and got away down in a field; but as no such thing had ever existed, Matthias answered in the negative. Then Ashbell replied ‘You need not deny it, for Daniel was honest enough to own it, when he was over here before.’ As a number of persons who had not lost their senses were standing by, for conscience sake I had to say, Ashbell, that is a lie. Then Richard called, Order. Then Nathan Sharp replied to me saying ‘You need not deny it, for I heard you.’ And as I never heard of the circumstance before, I replied to him in the same words as I did to the former. This took place at the time I went to see you after your invitation by your letter, in which you say that the truth may be established – but you changed the truth into a lie; and this was done for fear your deeds would come to the light and be reproved. But my old friend Calvin acted like a rational brother, and I hope that he may yet come to know and see Jerusalem, which is above all king craft and priest craft, and is free and acknowledged by us to be the mother of us all; / and not be ashamed of the gospel that allows us the natural use of the woman. And here Calvin, I beseech you, and Rhoda,18 and as many more as dare,

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

179

to read the first and second chapters of brother Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which is written after my own heart – and I pray God to give you understanding. And now, I Daniel, who am base among your society, say unto you, Calvin, fear not to take unto thee Rhoda thy wife, and give glory to the God of heaven for deliverance from so great a death. Friend Calvin, I have not forgot the dream that you told me of How you was pursued by Richard, and David Spinning, to castrate you. – But awake, awake, and escape for your life, for God will destroy that city. And now I would say something more to Richard about what he expressed in his letter, in which he has undertaken to criminate me, by representing me a liar, and a thief, and according to law, ought to die. It is left to Thomas Conover to judge of the propriety or impropriety of saying that such a fellow ought to be bung up by the neck. But as these threatenings of death and damnation are only against Daniel Doty, I do not care for them. But when I consider the distress that they have brought on so many fathers, and mothers, and children, it causes my heart to weep. I have heard them say that their testimony was to bring the world to an end, that that was just what they wanted. Now if the descendants of Adam do not wish the whole human family extinct from the face of the earth, they should put a stop to Shakerism; for as sure as it gets latitude of operation, it will be but a short time before there will be no man to till the ground. Of this / I am well persuaded that if it was in their power, and their numbers sufficient, from what I seen of their distruction, in their book, and in the letter to Thomas Conover and myself, and the innumerable falsehoods which they have uttered to me and others; and in addition to these the last day I was there, Richard in his address observed to the people that this was the testimony of God, and that they need not blame him for it – and that it would rake the whole earth. But as his senses were null, I hope the sin may not be laid to his charge. I shall now make some remarks for the human family to consider. Is this society a blessing or a curse to the nation, state or country? Has there been one infant born in that society for 15 years except of women who were in a state of pregnancy when they joined it? The answer is nay. Then there are, in all probability, some hundred of souls less even in the state of Ohio, than would have been, in consequence of this doctrine. If then there are some hundreds less in 15 years, there is no increase from them, and then in 15 more, according to that, what would be the number? Why some thousands. If three men,19 by their doctrine, disallow 500 souls from this state in 15 years, and now when there are probably 300 who are equally anxious to disallow the intercourse of the male and female as they were, how many must be missing in 15 years to come? Why according to that calculation it would be 50,000! O wonderful, my dear brothers and sisters of the human family. We are all the offspring of All-mighty God; and the constitution of the United States and of this state, allows us the full privelage

180

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

of worshipping / our creating father, with our bodies and our spirits which are his. But this system is more fatal than the sword, and they are more hardened than Herod was when he commanded all the male children to be slain, from two years old & under – for this murderous monster [Shakerism] destroys them in the loins of their fathers, and is sure to blast the United States of America, for the system has now got root in three of the western states20 besides what is in the eastern states. Now, if a thief or a robber was to present a gun at a man’s breast, whether it was loaded or not it frighten a man so that he gives up his house & land, and wife and children, it makes no difference whether the gun is loaded or not, the thief or robber is criminated for the injury done and not for the instrument by which it is effected. – Now I leave the citizens of this state to judge and especially those who are set to be guardians of our rights and liberties, if it is not as fatal to a man or woman, after they are persuaded to believe that if they continue in the usual manner of living – in sleeping together – that they will eternally be banished from the presence of God and from the glory of his power, and must take up their everlasting abode where hope never can come; is not this as fatal as a loaded pistol at their breast? I say it is. These are the weapons that they are carrying on their exterminating war with, in opposition to the decrees of heaven, and against the peace and dignity of this state, and against the population of this and the U. States. Have you not read that He who made mankind in the beginning, made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain / shall be one flesh; therefore they are no more twain but one flesh. And yet this daring and offensive war is carried on under the base pretence that it is sanctioned by the constitution of the U. States, because the constitution says that every man shall have liberty to worship All-mighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now if Ann Lee was and is and is to come All-mighty God, why then let us all embrace the faith! but he that made us in the beginning says nay – the apostle Paul says nay – the constitution of the United States says nay – the constitution of this state says nay – and every rational man, woman and child says nay. They say in their song “And while the constitution stands Our sacred rights we will demand;” and their demand is the destruction of the constitution; for in a few years there would be no people to constitute, in America. Far be it from me to despise the ashes of Ann Lee, or any other human being, but if her senses were null as Richard M’Nemar told me his were at the time he learnt so much of God. I think that her followers ought to be dealt with according to the act made for insane persons, for that certainly is in part their complaint. I will make some remarks on their late publication, entitled The other side of the question. It is truly the other side of the question of truth. Passing over many things I shall notice some things in their address to the legislature of New York,

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

181

in the 31 page, and signed by Peter Dodge,21 Seth Y. Wells22 & Joseph Hodson,23 wherein it is stated. “We deny that we ever exercise any undue influence over the conscience of any one. As free citizens of a free state, and under / a free constitution, we have an undoubted right to worship All mighty God as we believe to be most agreeable to his will, and to live such a life as our faith directs, for which we are answerable to God alone, so long as we do no moral injury to others.” In answer to your assertion that you deny exercising an undue influence over the conscience of any one – this is false – for I have heard them say, in this country, in their public speaking, that if married persons continued cohabiting together they could never be saved, nor have any inheritance in the kingdom of God or Christ; and the reader may find the same language, in substance, in their poems. I have been witness of their persuasions to others & myself. It is now more than 14 years since I first saw them in this country, and they have coaxed me, and entreated me with tears, and threatened me with the horrors of hell, and I think there has been as many as 15 in a room at once, & 4 or 5 would have hold of me pulling & hawling, & others yelling, screaming, jumping and stamping as if they would shake the house down. Now, if this is not exercising any influence over the conscience of any one, I do not know what is. Although I must say it never had any influence over my faith, yet, I know if it were possible they would deceive the very elect. They further say “that they have an undoubted right to worship All-mighty God;” which I acknowledge they have. – But they deny the All-mighty God, and desire a murderer to be granted unto them, and falsely say that the constitution of the United States allows it. I speak as to wise men, & as I am a republican, I want you to judge what I say. If you will look at their / book you may see their system is their All mighty God, and Ann Lee their omnipotent power, & the framer of their constitution of celibacy; and then they are swearing their bastard to the constitution of the U. States, and say the constitution shall own it, and support it, and father it. But as was the voice of Sarah to Abram, Cast out this bond woman and her son, so it is the voice of every rational man and woman in the U. States of America. Cast out this bond woman and her constitution of celibacy, for it truly stands and mocks at the birth of the constitution of a republican government. And they have mocked many a man out of the enjoyment of his wife, and many women out of the enjoyment of their husbands and children. I hope my friends will not take it amiss if I mention a few of my acquaintances’ names, who have suffered these losses by their mocking: James Watts, dec’d, whose wife left him, & subscribed her name Malinda Kitchell24 in the Shaker book; and Amos Valentine’s25 wife, dec’d was another sufferer, by the loss of a husband and children; and Rebecca Bridge who is now living, has lost her husband, for these several years, and has to endure the mockery of that society. When he had joined them, I was passing his house one day before he left her entirely, I saw her entreating him with tears, but he could make a mock of her entreaties. Yet they disclaim any agency in parting

182

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

man & wife, or breaking up families. These bare faced lies are as false as if one man were to shoot another through with a bullet & say he had no agency in killing the man, for it was altogether owing to the softness of the body. Thus they mock on as I heard Richard M’Nemar / mocking the woman, ‘how she would wring her hands weep for the loss of her husband,’ & ‘how the man would go on for the loss of his wife.’ They have mocked Jonathan Davis and his family out of several years labor, & finally mocked him out of his farm, & now mock him in their book for his ignorance; & they mock Abram Van Vleet26 for assisting them in their affidavits. They have mocked Eunice Chapman27 & Mary Dyer,28 & published them to the world to be the basest of women, because they were anxious to have the enjoyment of their husbands & children, & they will, no doubt, mock at what I am endeavoring to lay before the public; but I am a man who has lived near Middletown, in one place for upwards of twenty three years, & have never been sentenced “to be hung by the neck with a rope,” until last fall. Being already accused as a criminal, I disregard their aspersions; & as this is the first time I ever attempted to lay any thing before the public, I hope it will do no hurt if it does no good: But if it should be the means of releasing one prisoner, I will be doubly rewarded for exposing myself. Now. I am the same man, Richard, that I was when you said that I was far before yourself in the light of the gospel. That was before you lost your senses; & my friend Calvin Morrell acknowledged to us after he had unfortunately joined the Shaker society, that he well knew I had more of the light of God than all the people for ten miles round, when we were sitting together in the prairaie. I have walked in that light & I believe that I am the father of more living children, through the grace of God, then all the Shaker society since you denied me. But / you will mock at this, because you know not that we are all the offspring of God; for as much as we are the off spring of God, we ought not to think that the godhead is made like unto corruptible man, or a deluded woman. I would now make some remarks on the contradictions in their book; but I shall be short, for it would swell volumns to expose all the absurdities. I noticed in that part of the book entitled Dyer’s Narative, page 54, where he states, “Although Mary well knew it was ever contrary to the faith, doctrine and practice of the Shakers, for one man and woman to be joined together under any view of fleshly commerce, either lawful or unlawful, either carnal or spiritual, either actual or intellectual; yet she, & c. Now if Mary Dyer positively knew this, she as well knew that it was impossible for there ever to be any offspring from any of her children, if they were to continue in that faith, as if they were screwed up in coffins; these are solemn reflections. This is truly putting a yoke on the disciple’s necks, that we nor our fathers were able to bear; and it is casting a reproach upon the whole human family, and a contempt on the wisdom of God.

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

183

But in the 139 page of the same book, they utterly deny that they disannul the marriage covenant between one man and one woman, or ‘that if such an idea hath been received, it is an absolute falsehood. They further say that “we have been taught, by the gospel, to break the bonds of the flesh, but not the bonds of matrimony. The marriage covenant we hold to be inviolable until every tittle thereof is fulfiled.” But I think it useless to expose their falsehoods / any more; for I think that they have tried to contradict themselves, on purpose to make people think that their wisdom is so great that rational people cant comprehend them, and of course, when they hear them sing and see them dance, slap their hands and jump, the poor ignorant multitude will say that it is the voice of a God and not of man, and of course will believe that the Gods have come down in the likeness of men. And to make the people believe it they undertake to make them believe that a supernatural gift of healing is in the church, and it is evident that they are forced to believe it; and for evidence of the truth of it, Samuel Serring is willing to certify or affirm, at any time, that ‘He the said Sering was very sick with a typhus fever, but by having a skilful physician, and some other attendance, and some incouraging words; by these means he was brought into a gentle sweat, and lay all night, and finally got well.” O wonderful! Now was the like ever heard of by the oldest man now upon earth, that a man should have fever and sweat it out, and get well again. Now they believe that the people ought to cry out and say that another miracle hath been done by the Shakers, and we cannot deny it! As they are very generous with their new book,29 printed in 1819, in so much that they have taken pains to carry them through the country by quantities, to put them in circulation: I therefore desire that every one in whose hands this may fall, would send to Union Village, or perhaps better known in this country by the name of Shaker Village, and get one of their books, for it is likely they will keep plenty to give away to any person who calls, and then the reader will see for himself. / But for fear all may not send for their book; I shall endeavor to make some remarks on one or more passage contained in page 158 and 159, signed by no name only that Disciple. The passage states, “The notion of idolizing or worshiping a creature we abhor, yet we acknowledge God manifested in the flesh, both in man and woman.” Now I will venture to approach to that disciple, and ask if God is manifested in both man and woman; if he has yet learnt of his master whether God is manifested in those members of their bodies that distinguish the man from the woman, and woman from the man; because, if God is manifested in those members, then there is no doubt but that there will be a manifestation of his power, in the performance of the offices assigned them, unless superstition bends them out of their natural track, because the track was laid down by the immutable wisdom of All-mighty God, who saw it was not good for man to be

184

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

alone; and if that disciple does not know this, he had better ask his master, and if he can find out this riddle, he might as well sleep with Jenney as not. They further say, “We believe in a spiritual correspondence, of which the natural is but a figure; and hence the work of regeneration hath pleased us, under a joint parentage, which vulgar minds cannot explain, notwithstanding the doctrine is plainly supported by the whole New Testament.” But their joint parentage – I must ask that disciple, what their names are? But I am so vulgar that he will not speak; well, then I will ask Isachar Bates. Well Isachar will thee tell me? Yea, and whosoever will let them hear. See quotation by Isachar from Ezskiel 47.9 and / recorded in the Other Side of the Question, page 468. “And now to close my plain address, Truth in all ages is the same. She is the lord your righteousness; Although by man at first she came, She was in Christ the son of man, For every soul, full and complete, And now in your good Mother Ann, Behold the two great rivers meet.”

Now you have spoke plainly, and no parable, concerning the Mother! But their minds are so vulgar the half of the people cannot understand them; but I think I do, and I will tell the rest, for you say she is the Lord, and of course must be both the Lord and Lady, and should be read thus: Behold in your good Mother Ann, We now behold both Dad and Mam.

But, O Isachar, it is too presumptuous for such a deceiver as you are to quote the prophet Ezekiel, who spoke by the spirit of truth, and describes the two rivers of life. I now give the verses alluded to. “And it shall come to pass, that everything that liveth which moveth whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live, and there, shall be a very great multitude of fish because these waters shall come thither, for they shall be healed, and every thing shall live whethersoever the river cometh.” Again, you say, Behold in your good Mother Ann, the two great rivers meet. You know that every thing must die where your doctrine cometh, and so you try to put death for life, and darkness for light; and you have been for almost 15 years in this country, trying to dam up both these rivers of truth and reason, / for wherever these rivers come, the soul of every man shall live, and you and your coleagues have damed these rivers from flowing to hundreds in this country; and by your engines of torture you have made 95 women subscribe to their own damnation, and acknowledge they chose death rather than life, in your book. But if truth and reason can ever reach them they may yet be joyful mothers of children and glorify their maker God.

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

185

I think, Isachar, that you and I had better both be hung up by the neck with a rope, than the whole human family should perish. But again, that disciple enquires, “But why are the leaders of the society called infidels;” and says, “not from a denial of Jesus Christ or any of his doctrines.” But I must tell that disciple, that their leaders do deny Jesus Christ and his doctrines; for his doctrines are, that he who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and gave that for a sufficient reason why a man should leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they twain should be one flesh, & God spake and it was done – he commanded and it stood fast, and Jesus the faithful and true witness tests the same, and says suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. But your master and leaders say, nay nay; suffer little children to come, nay, not at all, neither lawful nor unlawful. And their impiety is so great, that they hold the lie of their profession in their right hand, and they cannot deny it. But why called m-postures, you say – not from a boasted pretention of their own wisdom or power. I can tell that disciple, that Richard M Nemar, who is one of / their leaders, if their own assertions are true, and if he has not imposed on people in this country, there is not an imposter in it; for after he had preached Prysbyterianism and got their money, he turned and preached against it, and then after he had preached Newlightism, got money enough to pay for his land from the people in Warren and Butler counties, and for a pretended solemnization of marriages. He then joined the Shakers and told the people that they must all go to hell, if they did not quit their wives, for all he had got their money for his services, and through a pretended sanctity, would sprinkle the people’s infants, and say, “I baptise thee in the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost;” and now when he sees them he will tell them, & that without any provocation, that God Almighty will send their souls to hell, with an extended voice & distorted features, as he did a young man on the 30th of Jan. last, and I think this is very great pretention to wisdom and power too, to tell whose soul will be damned. Again, that disciple says, “why called tyrants? Not certainly for any arbitrary authority, &c. – And yet they say that their faith & love, as they call it, is stronger than death, and more conducive to obedience than all the engines of torture that tyrants could invent, and that disciple saith that he knoweth what he saith is true. And when they boast of their power of making their servants obey them by telling them that God Allmighty will send their souls to hell, they acknowledge it to be better than all the engines of torture; and yet they say, why called tyrants? / But as you, Richard, & Calvin, and Samuel Sering, and a great number of others, have asked me to pray, in time past, I therefore hope to pray and never faint; and I continue in prayer, hoping that the omnipresent power of God may bless your souls & bodies, & save you all from that Moleck of Superstitution;

186

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

and as all liars must have their part in the lake, I think that you have all bad your parts. And I pray that truth and reason may shortly destroy your agreement with death, and your league with hell. This is the prayer of your much dispised friend, DANIEL DOTY. The following statement from Thomas Conover will go to corroberate and prove the greater part of the facts stated in the foregoing, as having taken place between Daniel Doty and the Shakers of Union Village. At the request of Daniel Doty, to give a true statement of what took place, in the sequel of the discourse between Richard M’Nemar and others of the Shaker society. Myself and Daniel went to the Village to see them two Sundays running, this last fall, and in the interval of their worship Daniel, in a friendly manner, addressing Richard, observed that he had not been to see them for a long time, but observed that he had seen Eunice Chapman’s pamphlet, and that they had favored him with theirs, entitled the ‘Other side of the Question,’ and if it was agreeable, he would wish to have some free conversation, and to make some remarks on the books. The request was cordially / ageed to by Richard, but requested him to defer it until after the afternoon worship was over; which was mutually agreed to. Accordingly, after meeting, we were invited in to their dwelling house, and likewise our wives were invited into the female apartment. After we were all seated, Daniel introduced the discourse with Richard, in an open friendly manner, and the discourse between them was friendly and instructive, and I must say that I felt highly gratified for some time. Daniel was comparing the books, and endeavoring to convince him of some misrepresentations in their book, but all in friendship – but all at once, Ash Kitchell, as he was called, began with sighs and groans, and said he had observed while Richard and Daniel were talking, that Daniel had said WE, and his soul was wounded or grieved to think that such a man as Daniel would equalize himself with the believers, and then stated a circumstance concerning Caleb Pegg’s boys, in which they endeavored to criminate him – and while he answerd for himself, some said one thing and some another, insomuch that I thought Daniel was very ill treated by the most of the assembly, and I must say my feelings were hurt to see them appear in such a rage of anger; and I must say that I did not hear Daniel offer any insulting language at all. I being disturbed, I spoke to Nathan Sharp and Richard M’Nemar, in private, and observed that it appeared to me that their people were angry, but Nathan smilingly answered nay, they are not angry – I am not angry. Richard then replied, thus Daniel wants currying. It being time for us to be on the road, I left the room, to put the horses to the carriage, and then returning to the / house for the women, and made a start; and Daniel informed me that Richard had said in my absence, that he ought to be hung up by the neck, with a rope. Daniel

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

187

spoke to me thrugh the course of the week, and said that he must go over again the next Sunday, and asked me if I would go again, and see whether they would hang him or not. We went, and after meeting was out and the people gone out, Daniel went to Richard, & after shaking hands addressed him in the following words, “Well I have come over to see you again, for when I was over last Sunday you said I ought to be hung up by the neck with a rope, and if you are a righteous people you ought to do it, for if I have done any thing worthy of death, I don’t refuse to die, and I have come to present you the body.” Said Richard, who said that? Daniel said, thou art the man. Richard said, there never was such a sound come out of my body. Daniel said, yea, Richard, it came out from between them lips – pointing his fore finger to his mouth. Then Richard replied, why we dont want to hurt the hair of thy head; then he asked Nathan Sharp whether he had heard him say so. Nathan answered nay; then be asked me if I heard such words; I answered no, but what was said when I was hitching my horses, I know not; but Daniel said it was said while I was out, and I recollect that Daniel told me of the expression before we had got out of the village, last Sunday, but Daniel steadfastly affirmed to Richard that them were the words that he spoke, saying to him, ‘if you did not speak them words to me, I must have lost all my senses and recollection. Richard, replied, “Why Daniel, I learnt more of God in / five minutes than ever I did in all my life before, and at that time my senses were entirely null.” – And after some conversation betwixt them about learning when their senses were void, we returned home. Some time after, I received a letter signed, Richard M’Nemar in which I must say their is some things that I must deny. I never heard Daniel intimate to me as if he wanted to clear up his character in regard to themboys, for I believe that what Daniel did, in regard to them boys, was through charitable motives and I believe that to be the opinion of every man of his acquaintances in the neighborhood. Where Richard says that, it is recollected that Nathan Sharp addressed me in words to this amount, &c. I must say that I recollect Nathan Sharp did not address me in such words as is stated in the letter, as that such a fellow ought to be. &c. But for my own part I was treated with all the friendship that I desired. I do not believe that Daniel Doty has the least enmity against any person in the society, and from what I have heard him say, I believe it would be a grief to him to hear of their being injured, either in person or property. I further believe that he pities the people, believing them to be in a destructive delusion. This is as true a statement as I can give. THOMAS CONOVER.* February. 2, 1820. / *

This name is properly spelt Covenhoven, but as the letter addressed to him was as above, and as he is known by that name, it is so inserted.

188

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

AN ADDRESS on the Appendix TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION: BY WILLIAM LUDLOW. To Calvin Morrel, and Richard M’Nemar, at Shaker village near Lebanon, Warren county, Ohio. Calvin, I shall first address you. I received the pamphlet you sent by Mr. Smith; “entitled the otherside of the question.” I have read the same. – But before I make any remarks upon your pamphlet or the appendix thereto, which I suppose was written by Richard M’Nemar; I shall assure you, that I indulge no enmity against you or your brethren. – Whenever I see men led away by falsehood and fiction – and see them influenced by a blind zeal; becoming enthusiastic and fanatic, under the influence of imaginary fiction – I then pity the men, however I may respect them for sincerity: but must always despise that system of falsehood which perverts their minds, and subverts their understandings. Under such circumstances, mens reasoning faculty is perverted – their phrensical zeal renders them inconsistent – they become regardless of truth – their obstinate blindness prevents conviction – banishes intelligence, and renders them inconsistent. Were I to give implicit faith to what you have written against Eunice Chapman, Mary Dyer, and Abram Van Vleet, I should conclude that they were the basest of women, and he one of the worst of men. But Calvin, I have lived so long in this world, and / have experienced so much of those uncharitable dissentions which take place among men; where their interest is opposed; and where their faith differs in religious dissentions; that I am often led to doubt a man’s word, and to suspect the verity of some men’s oaths and declarations. And known facts, have led me to believe, that religious phrenzy, in dissentious difference about religious faith, will cause men to go greater lengths in fabricating falsehood, and disfiguring truth, than where disputes may exist concerning the right of property. This being the case, I have got into a practice of examining men & things, with some degree of scrutiny. Were I upon a jury, and two men were to give opposing testimony, I should enquire into the character of the witnesses, and endeavor to become acquainted

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

189

with their interest as to the nature of the case in dispute: and if it was a religious dispute, I should be very particular, in observing whether they told a consistent story; and were governed by the exercise of their reasoning faculty; and whether the conduct of the witnesses, did not give a lie to their profession. It appears that there exists a warm contest between the Shakers on one side, and Eunice Chapman, Mary Dyer and Abram Van Vleet on the other. If the latter may be influenced by improper motives; have not the Shakers a worldly interest to preserve, and a sectarian faith to support? You have received large donations from people who have joined you; whom you have pursuaded to embrace your faith; and who, were they to change their faith, would have to go poor from you; whatever they might have given to your Church. Now Calvin, this is not justice – It is not doing as you would be done by – you can never alter, or repeal a natural law; however it may be violated by a false faith, or opposed by fiction or sophistry. If a man labors hard fifteen or twenty years, to obtain a good farm; he obtains no compensation for that farm by being persuaded to follow the councils of the Pope, and to embrace Romancatholicism. And should he find himself deceived, and his faith a fiction; / it would be the height of injustice for the Pope to keep the farm, and the poor man to go into the world pennyless – having lost the vigor of youth, and the power of acquiring property to render age comfortable. – It can never be right to take something for nothing, when the giver is impoverished, and his liberty of thought and action is taken away; being forced to think and act as others direct – nor can it ever be just to give a reality for a fiction. You know the applicability of the simile I have produced to your view: and if common sense is not displaced by superstitious phrenzy – and reason overcome by fanaticism – you must be sensible of the propriety of my remarks. The Pope confirmed the practice of retaining every species of property given to the church, by those who were pursuaded, or frightened to embrace the faith; altho’ the giver should be reduced to the extreme of poverty. And you must be convinced Calvin, if you credit the best historians, that thousands of lying men have existed, and that lying books have been written and printed, to support the abominations of Popery. You have good reason to believe, that thousands of perjured witnesses and lying authors have existed in consequence of an unjust interest in property, which was obtained by an erroneous sanctity attached to spurious faiths; where reason was condemned, and men were persuaded to submit implicitly to their conjuring dictators and to follow and obey their professedly religious deceiving leaders. If I have not give you much satisfaction in the description of that interest and false faith, which cause men to become false witnesses – I may at least aid some few with an additional power of discrimination.

190

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

But before I proceed to the merits of this letter, I shall call to view another mark, that which always invalidate the testimony of a witness. If the witness is detected in a positive falsehood – or if an absurdity exists in some part of his testimony; it is a good reason to believe that that witness is base; and his / testimony is considered of little account. And it often happens, that such testimony becomes a witness against the party for which it was given. Now Calvin, as I believe you are a mere follower of your leaders, from a personal knowledge that I have of your mental faculties, as well as from your own acknowledgment in your own certificate. And as I shall attend to what your pamphalet says about the Rational Brethren of the West30 – and as I believe that Richard M’Nemar wrote what is called the appendix to that pamphlet; I shall, in what follows, more particularly address Richard than yourself. You may be a sincere follower; but I verily believe that Richard’s character is more like the wolf dressed in wool, than that of the lamb, in innocence. Richard, I shall now attend to what you have written concerning the Rational Brethren of the West. If you have kept truth on your side, the good citizens of our country may feel disposed to attach a portion of credibility to your pamphlet. But if you have been guilty of misrepresenting us to the public – of distorting what we have declared – and of positive falsehood – how can you and your people whom you influence, be believed, when testimony is given in a case, where your interest and your faith, is much more concerned, than it possibly can be, in consequence of any thing that has transpired between your people and the Rational Brethren. Before I proceed to notice what you have written about the Rational Brethren, I shall observe; that a lover of truth and probity, ever weighs the tendency and meaning of his words: hence he rarely insinuates any thing that may tend to mislead; and is careful never to misrepresent; while a positive falsehood, to the injury of his fellow-being, he despises as the utmost baseness; and dreads it as death. But a man whose system of thinking and acting, is founded in falsehood, becomes less careful in speaking truth, and is often detected in his equivocations and sophistry. You say that you have seen a paragraph in our publication,31 entitled the belief to the Rational Brethren, of the West relating to the Shakers: “in which,” / you say, “it is intimated, that the doctrines which they advance, bear so great a resemblance to Shakerism, that they are even declared to be Shakers!” I will now give the paragraph you allude to, to the public. Some have endeavored to excite a prejudice in the minds of the people, by declaring us Shakers:” You say that this paragraph intimates that our doctrines bear strong resemblance to Shakerism. Now, if there is any intimation of the likeness of our doctrines with yours in the paragraph, I think it cannot be said to intimate, “a great resemblance;” when we say on the same page, that, “a true faith or practice, is always known by the consequences it produces, by giving latitude of operation. – Should Shakerism include all mankind, but for sixty years, there will then be an end of the human

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

191

race: [because, that the ordinary means of producing human existence will, in all probability, be extinct.] Then the fair face of nature, however well improved by art and skill, will be left to be inhabited by wild beasts.” We also say, that “we believe that Shakerism is a lesson to all who will think and exercise their reason. It evidences the power of superstition, and consequent fanaticism, when accompanied by the forgeries of supernatural revelation and miraculous wonders.” And we further add, “that it is impossible for Shakers to enjoy these refined, enlivening sympathies and affections, that result from a rational association, where sparkling infants and youths, surround their parents, who feel an animated delight, in setting a pure example before their rising offspring and realize a joyful pleasure, that their children shall commence their active lives with the possession of that scientific knowledge and goodness, which must finally terminate in the general happiness of mankind. But men and women who believe it not right to perpetuate their species in mutual affection and chastity, can have no emulous desire to extend real science; because one half of our mental energies proceed from a desire that we have of rendering our offspring wise, good and happy,” This description that we gave of the Shakers’ faith / in our pamphlet, shews conclusively, that we did not intend to intimate that there is “a great resemblance” between our faith and Shakerism. But this little want of candor in you, which I have already noticed, is not the material thing to which I shall call your attention. You declare “that in the most essential points we differ nothing from the Catholic, or universal creed, falsely called the apostles’ creed.” You must have supposed, Richard, that your credibility is so well established, that the people will take what you have said for granted, and not be at the trouble of making a comparison between our creed, and the full Catholic creed, to which you allude; but if any person will get the Catholic service book, and read both, it will be evidently seen, that but little resemblance can be found to exist. But I shall place little consequence upon your lack of candor and want of fairness from what has yet been said; compared with what will follow; to which I shall call the reader’s particular attention. In noticing “the principle points of distinction,” as you call it, between our creed and yours; you have misquoted and distorted the reasons, why we disbelieve in the existence of a supernatural Devil. In this instance, Richard, you have not acted like a gentlemen, possessing plain honest candor. For when a man brings his cause of dispute with another, before the public, and mutilates the expressions of his opponent, he then stands criminated for unfairness. He then becomes like a witness who negatively purjures himself, by withholding essential testimony, and distorting what he relates. Such a proceeding illy accords with your profession as a disciple of truth and candor. I desire the reader impartially to read the 5th and 6th pages in our pamphlet; our premises and conclusion will then be seen by the eye of common sense and reason.

192

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I shall now, Richard, call the attention of the reader to a specimen of your logic, and I do verily believe that an equal sample of absurdity, was never exhibited, by a man who has been supposed to possess / common erudition, with common sense. You say that you hold to what has been advanced by Jesus Christ, and “supported by his apostles,” & is “now exhibited by the Shakers – that is, that there are two opposite natures in man, of which the one is true God, and the other very Devil. This doctrine of two natures,” you say you “universally believe. Therefore the omnipresence of the Good spirit we deny; for good and evil cannot dwell together. In the flesh dwelleth no good thing; then God is not there.” I desire the reader to read what I have quoted from your book, three or four times over; the consistency of Shaker faith and logic will then be understood without a comment. Then it will be seen, that because one and one make two, that a sufficient reason is given why one and one, are not two. You say, “there are two opposite natures in man,” declaring that “one is true God and the other very devil Therefore the omnipresence of the Good Spirit,” that is God, you “deny,” The substance, in plain words, is as follows: God and the devil is in man; God is not in man, because that God and the devil is in man. Again – “for good and evil cannot dwell together.” For what reason? because that good & evil do dwell together. That is, because “that there are two opposite natures in man, the one true God, and the other very devil.” Therefore the omnipresence of God you deny; for the plain reason given, that because God is in man with the devil. Again – “In the flesh dwelleth no good thing.” Now, if I can understand you, Richard, it is because that God and the devil is in man. For your ‘Therefore’ is predicated upon that union. According to your reasoning, Richard, the devil must nutralize and over-power God; that altho’ it takes both, to form man’s two natures according to your plan, yet you deny the omnipresence of Deity, because that God and the devil is in man. Your mode of reasoning in plainness is, that God and the devil exist – God does not exist, because that God and the devil do exist. I verily believe that this specimen of Shaker faith and logic, cannot be honored with the name of sophistry; / it is truly a non-descript – a thing out of nature – a mere Shaker – an attempt to bend nature out of her track of truth – a monster, without generating powers or brains. In quoting the following lines from our pamphlet, you do not give the premises upon which they are founded. “Of all destructive impositions that were ever invented, none can equal in evil effects, the belief of a fallen nature.” This declaration of ours has an immediate reference to the mistaken opinion that has been generally entertained, that God has cursed the earth, because that two individuals ate an apple, or some kind of fruit that grew upon a tree. You introduce our expression or declaration without the fairness of giving the public our reasons, hoping or expecting, that you would be able to excite a public expression or prejudice against us. Your method clearly indicates your design. But, Richard, it

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

193

is possible that the public odium may attach itself upon those who pay the least respect to truth and fairplay. Our pamphlet, in many pages, clearly exhibits the fall of man, from the grade of reasonable beings to that of superstitious fanatics, by an attempt to believe falsehood; which we believe is the forbidden fruit; for the consequences that flow from a neglect of our reasoning faculty, produces the political evils of despotism and oppression, and all the evils that originate in Popery, from Juggernautism, from Mahometanism, and from all other foolish systems of faith, where priest-craft is exerted to suppress the exercise of reason, which is truly forbidden. But as we have stated, we deny the fall by two persons eating an apple, plumb or peach. You say that “the Rational Brethren say nothing about the Resurrection neither a future state.” In this statement Richard, you are undoubtedly guilty of declaring that which is not true, And if you are not guilty of perjury in law, you must stand guilty in the eye of the just, who sees that the essential point of perjury is falsehood. Your book is distributed through the country in the character of testimony. / If you have positively varied from the truth, in what you have said concerning the Rational Brethren, the enquiring part of mankind, may discover some things equally false in other parts of the testimony; as your agency, no doubt, has been employed in many things; which is a reasonable conclusion, from the lead you take among the Shakers – As you have declared to the world that we say nothing about the Resurrection, I will here lay before you and the attentive reader, a part of what we have said, and refer you to page 104 in our publication, for what we have written; where we make Paul’s language our own. As this is an important principle, I desire the reader to weigh the subject maturely. – the words I shall quote from our pamphlet, are as follows: “We expect that some of your crafts-men and shrine-makers, will raise their voices against us as others did against Paul: and encounter us in the same language, by asking, what will these babblers say: while other some will say, they seem to be setters forth of strange Gods; because they preach the man Jesus Christ, and the Resurrection from a death in sin to a life in righteousness.” The readers, and yourself Richard, can see in page 104, 5 and 6, that we give our views fully upon the resurrection in the language of Paul. Then it will be evidently seen Richard, that you have disregarded truth. I am compelled to believe, Richard, that you too much practise the same sneering, vulgar method in your writings, that characterizes your public deliveries. You are not only guilty of encroaching upon truth, but you disregard all decency by your oblique insinuations using every endeavor to obtain your purpose by a quirk, or a sarcasm; without relying up on candor and fair reasoning. In quoting the following passage from our pamphlet, you add an expression of your own, purposely to prevent the reflective mind from weighing in the balance of understanding, the substance contained in our words.

194

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I will lay the same before you and the public, with such observations as truth requires. You say that / “the creed saith, that the light of men is characterized by the name of Christ. That was “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ That this light spoken of, can be no more, nor less, than the actuating power of God, who operates through the medium of the principles of things, called the laws of nature. When we receive God, without the obstruction of falsehood [i.e. revelation] then we have the son; then the character of Jesus Christ is in us; then is God’s order in us, and we in him.’ I hope the reader will refer to our pamphlet, and read the whole passage from which Richard has taken the preceeding quotation, and basely added that which is not in our publication. I think the public, and the truth, will both support me, Richard, when I state, that in this instance, you are culpable, to the basest degree of falsehood. No man as an author, who lays claim to the least degree of civility and truth, would be guilty of such barefaced misrepresentation; It is positive forgery in fact; But Richard, you have warily steered clear of the censure of statute. In conformity with all established rules of punctuation, you give “[i.e. revelation]” in your quotation, as our words; as if we had inserted the same to explain what immediately goes before it. These rules of punctuation Richard, you must be particularly acquainted with. How then, could you be base enough, to give that expression to the public as ours – you must certainly be insensible to every thing that is decent, chaste, true and praiseworthy in authorship. You have no excuse or apology. For that which is contained between brackets, is as much included by your sign of quotation, as any other words that you have quoted. And according to the known rules of punctuation; that which is contained between brackets is designed by the author to explain the meaning of the word or words, that immediately precede those that are enclosed. It is not difficult I conceive, to account for your conduct in this instance: your resentment appears to be much kindled against us, for the short candid opinion / we have given to the world concerning Shakerism. We had no intention to affront, or to molest you: we have ever spoken against the use of violence offered in any instance, towards any sect of religionists: believing, that truth, reason, and doing as we would be done by, will in time, gain the ascendancy. But priest-craft, and king-craft have ever been opposed to truth supported by reason. It appears to me Richard, that the craft of Popery is your delight, for you discard reason, by holding to mysterious beliefs, and things incomprehensible. It is these imaginary incomprehensible phantoms, that cause men and women to become phrenzical and fanatic, that we are opposed to: and for this, you have shown more enmity against us, than accords with your profession; otherwise you could not have been guilty of such fraud; violating the rules of decent authorship and truth.

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

195

As our pamphlet has had but a confined circulation, [by reason of prevailing bigotry.] I will therefore quote from it, more fully, what we have said about Shakerism: the insertion of which in our pamphlet, has, I believe, been the cause of your resentment Richard. We say that “a true faith, or practice; is always known by the consequences it produces, by giving it latitude of operation. Let Shakerism include all mankind but for sixty years, and there is an end of the human race. Then the fair face of nature, however well improved by art and skill; is left to be inhabited by wild beasts. In addition to what has been said: the very disciples of Shakerism, cannot enjoy that happiness, which is best fitted for human nature. They possess but a solitary cheerfulness, and a forced contentment. Their discipline, is so extravagantly arduous, in the first periods of their fanaticism; that human nature is bent out of her natural track: habitual quietude then takes the place of cheerfulness; while habitual submission, passes for contentment. Their elders and leaders are reverenced as gods on earth: through whom, certain revelations are made. This specimen of Priest-craft takes away the agency of the subordinate members; / whose independence is thereby destroyed: and they become mere dupes, to their leaders. We believe that Shakerism is a lesson to all who will think and exercise their reason: It evidences the power of superstition, and consequent fanaticism, when accompanied by the forgeries of supernatural revelations, and miraculous wonders. The Shakers declare, that many miracles, were performed by their leading mother and elders. These fictions, have ever tended to cripple the intellectual powers of man.” I have now given the public that part of our pamphlet which gives you offence. As you, Richard, are one of the principal leaders, and may be a candidate for the seat or office of dictator in your order; it is therefore not surprising that your displeasure should rise against men who view with contempt, those forged miracles, which you have been instrumental, with others, of publishing to the world, in your large book, entitled ‘The Testimony;’32 by the means of which you have duped many honest, ignorant, credulous people; who have given away their reasoning faculty, by attempting to believe in fiction, that comes not within the power of human comprehension. But, Richard, you ought through policy, to try to keep truth on your side, in your common writings and expressions; if you intend to gain disciples and subjects; for when your mask falls off, your deformity may appear exposed You appear to exult that you have bent human nature our of her natural track, and ask, “what will the rationalist do with it?” I will tell you, Richard, that which is not human must be inhuman – void of affection and compassion. Such inhuman creatures, we will try to rationalize, and bring them into the track of humanity. We shall pity them in a state of error and delusion, and dispise that falsehood and fiction, which hath inhumanized them.

196

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

If you knew, Richard what human nature was – (or it may be, that if you would act what truth you know) you would not exult, that you had bent human nature out of her track. If I thought I could benefit you, by submitting such premises as every rational / man must believe; I would show you the conclusion that must necessarily flow in favor of humanity, from a consistent chain of reasoning. But it will occupy too much space to give a full exemplification here. I shall, therefore, desire those who wish to know our views of human nature, to read our pamphlet from the 46th page onward. But I must observe, that I have great doubts whether it will benefit those, who like yourself, may be resolved to bend human nature out of her track, by worshiping Ann Lee, or any other being but God through truth. Who is manifest to man as the benevolent soul of the Universe; who cannot be localized in the person of the Pope, Ann Lee, or David Durrow.33 I am truly sorry, Richard, to have so great a cause to grieve in consequence of discovering so great a disposition to falsify, as I find to exist in you. Your own description when understood spiritually – [i. e. when the subject is clearly understood or comprehended] will apply to all lying deceivers. “Wisdom describeth” their track “that their steps take hold on hell – John, in the Isle of Patmos, saw falsehood sitting on many waters – brooding over the nations.” King-craft, and Priest-craft, in monopoly, speculation and tyranny – boasted of her unrivalled dominion, Falsehood by bending nature out of her track, produced universal misery, and caused hell to exist on earth. “But the event of her fall is” the “vision” [i.e. reasonable foresight] of every Rationalist who understands the designs, of the forgeries of Miracles, and the folly of fanaticism. His mental vision comprehends the weakness of mankind, when they are led away by superstition, and made the subservient dupes of Popes, Kings, Lords, Priests, speculators and Shaker leaders. You say, Richard, that a Rationalist, [in allusion to one of the Rational Brethren] has stated in the “populous city of Cincinnati, that nature with all her laws and authorities, is overpowered and put down! even by the disciples of Shakerism! – and that in the first stages of their exercise.” Here, Richard, you assert, to my full satisfaction, a positive falsehood; / for none of us have ever declared, “that nature, with all her laws and authorities, is overpowered and put down, by the disciples of Shakerism.” It would be most abominably outrageous – nay blasphemy indeed – for us to declare, that “nature with all her laws and authorities is overpowered and put down” by men. But it clearly appears by the way that you palm this assertion upon us, as our declaration, that you clearly intend to apply it to yourself and Shakers; for you even boast in having put down nature and her authorities – Your writing clearly communicates this idea. Now Richard, I want seriously to ask you, what the authorities of nature are? – The authorities of nature are, the powers of the Eternal God. He being the author by all creation; and of his authorities [i. e. powers] supports and preserves the same. If you are so

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

197

presumptuous, arrogant, daring, and may I say, blasphemous! as to boast of having put down, and reversed the authority of the Infinite Creator and preserver of all things; I shall then be at a loss to know what to call you, or how to measure your folly!! I have more charity for you, Richard, than to suppose, that you duly attend to the meaning of your words: or to the tendency of your expressions. You have so long been in the practice of dictating to obsequious dependents – first among the rigid Presbyterians – secondly, among zealous New-lights – and lastly among the phrensical benighted Shakers, that you have acquired a vain, inconsiderate self sufficiency, that causes you, in some measure, to feel that vain consequence which rendered the Emperor rediculous, who undertook to chastise the sea with stripes. It is in this charitable way, Richard, that I am compelled to account for your practice. You have so long been surrounded by a number of honest, ignorant, unobserving, superstitious beings, void of discrimination, that you have forgotten that people are in the practice of comparing things together; and even think you have a right, against all rules of decency, in the republic of letters, to distort, and forge expressions out of the bounds of truth; and then palm them / upon others, as if declared by them. How are you to satisfy the public for such impositions? It is certainly treating society contemptuously; as if they had not the power of discernment. And your forged misstatements are unpardonable, as to those about whom you have falsified, except you give public signs of penitence. A confession to elder David may satisfy a conscience like your’s, Richard; but that is too much like Roman Catholicism; whose disciples confess their old stock of sins that they may commence a new score. I shall call upon you to answer for another glaring falsehood. You say that “nature, through all the creed, is his,” [alluding to one of the Rational Brethren] “omnipresent Deity, above all Gods, all laws, and all powers.” Now, Richard, you have told us many falsehoods in this expression, as there are distinct passages in our pamphlet and creed, opposed to what you assert; and except for the reasons I have already assigned, I cannot account for your folly. Even in your quotation from our pamphlet, you prove yourself a falsifier. For where we describe “the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” we say, and you quote the same, “that this light spoken of, can be no more, nor less than the actuating power of God, who operates through the medium of the principles of things, called the laws of nature.” This passage clearly conveys the idea, that God is superior to nature, in the qualities and properties of things. As you have produced evidence against yourself, by quoting a paragraph from our pamphlet, it will not be necessary to produce but a few passages upon this head. That the subject may be clearly before you and the public, I will again repeat your assertion. “Nature, through all the Creed, is his omnipresent Deity, above all Gods, all laws and powers. I will now give two or three passages from our

198

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

pamphlet; but the book abounds with similar ideas, which places God above all, and upon whom all depend. In page 42 and 43 the reader will see the following. / “Those who will knock at the door of wisdom, by a rational exertion of thoughtfulness, will then know in reality that the “invisible things of God are clearly made manifest through the visible things of creation; even his eternal power and Godhead.” and does not this design proclaim a designer, good, wise and powerful? And does not the whole order of God’s providence, in every part of nature, call upon us to adore, to thank, and to love our God and heavenly father? Is it not strange, that a single human being on earth can, after mature reflection, say that he knows God in any other way than through the laws and principles of nature, through and by which God only makes himself known to mankind. For all must acknowledge, who possess common sense, that it is by the omnipresent power of Deity, in the order of his providence, that produces our existence. And as no Idea can be indulged, how, or by what means God operates, other than through the medium of things; it is therefore strange indeed, how the phantoms of education, through the scare-crows of Priestcraft – with the authority of law and custom – blind the greatest portion of the human race, and nail them (as Jewish servants) to the post of servitude.” In our articles of association, it is enjoined that we “pay respect to the rational evidences of the existence of a good, a wise, and an Almighty God, whose works proclaim his design; and that this design is the happiness of sensitive beings: because, that all creation, in adapted means, bespeaks his benevolence.” In page 92 we say that “Our Father and Creator has legislated for us in the wise order of creation. If we do not follow his directions we eat the forbidden fruit – and in the unhapifying consequences, he calls upon us to return to his laws.” In page 36, we say, “We believe that our Fatherly Provider hath qualified us with perceiving powers, and a reasoning faculty, by the exercise of which, we can become acquainted with the nature of those means which are amply sufficient for the supply of all our wants. And that human happiness entirely depends upon the consistent / exercise of our perceiving and reasoning powers: by which means we become acquainted with the immutable providence of God, as displayed in the nature of things. We believe that misery is the consequence of human negligence, or the effect of an improper exercise of our faculties.” I will now leave the impartial part of mankind to decide, whether we have declared, that “nature through all our creed” is our “omnipresent deity above all Gods, all laws and powers.” We have endeavored through all our Pamphlet, to include the idea, that the infinite soul of the Universe – whom we call God; preserves, and operates in goodness, wisdom and power; by and through the nature of things: and that all depend upon this universal director and protector. Which is the language of Paul; and the spiritual tenor of the New Testament.

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village

199

You exultingly call upon the Rationalist, to account for the Shakers conduct: and braggingly intimate, or rather declare, that you have overpowered, and put down the laws and authorities of nature. In answer to your boasting; I will refer you to the secluded monks – to the Mahometan jealots – to the worshipers of Juggernaut – and to the superstitious filthy Pilgrims!34 – who have bent nature out of her reasonable track. But to be still more particular and descriptive, it must be known; that God has made and possessed mankind with a power, apparently to act, as in and from themselves. – That altho’ this apparent independance is possessed by man; yet if we vary from the best possible means appointed – our happiness is then less perfect than when our conduct is properly directed. Our perceiving and reasoning powers, are given, for to enable us as men, to become acquainted with the provided means, that God has appointed in the nature of things. If we neglect the exercise of our perceiving and reasoning powers, by confiding in Mahomet – in the Pope – in Juggernaut in the Pilgrims Prophet – in Ann Lee – in Richard, or David Durrow. Then the actions of those, who fail to exercise their reason, by such implicit confidence; / are after misdirected: and are bent out of their natural track for happiness. Because they loose that independence, which constitutes reasoning and reasonable men: loosing that mental foresight, which presents to the rational mind, the true relation that exists between cause an effect. Now, as the only provided track for the true perfection of human happiness, is the track of reason – and as Shakerism – Mahometanism – and Juggernautism – is supported by fiction, sophistry and false reasoning – where faith is not knowledge, but mere mysterious dogmatisms – the minds of the submissive adherents to those false systems and mysterious dogmatisms, are bent out of the track of reason and rational consistency. And are therefore bent out of their natural track. Instead of saying any thing against the ideas that we have advanced concerning that mysterious reverence, which is paid by the common Shakers, to their elders and leaders: you have rather sanctioned the idea that we advanced to that effect. This sanctimonious consequence, ascribed to themselves by designing men; has been adopted by the greatest deceivers, that history informs us of. Mahomet the deceiver, ascribed to himself divine powers and aid. And the submissive ignorant people even worshipped him. The Pope and his Priests having declared that the Papal Pontiff is the representative of Christ on earth. Hence emperors and Kings, have thought it an honor to kiss the Pope’s great toe. The Pope being God’s vicegerant on earth – the representative of Christ – his Elders bishops, and priests must, of course, be reverenced as if appointed by God. Hence, they have been able to speculate upon, and oppress the submissive credulous multitude; who have been taken out of their natural track of reason. Hence they have worshipped men – and submitted to be governed by Kings and Priests, and are trained, marshaled and yoked, like mere animals without thought or rea-

200

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

son, and become the destroyers of one another. This Hydra-headed monster! John saw, “brooding over the nations – boasting of her unrivalled dominion.” / Like the monks of ancient times, and the Popes, before they got civil & military power in their hands, you as yet, direct your faculties in the order of Priest craft. Ann Lee is your acknowledged Deity: whose spirit rests upon the Leads and Elders, whose power is thereby increased, to the working of miracles! – And you well know Richard, that so long as your submissive, superstitious, honest, ignorant followers and adherents, are made to believe in your leading sanctity and power, so long will you stand exalted in your power and consequence among them. You hold out to the world in most cases, the language of meekness, with the externals of humility. But Richard, you cannot posses the spirit of truth and goodness. Was you a lover of truth and righteousness, you could not have been guilty of so many departures from truth. And if the spirit of righteousness influenced you and your Co-leaders, you would not add a man’s property to your church’s wealth, and retain the same, should his judgment compel him to renounce Shakerism. Doing to others, as you would have them do to you, is the most comprised and comprehensive rule for true righteousness, that can be expressed. Now, if you do not restore a man’s property to him, after his judgment and reason compels him to renounce your faith; you then do not live according to the true rule of righteousness. You then act like the two hypocritical professors, who went on the other side of the highway; leaving the poor wounded man to welter in his blood, and groan without relief. You profess to live by the law of righteousness, as not needing the statutes of the land to regulate your concerns. But, Richard, if I am not much misinformed, you can hold a man’s estate, after he has given it to your church, without paying him a valuable consideration, should his conscience compel him to leave you: because that the statute, or the usages of law, may defend you in the possession. Upon the whole Richard, I am compelled to believe, that yourself and a few of the leading Shakers, are not true men. /

{…} Then thought nor action, rarely go amiss. Then reason’s guide, in brightest pow’r is shewn, Then truth by reason is full clearly known. Oh blessed gift! Oh surest pow’r and stay, To hung’ry minds, who long to see the day – Who long to see the day, when reason reigns, When captive slaves, shall break their mental chains. When falsehood vile, shall loose her serpent pow’r, When truth shall cause the serpent for to cower. When men shall rise, and live in glorious light,

Doty, An Address to the People at Union Village When truth by reason, shall mature their sight. Oh, glorious day! the dawn of which inspires. Our soul’s warm ardor, and our heart’s desires. Oh glorious day! when raptures pure will thrill. And every longing soul shall drink its fill. Come brothers, sisters, let us claim our right, Our kin to God, through reason’s pow’r & light. Come let us join our hearts, our heads and hands, In friendly love, where truth in order stands. Where truth and reason stands, to wed our hearts; Where truth by reason, a sure light imparts. Where truth and reason weds our minds and hands, Where friendship weds our property and lands. Where friendly love, is sure to banish strife; Where goodness reigns, where virtue is our life. Where passions all, are under reason’s guide. Where Union is the husband and the bride. Then tend’rest sympathy, true joy imparts, Then kindest motives, will unite all hearts; Then ev’ry want that’s just will be suppli’d, When union is the husband and the bride. The wants of age, will ever be suppli’d. The wants of youth, in means of knowledge sure, Will be obtain’d by those in union pure. No orphans fatherless will then be found; For council wise and good, will then abound; Means all sufficient for to comfort youth, In substance useful and in wholesome truth. No aged parents then, borne down with grief, In mourning will exist, without relief; / Whose spendthift children, have their wealth destroy’d Whose baser actions, have all peace annoy’d. For ev’ry spear to virtue, will be had, With ev’ry means to cheer, and to make glad, Will then exist, where both youth and sire, Will virtuously possess their hearts desire. No widows lost in anxious thought and fears, Will then be found in unconsoled tears: For brothers, sisters, all will comfort give, And sooth a widows grief, with joy to live. Then man’s in order, as he ought to be; Then God’s perfections, men will ever see; Then men and women, who, truth’s track have tred, Will sons and daughters be, of a good God. Then death in sin, that dreadful foe to man; Will be o’ercome, by God’s sure saving plan. When friendship, love and peace, unites our hearts, Then truth and reason, a true pow’r imparts.

201

202

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 When reason’s pow’r is exercis’d aright, Then God’s true order, shows a glorious light: Then happiness is sure – no doubt exists; As sure as God’s the fountain of all bliss. As sure as planets move, or comets fly, Through the vast region, of the distant sky. As sure as suns do light and heat dispanse, To worlds unnumb’red, in the vast expense. Come brothers, sisters, let us cheer our hearts, That reason’s pow’r in love, true joy imparts, Come let us joyful be, that reasons might, Will vanquish all the foes, of truth and light. That when heads, hearts and hands are wedded sure; The sun of Science then, will all allure. Then superstition’s pow’r, will surely fall, When scientific truths, are known by all. Then fanatics, no longer will deceive, For phantoms will no longer be believ’d. Then common sense, in judgment will preside, For whims and spectres, will be laid aside. Then knowledge sure, in judgment will direct For reason’s power, will the world protect, From all deceivers, fools and visionists; / Who have, and do, and in mysteries persist. A mystery – the vainest thing of naught – A whim – a phantom – an imagin’d thought – By ignorance form’d – by deceivers made The mean, by which, the honest are betray’d. Then cruelty, will hide her haggard mein; Shrink into darkness, and no more be seen: For truth by reason, will her pow’r maintain, And compensate a world, for myriads slain. Then kings and priests, and speculating knaves, No longer will free men subdue to slaves. Then bigotry, that hateful hell-born elf, Will rage in anger, and destroy himself. Then a new heaven, and new earth will be; Then happiness will spread from sea to sea: Then joy and peace will be God’s gift to all, Who live upon this round terraqueous ball.

THE END

[ANON.], A BRIEF EXPOSITION

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition of the Fanaticism, False Doctrines, and Absurdities, of the People Called Shakers: Contained in their Own Religious Creed, or Confession of Faith, as Published by Themselves. By an Enquirer after Truth (Poughkeepsie NY: Printed at the Observer Office, For the Author, 1822).

The anonymous author of A Brief Exposition seems to have been a Quaker merchant who had done business with the Shakers. The work was printed in Poughkeepsie, but the author makes no mention of his place of residence. Apparently some of his family had converted to Shakerism, and he travelled to the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York, and witnessed their participation in a Shaker meeting. He recalled the scene with bitterness and shock, writing that he was ‘much affected, even to tears, to see so many of my dear brothers and sisters in a natural relation, whose countenances seemed to bespeak something better than fanaticism and delusion, go forth to perform divine spiritual worship in acts of DIVERSION’ (p. 217, below). A Brief Exposition is halting and dense to the point of incomprehensibility in places. The author’s use of bracketed digressions throughout his scripturallybased, theologically-focused attack, severely undercuts the impact of his work. Bizarrely, after pages of dry analysis of fine points of Shaker belief, the author resorts to quoting Thomas Brown’s second-hand account of Mother Ann Lee’s intemperance, writing: ‘And what says Thomas Brown, in his history of the Shakers, about mothers being intoxicated? Why, that she got drunk and spued’ (p. 211). It makes for a humorous digression, but further undercuts the effectiveness of the author’s critique. The author objects to Ann Lee’s place in Shaker theology, asking ‘[is] Jesus Christ nothing without her; all which blasphemous absurdity your system, published to the world, under the title of Christ’s Second Appearing, argues’. Instead of the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing, the author argues that the book should have been called ‘Ann Lee’s second appearing, Christ’s total eclipsing’. He charges that through their religion the Shakers ‘have not only conceived wind and brought forth falsehood, but a Monster (instead of a mother) with – 203 –

204

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

two heads to one body – Christ and Ann Lee the HEADS, and the Church the body’ (p. 216). He also objects to the Shakers’ separation from the world in general, comparing them to ‘a body of stagnant water, which is rendered lifeless and even stinking for the want of circulation’. Oddly, after his sharp harangue, he hopes to maintain a friendship with the Shakers, offering: ‘when any of your society passes through where I live, you would if convenient call and see me; for I have … both straw and provender and places to lie down in, and you shall be as you always have been heartily welcome’ (p. 227). I doubt the Shakers took him up on the offer. For all of its sputtering, A Brief Exposition seems to have had zero impact on the Shakers. A survey of the correspondence sent from New Lebanon during 1822 and early 1823 in the collection of the Western Reserve Historical Society revealed not a single mention of the work. The only person who seems to have noticed it was fellow anti-Shaker writer Mary Marshall Dyer. In her 1847 book, The Rise and Progress of the Serpent from the Garden of Eden, she noted this brief publication by a ‘Friend Quaker’,1 but said nothing of its content. The following text remains a mysterious footnote in the canon of anti-Shaker writing. Notes 1.

M. M. Dyer, The Rise and Progress of the Serpent from the Garden of Eden, to the Present Day (Concord, NH: Printed for the Author, 1847), p. 27.

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition of the Fanaticism, False Doctrines, and Absurdities, of the People Called Shakers: Contained in their Own Relig ious Creed, or Confession of Faith, as Published by Themselves. By an Enquirer after Truth (Poughkeepsie NY: Printed at the Observer Office, For the Author, 1822).

A BRIEF EXPOSITION, &c. To Ebenezer Bishop,1 Calvin Green,2 and Richard Bushnel.3 IN all things I am writing to be instructed, and from every occasion I wish to profit in the way of life and salvation. When in trade, I frequently had dealings with your people; and when any of them were free to converse, I would embrace and improve the opportunity to inform myself of your faith and manner of getting along in this probationary state of existence. This I was prompted to do from your apparent sanctity, honesty and integrity. Nor am I about to fault you as to these points at present. But as I profess to be a plain man, I wish to be free in enquiry and plain in particulars, wherein I am not satisfied with your faith and practice; and I hope to receive the same freedom and plainness from you, or any of your denomination, nay, from every religious society, man or woman, in the world. For I am of the opinion, that a free circulation of religious sentiments, in truth and sincerity, among the various religious professors, will have a tendency to break down the separating walls erected by education and tradition, and strengthened and supported by superstition; and when these are demolished, the same truth will bind us together and make us one another’s joy in the Lord. By this you will perceive, that I, in no shape, favor a monkish, selfish religion; nor that self righteousness which holds out this language – “Stand off, for I am more holy than thou;” either in an individual or society capacity. “For – 205 –

206

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou didst not receive it, but had it by the strength of thy own arm? But, is not this your practice, both at home and abroad, in your private circles and public assemblies, in your conversation and in your public preaching? Yea, truly. And of what does it savour? Shall I answer, bigotry and superstition, twin sisters of corruptible origin? Have you grace? Let it shew itself through you as sanctified vessels, that others beholding your good works may have cause to glorify your heavenly Father; and by your loving address and friendly, engaging manners, be won upon to embrace the gospel. Here then your life will be in that which will not deceive others, nor suffer you to be deceived. But when it is only the semblance of it, no marvel that the want of charity should be apparent, and that an austere spirit preside instead of the benign spirit of the gospel, which is gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits. I would to God this was your state, and the state of all who “name the name of Jesus;” then in truth, not in pretence, but in reality, / there would be a “departure from iniquity.” But Oh! the covering among you and all Christian professors that I have knowledge of, and not by the Lord’s spirit: a covering with an exterior, like a coat of mail, to ward off the spear of an outward enemy. But, remember, the enemies of a christian warfare are those of his own house. Not those from an inconceivable malignancy that existed in supposition, co-existent with God, the source of all good; but what are co-existent only with the body of flesh wherein the soul resides. In accordance saith the apostle James, “lust when it conceiveth bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished brings forth death.” And these enemies are no more to be impelled from an attack by an outward show of godliness, than the blood of a wolf will cease to circulate because he is in sheep’s clothing. This outward show of godliness may serve to dupe the weak and credulous; but, so far from fortifying against sin, it forms a thick veil to commit it under. And unless that power which slew Rahab and wounded the dragon is suffered to rise into dominion in the soul, and to bind not only one but all the passions, it must remain a captive to lust; all the external show of godliness to the contrary notwithstanding. Oh, the importance of this truth! Know ye it not? Know ye not your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye are reprobates? and it is Him that must be suffered both to will and to do of his own good pleasure in the soul, or it cannot experience regeneration and the new birth, redemption from sin and a life of holiness to the Lord. Circumcision and all the rituals of an exterior dispensation, availeth nothing in Christ Jesus, but the new creature. Why, therefore, are ye so tenacious of your traditions? Will ye, as did the Jews formerly, make void the law of God thereby? Methinks ye are ready to ask, what is the law of God? Answer – that which it ever was, A FOUNTAIN OF LIFE TO DEPART FROM THE SNARES OF

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

207

DEATH. Not a mere thing of speculation, but the real life of God in the soul by inspiration, to govern the life which it has by respiration; that so this mortal may put on immortality, and the death that this would otherwise experience may be swallowed up of divine life. This is the Tree of Life, whereunto all souls may have access, and grow up in the spirit of the highest; except they partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is own will, own wisdom, the fruit whereof is death to the soul. Hence Christ taught nothingness of self, saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God. Blessed are the peace makers; for they shall be called the children of God. And that a man must deny himself – [how can he essentially deny himself without denying own will and wisdom, which constitutes the very essence of self ?] or be could not be his disciple.” / Here now, how plain, simple and easy to be understood is this system of divinity, taught by Jesus Christ? In it he has no legends, no legerdemains; but simply places man under a prohibitary law, similar in its design and requisition to that enjoined upon Adam, which restricted him from the knowledge of good and evil, and this restrains man from himself. Now, when we come to consider that man has his origin in this world, both as to his flesh and spirit, and that his organization is such, that he is not only susceptible of divine impressions, but capable of improving under them to that degree, that they become his light and his life, his comfort and his hope. How rational therefore is it, as he is designed for immortality and eternal life, that the spirit of nature, which constitutes the natural man, should not only be restricted, but denied the ascendancy and supreme rule in his affections. Hence says the Father, in figurative language to Adam, “of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” As much as to say, thy receiving this twofold fruit will sever thy life from me, the spirit of divine life; because, thy knowing good and evil for thyself, is taking an independent ground, rejecting the influence of my spirit, consequently it is withdrawn and thy soul left in a state of spiritual death. And hence saith the Son and sent of the Father to restore man to this divine spirit, from which he had revolted, “except a man deny himself, take up his cross and follow me, he cannot be my disciple.” “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Except a man be born again, be cannot see the kingdom of God.” Thus we see, that man’s dependence on himself separated him from the divine spirit, union and communion with God, and that by denying himself through the ability of Christ he is to be restored. Thus by a dependance in Adam, [the

208

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

earthly nature] all die; so, by a dependance in Christ, [a divine quickening spirit] all are made alive. This I apprehend to be correct, according to scripture doctrine and relation of man’s loss of the spirit of divine life and restoration to it again. Now you will see that I do not believe in the primer doctrine, that “in Adam’s fall we sinned all:” but in the scripture doctrine – “as the soul of the Father, so also is the soul of the Son, [clearly without sin in their origin] but the soul that sinneth it shall die, and he that doeth that which is lawful and right shall save his soul alive” – as declared by the prophet Ezekiel, chap. 18th and 33d, from the 10th to the 20th verses. According to this doctrine, you will doubtless acknowledge with me, that the soul (which is a spirit) has ability to obey a divine spiritual law; and as like begets its like, so the soul is made alive unto God / through faith and works, in obedience to him; and, on the contrary, any want of this conformity is sin, and produces death. It is sin, because the soul is designed to have the divine life of God for its life; consequently, to have it, it must receive it, and to retain it, it must obey it: But to reject it is sin, because it is the life of God and his greatest gift to the soul, and the consequence that follows of necessity is death, or the loss of divine life in the soul. And Also, according to the above doctrine of the inspired Prophet, I presume you will agree with me, that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. For, saith the Lord, “when I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sins, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.” According to this, sin and death was not entailed upon the posterity of Adam, in consequence of his transgression; but that all sinners, even Adam himself, as well as his posterity, were permitted, nay required to return and live. Now, although it is said by the apostle Paul, “if there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness would have been by the law:” – it is evident that he meant that law of types and shadows which was substituted, because of a departure from the law of the spirit of life which sets the soul free from sin and death, to lead back to obedience to this spiritual law; yet it is evident from the prophetic declaration, that this very spiritual law had not been repealed, nor become null, nor void. But that the righteousness of the righteous, from Adam down to this day, must have been by this law; and the wickedness of the wicked, by a departure from it. And this law is the inspiration of the Almighty which giveth the spirit of man an understanding in the things of God, and as expressed above, a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death. It was by this, doubtless, that Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain – that Enoch walked with God – that Noah was righteous and instructed

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

209

to build an ark, to the saving of his household from perishing in the flood. The time would fail me, to tell of Abraham, Lot, the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles. In short, it is the only law by which the soul can have any knowledge of God, and be a partaker of his divine nature, and so have life and immortality conferred through obedience to it. And had not this divine life been departed from, where would have been the necessity of substituting any thing in its stead, as a schoolmaster to bring to Christ? Or, which is the same thing to this law, to wit, divine inspiration, the alone medium of salvation to the soul? You, and all men of principle and candor, will allow with myself, that there would have been none. Grant that it has been departed from, and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, which in obedience they might have enjoyed: It establishes a cause, which produceth / a separation of the life of God from the soul, which exists no longer than the soul stands opposed to God. “For if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? but if not, sin lyeth at the door.” “The soul that sinneth it shall die; but he that doeth that which is lawful and right, shall save his soul alive.” And again – “hereby know we (saith the Apostle) that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit.” Now “if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his; and if Christ be in you, the [spirit of the] body is dead, (that is, ceases to be alive to sinful impressions,) because [of the effect] of sin; but the spirit is life, because of righteousness.” That is, the spirit of the natural man is inspired with divine life, and therefore is alive by reason of the righteousness of compliance to the divine spirit. “But if the spirit of him (God) that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, God shall also quicken [the spirit of ] your mortal bodies, by his spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to [the spirit which actuates] the flesh to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, [this spirit which actuates the flesh] ye shall die; (that is, thereby divine impressions will be withdrawn from the soul, and its life in God will be lost;) but if ye through the [divine] spirit mortify the [spirit of nature from whence the] deeds of the body [naturally flow,] ye shall live. For as many as are led by the spirit of God, are the sons of God.” And as a criterion to know whether we have this spirit, the Apostle saith, “hereby know ye the spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, [that is in the flesh of the confesser] is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, [of the confesser] is not of God.” Again, Christ saith, “labour not for the meat which perisheth; [now here he meant not food in general, but the spirit which is the life of the flesh, which this food nourisheth,] but for that meat [now he means his own spirit] which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give to you, for him hath God the Father sealed.”

210

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Then said they unto him “what shall we do that we might work the work of God? Jesus answered, this is the work of God, that ye believe on him [that is his spirit] whom he hath sent. For the bread of God is he [that is his spirit] which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.” That is life to the spirit of man, which is of the world, that it may be headed and directed, bounded and governed, and finally born of God. Then said they unto him, “Lord, evermore give us this bread. Jesus said unto them, I am [that is my spirit is] the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” Again, he saith to the Jews, “verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me [that is Christ’s spirit] hath everlasting life. I am / [i.e. his spirit is] the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead; [because it only supported the outward man, and was typical of spiritual bread, which nourisheth the soul to eternal life.] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am [that is my spirit is] the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this [spiritual] bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give him is my flesh. Saith the Jews, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then said Jesus unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even shall live by me.” “This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth of this bread shall live forever.” These last verses are explanatory of what he meant by giving his flesh for the life of the world. What is mentioned in a figure must be realized by a participation of his spirit, in order to the soul’s immortality and eternal life. Thus you see the great business of religion and christianity is to be obedient to God through Jesus Christ, his mediatorial spirit. The soul is as really to be born of God, by his divine spirit, as the body is born of the world by the spirit of the world. We are first constituted and compounded, body and soul, of the world. This is Adam the earthly nature, or first man, wherein if we depend after the soul has been made alive by the inspiration of the Almighty, this produces death – so in Adam all die. But even in this state, if we receive this divine spirit, which is Christ in his second appearing, and depend upon it – so in Christ all are made alive. It is the divine spirit of God that must first make the soul alive unto him. Nothing short of this can effect it. So after transgression or death of the soul, it is the same power that restores it to life in God again.

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

211

Thus it may be considered the first and second coming of Christ, or the spirit of God; first, to make the soul alive unto him; and secondly, if it should transgress and die, to raise it from the dead into newness of life, to serve the living God. Here is Christ’s first and second appearance. I apprehend, according to scripture, both essential and availing to the salvation of the soul. Wherefore have you fabricated a system, saying, “Christ in man alone could have NO power over his body, the church, for full redemption but by the WOMAN.” [Ann Lee.]4 “Let God be true and every man a liar;” and so he is, and they are, / who thus traduce the Saviour of the world. Who is Ann Lee? Certainly not the mother of the Shakers, nor any one living, but their mistress! Or why do you follow her, and make the power of Christ void in man, but by this woman? In so doing, do you not exalt this woman above Christ, and worship her? For shame! You that make sexual intercourse even in lawful wedlock the sin of all sins, will make religion nothing, and the power of Christ void in man only, as you have to do with a woman. It is a burlesque upon common sense, religion and every thing serious! Thus you see, by the doctrine of the scripture in a few words, how your system is demolished, which you have been patching and connecting together part of a century. And the reason is obvious, because your foundation is not on Christ Jesus the rock of ages, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail, but on Ann Lee, whom you stile his co-worker, his bride, the Lamb’s wife, the mother of his spiritual offspring, a poor fallible, weak woman, who so far from having power against the gates of hell, opened the very sluices of it, in herself, by intemperance,5 and to cover it would say she was in the state of the drunkard; that it was necessary she should be baptized into all states, that she might sympathize with all. And at other times, that the sins of the people were upon her, and that under their weight she would stagger and reel, and even spue, to void them from her stomach. But what says common fame? I will tell you what a candid man told me: That his father lived near New Lebanon, in the days of Ann Lee, and that he frequently saw her drink and intoxicated, and that liquor was abundantly used by her and the Elders in that day. And what says Thomas Brown, in his history of the Shakers,6 about mothers being intoxicated? Why, that she got drunk and spued; and this I have had from Thomas’ mouth too. These things I dont find that you contradict. And further, if you should, Thomas says he has incontestible proof of it, and that you will not, or dare not do it. Now, what are professors and even profane to think of you, who claim to be branches of such a root. Notwithstanding your outwardly beautiful appearance, of what use will it be to you in the day of account, if you are inwardly full of deception, nay all uncleanness, rottenness, stench and dead mens bones? Like graves which appear not, In vain will be all your building on so corrupt a foundation. But I hope better things of the sincere part of you, and things which accompany salvation; whether you are of this class, you are better able than myself to determine.

212

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

But if you, the leaders of this society, have instituted this plan of salvation in the will and wisdom of man, (and surely from the complexion it wears it seems evident) how must your care stand in the day of righteous retribution? How any unprejudiced man or set of men, from the scriptures of truth could devise such a plan, is exceeding / strange, nay impossible. But when I consider the heterogenous medley which constitutes professed christendom, as having its origin with the beast and false prophet, or in other words, originated in the will and wisdom of man, separate and detached from the divine will, I cease to marvel; that you have come up with your name, I do not mean the Lord our righteousness, but a name which implies this defective, to wit – The Lord and, Ann Lee our righteousness. As if the Lord was not what he declares himself to be – I am God, and beside me there is no Saviour. This notion which you, have in regard to Ann Lee’s being the second or spiritual Eve, Christ’s wife, and as to her being as essential in producing a regenerated offspring as a natural mother to a natural offspring, is, of all the ideas that ever yet appeared, the most wild, extravagant and presumptuous. Ye have conceived and brought forth not only wind, mischief and falsehood, but a monster, a woman, naturally as corrupt as yourselves, and married her to CHRIST, in order to your spiritual existence, or being born again of incorruptible seed. No marvel if you miss of it, if this is your plan. But you may not fail of getting some by your enchantments to be dupes to your system, to be “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” If the story of Eunice Chapman7 be true, in regard to your smuggling her children from her, how much worse is it to bereave a tender mother of her children, than it is for you to increase your numbers by lawful wedlock, and so fulfil the first in nature and greatest command – “Be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth, &c.” This you are willing others should do, or why do you kidnap their children? Be assured, though judgment creeps with woolen feet, it will surely overtake with iron hands. If you distort and do violence to scripture, to make out your heterogenous system, for conscience sake dont make widows and fatherless children by your religion. Remember, that the apostle saith, true “religion is this, to visit the widow and the fatherless in their afflictions, and to keep yourselves unspotted from the world.” I know the latter is your pretension, but what will the world think of it, when you not only make the widow by taking her husband from her, but afflict and distress her fatherless children by your traditions? A tree is known by its fruits, and not by the wind that blows through its branches; so you and all professors are to be known, and not by the doctrine they preach or publish, but by the life, conduct and conversation they exhibit to the world. Is it not strange that a perfect model of christianity has been exhibited nearly 2000 years to the world, and yet what various conjectures there about it? Every imitation seems to be hit upon but the true, and is not this the cause – “All that

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

213

ever came before me are thieves and robbers,” saith Christ. Is it not therefore clearly evident, that whatever our sanctity and austerities as to life and conduct / may be, if they are not the result of the life of Christ in us, we act the part of thieves and robbers, by excluding his government in us. We rob him of his rule and reign in us, whose right it is, and deprive ourselves of the invaluable treasure of his spirit. Look at it: I do not mean you, more than others who “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” What if you circumcise yourselves, and put on all the outward appearance of the christian; what is this but “garnishing the sepulchers of the dead,” covering the wolf in sheep’s cloathing, and the serpent with the appearance of the dove, taking up a daily cross, not to follow Christ, but to assume his appearance to deceive the world, and in the end, the loss of the soul? This must unavoidably be the result of all your shew of sanctity, if it proceeds not from a real birth and life of the spirit of Christ in the soul; and where and with whom this is the case, what need is there of anxiety about externals? If the inside is clean, that is to say, if the spirit of Christ dwells there, will not the outside be clean also? Most assuredly. What need then of Ann Lee in the work of the soul’s new birth, sanctification and redemption? Certainly not any, unless God is not Almighty, and Jesus Christ nothing without her; all which blasphemous absurdity your system, published to the world, under the title of Christ’s Second Appearing,8 argues. No marvel to me, that to make out your system of the grossest absurdity that rational beings were ever guilty of, that it required a volume of a duodecimo size, containing 622 pages of small print,9 to make it wear the least appearance of truth. To establish one point, that Ann Lee is the mother of all the children of regeneration, you have ransacked scripture from Genesis to Revelations twisting and untwisting such parts of them as you thought would answer your purpose, and by sophistry applied them in the most abominable fabrications. The linseywoolsey garment, the cake half baked, and the half Jew and half Ashdod under the Jewish dispensation, is nothing, as to, abomination, to be compared with it. What! tell to the world a story, and pretend to prove it by scripture too, that you don’t believe yourselves? This is like the woman who read the bible to her servants in this way – that if they did not keep the kitchen clean, when they died they would go to hell. If so, it would seem you think all dupes and fools but yourselves. Fools, I will acknowledge we ought to be for Christ’s sake, but not for Ann Lee’s sake, nor to build up your baseless fabric, that rests upon her. Suppose every society had come forward in systematizing as you have, for all have the same right, and all perhaps can boast of as great patterns of piety as Ann Lee. The Quakers might have hit upon a Margaret Fell,10 the Presbyterians upon a Phillis Wheatly,11 the Universalists upon Jemima Wilkinson,12 and so on; and worked these women into the systems, with as much propriety and art as you have Ann Lee into yours. What would have been the consequence? Why, in /

214

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

this way Christ would be imposed upon with as many wives, by rotten system makers as Solomon had, or as you have spiritual wives in your society. As ludicrous as this may appear, yet is it not due to you, for your folly in giving Christ Ann Lee to wife? Were you honest and sincere in this idea, that Christ must have a wife to beget children in the regeneration, you would only went forth in the light and ability derived from Christ; then your conceptions as to process by which regeneration and the new birth is effected, would have been legally begotten, but now they are bastards and not sons. Hence all the abomination which you have in 622 pages published to the world, concerning Ann Lee’s being equal with Christ, and the mother of all who constitute the true church. What you have said concerning “the true character of the church of Christ,” evidently appears to be a mere fabrication suited to a plan instituted in the will and wisdom of man. Hence, according to the order you have adopted as to church government, the scriptures are quoted to sanction it, and made to bend to suit the particular cast you would have your society of. Hence, you begin, “The church of Christ is composed of such as are called and chosen of God, out of the spirit and practice of the world.” This is very well, but will it follow from thence, as you have falsely added, that in obedience to that call they are all separated from the rest of mankind, and united in one body; [in plain English as the Shakers are.] Separated they will be, from acts of unrighteousness, by that good spirit which called them, in the same measure as they are obedient to it. But what ground have you for this assertion – “that they are all separated from the rest of mankind and united into one body,” (in a literal sense?) Which sense you intended it should be taken, or else your system could not be built up. Are you so blind to truth and hoodwinked by prejudice, as to think that all the called and chosen of the Lord are separated from the rest of mankind, and united into one outward visible body of any one denomination of Christians under heaven? I will answer for you, I think you are not. But to answer your sectarian views and carnal purposes, you have done it. It is probable your earthly nature would be as much gratified in getting to yourselves a NAME, as other Babylonians. For all who are so tenacious of getting to themselves any name, except the Lord our righteousness, particularly you who ascribe as much of your righteousness to Ann Lee of Toad Lane,13 as to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, evidently declare themselves on the side of Babel. Were you consonant with the scriptures, instead of making the above assertion, “that the chosen of the Lord are separated from all the rest of mankind and united into one body,” you would believe and preach with the apostle, that “of every nation, kindred, tongue / and people, they that fear God and work righteousness are accepted of him.” “For the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him,” whether he is Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free. For in this state,

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

215

whatever a man’s outward situation may be, as to his being united to this, that, or the other body of professed christians, or whether he is not connected with any, or whether he has heard any thing of the different names as to the professions of religion, this alters not the principle of righteousness in him, which is the spirit of Christ, who to such a soul is all in all: but Ann Lee nothing at all, any more than any other person of equal piety.* This you know to be true, nor dare you deny it. Now, what think ye, that the Church is confined to any body of people or professing Christians, much less to the few who have separated themselves under a belief in a Female Saviour? And how can you but abhor this idea, when the lip of truth has asserted, “that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female,” but all are one. That is to say, those who are born of incorruptible seed, and so in spirit, come to be new creatures, either male or female as to their corporal organs; yet genders do not apply to spirits, but are confined to the corporal systems which they inhabit; nor is it rational in this changed state to cease the use of the organs but that they all be headed by divine wisdom, and used to the glory of God.† Let nature’s demands be answered in nature, in the discretion and by the direction of the grace of god, which hath appeared to all men, teaching the denying all ungodliness. Is it ungodly to answer the pressing demands of that nature and feeling, which a wise God for wise purposes has ordained? Certainly not, provided the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness is first and uppermost in the affections; then this ruling power will so regulate, that all things necessary (and the demands of nature are necessary as a life in nature is necessary and the fulfillment of them discreetly) shall be added. Nay, verily, but this is godliness which is great gain, because it redounds to the glory of God in fulfilling his demands, both in nature and grace, by the governing principle of his wisdom. But this is ungodliness, not to seek first the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness, and thence to give unrestrained latitude to all the passions in the most licentious indulgences. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you? Therefore, fulfill all his commands, both in nature and grace, agreeably to his wisdom which dwelleth in you. Distrust / not his providence, but have faith in his blessed arm of power, who is able to say to the stormy passions of life be still, and to the proud tempestuous billows of *

†

This addition I might have spared – and so you may say of all the rest: but be willing to heer with both ears, and then judge: for if your system falls at the touch of human investigation, how abhorrent must it be in the divine sight? Now, I believe you may be allowed the liberty to “lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles.” For none can act in the sphere of life with so much propriety, and to the glory of God, as those who are governed by his wisdom, both in nature and grace. I wish to enlarge on this subject but my limits will not permit; “for where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

216

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the elements, yea to the ministers of elementary life, hither shall ye come and no further , and there shall your proud waves be staid! Here, then, in faith in his name your lights might so shine in your different domestic circles, as husband and wife, parents and children, that others seeing your good works might have cause to glorify your heavenly father. Good works, both in nature and grace, because bound by his wisdom. Then you would be as the salt of the earth, which being scattered amongst mankind in detached bodies and in domestic circles, which would have a savor of life among them; much more than if the light was confined to united compact bodies comparable to beds of ease, and the salt in a measure compareable to the confines of these bodies, which would be abundantly more useful scattered among the children of men, than to keep it in a collected capacity. You know salt can’t save meat if it is kept in one mass detached from it, but it must be strewed amongst it; so also with the light, if it is confined to one house or people, it cannot diffuse itself to others and be so useful as it would be if they, the individuals of this house, each as candlesticks in detached and separate situations among mankind, should bear the light to the glory of God. Then you would be the disciples of Christ indeed; the salt of the earth, and the LIGHT of the world. You will please to excuse this digression, for my view of you in this situation is enrapturing indeed. But on the other hand, when I view you in your detached secluded situation, it makes me think of a body of stagnant water, which is rendered lifeless and even stinking for the want of circulation. But to return. Now, making the best of Ann Lee, say nothing about her defects in point of character, she was nothing without Christ; yet you have made her the Church, the Mother of all that are created anew in Christ Jesus: and, to cap the climax, the Lord our righteousness, or God manifested in the flesh!!! See C. 2d appearing, page 458. Admitting that she had become regenerated and born of incorruptible seed, what was she more than a member of Christ’s mystical body the church? If so, what claim has she, being a member, to an equality with Christ the head? Certainly not any. But you have made her equal, nay more than equal, by saying Christ’s power in man is nothing without her. Thus you have not only conceived wind and brought forth falsehood, but a Monster (instead of a mother) with two heads to one body – Christ and Ann Lee the HEADS, and the Church the body. I have many things to say unto you, however you may be prepared to bear them; but my present limits will not permit much enlargement. Yet as Richard asked me, after being at your meeting, how I liked it; I then, not having time to shew my reasons, waved answering. / But now I will tell you. First, however, let me observe, that from your apparent sanctity I expected the most solemn scene I had ever witnessed. Perhaps my ideas were too much raised, and therefore when the meeting itself opened to my view, I was much disappointed Be that as it may, when I became seated, the meeting gathered and opened in a style so foreign to solemn spiritual worship. I was

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

217

much affected, even to tears, to see so many of my dear brothers and sisters in a natural relation, whose countenances seemed to bespeak something better than fanaticism and delusion, go forth to perform divine spiritual worship in acts of DIVERSION. O! how unlike that devotion, when in the silence of all flesh (or the spirit of nature) the soul is in holy converse with the spirit of the Almighty, whose inspiration giveth it understanding and enjoyment in things of a divine nature, is your lodolo14 singing and dancing? Instead of discovering a manifestation of the mighty power of God through you, who formerly were termed Shakers, because of your shaking and quaking in your devotions, under a sense of his gracious presence; behold nothing more extraordinary among you than any carnal man or woman can at any time perform – and indeed no spirit discoverable in your devotion, but what is common to the world at large. Certainly your singing and dancing seems to comport more with the spirit of dissipation, than that of divine inspiration: and as to your exhortation and preaching, instead of that energy in which the words of the Apostles were uttered, and that amazing power which accompanied their preaching and sending light into the understanding and conversion into the heart – how flat and spiritless are you in your exhortations, and destitute of the benign energetic spirit of the gospel in your preaching? Therefore, it seemed to me more like a mock meeting, than a real one of devotion – “like children in the markets, and calling unto their fellows and saying, we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we hare mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.” But wisdom is justified of her children, and they are not confined to the pale of your society, nor any other, nor to any particular mode of worship; but they that fear God and work righteousness are accepted of him, whether they have any name to religion or not, or whether they are members of societies that call themselves Christians, Jews, or Mahometans. Neither names nor modes alter the heart, change the affections, nor regenerate the soul; but it is giving the heart up to the Lord, agreeable to his call, saying, I am the clay, thou art the potter; make me and fashion me, O Lord, according to thy will. “For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight, His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.”

To conclude: Were you ever sensible of going forth in the spirit and power of the highest, return to it again that you may have more than a skeleton, shadow, or shew in religion, yea the very life and / power of it; for, surely, if you are so favored with the power of God as to work miracles, certainly it would seem there would be something of it discoverable in your devotions. Don’t take so high ground as never to be seen standing on it. Don’t turn devotion into DIVERSION, nor religion into hypocrisy. Don’t assume works to that degree, nor in that shape, that will rob God of his glory and give his praise to images, lest you become idolaters, and cause the inferior classes of men and women in your soci-

218

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

ety to bow down to and worship you. But let your faith be God alone, and your works so corresponding as that he may be praised and honored in all his injunctions and commands, both in nature and grace. Don’t trammel the minds of the youth and inexperienced among you, with wrong apprehensions of God; that he can be known through any other medium to the salvation of the soul, than by an immediate revelation of his own spirit to the soul. Remembering, that whatever has priority or preference to this, whether it is your own instructions or even the Bible itself, is a thief and a robber. For it is virgin souls, that is, those that are chaste and pure in their devotions to Christ, that conceive the immortal seed of divine life in the soul, by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. This is the male and female correspondence in order to immortality and eternal life in the soul, for which you have so abortively labored to make out Ann Lee to be the mother of all the truly begotten of God. But so far from it, if she was a recipient of it herself, it was to the extent she could go. It is the soul, a spirit that stands in need of divine life; nor can it be communicated to it, but by the overshadowing of the highest. This overshadowing must be to every individual soul, so certain as it is made a partaker of a divine, heavenly nature. – Now, look at it: admitting that Ann Lee received a change through this medium, it was not an offspring of her’s, descending as the natural offspring of earthly parents who in their turn would become parents, and so on ad infinitum; because it was only a regeneration or changing the soul from nature to grace, from earthly to divine affections, and from thence no new offspring could descend from her, but a mere change of herself from natural to divine affections, from an earthly to a heavenly state of soul. A new inheritance by a change of soul, a new life to the soul by the inspiration of the Almighty, or by the overshadowing of the Highest, or by the ingrafting word of divine life, all which are the same thing and produce the same effete; not an offspring or descendant from the soul, but a change of soul, as the meal was changed by the operation of the leaven. Hence you see the impropriety of calling her mother; for they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, neither can they die any more; for they are as the angels of God, being the children of the resurrection. And who is the resurrection and / life to the soul, but Christ in the soul? who declared, “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Now as that was not first (as to the state of the soul) which is [divinely] spiritual, but that [spirit] which is natural; hence the necessity of a change, and this is effected by that which the Apostle says is afterward, and this is a divine spirit and changes the soul, provided it is passive to its embraces and holy operations. Souls thus devoted constitute the Church, the bride, the Lamb’s wife, and he their holy head and heavenly husband. Whether their mortal bodies are male

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

219

of female, gender extends no further, their souls are all one in Christ Jesus, the objects of his embraces, the subjects of his regard. “I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.”* In this state they have no more occasion to say, every man to his brother and to his neighbor, know ye the Lord, for in this dispensation all shall know me, saith the Lord, from the least unto the greatest. They shall beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not rise up against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Because they have become children of the Lord by the changing operation of his spirit, and are all taught of the Lord, and great shall be shall be their peace. Not the children of Ann Lee, by Jesus Christ, whom you falsely stile the mother of all the children of regeneration. Are ye so far departed from the dictates of the holy spirit, as thus to systematize, as if the spirit was not able to beget its likeness, in the souls of all, and complete the new birth, and so produce the children of regeneration without the assistance of Ann Lee!!! Out of your own months we shall be judged. Look at your book of inconsistence, which you have the hardiness to call Christ’s second appearing; which in fact is more like Ann Lee’s second appearing, Christ’s total eclipsing. How strange it is, that your virtue is such that you will not obey God’s commands. That as he has made you male and female, and for this cause he has declared man shall (not may) leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh; and what God hath joined together, (this in wedlock) let no man put asunder. Does not the scriptures say that “marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled; but adulterers and whoremongers God will judge?” Of which class are you? Not of the married and honorable, for this you stile the sins of all the most sinful and abominable, though commanded by Jehovah. Thus you have become not only as God’s to know good and evil, but wiser than God himself, by distrusting his wisdom and his power: His wisdom to direct and his power to preserve in all movements of his requiring. Thus to avoid one extreme, committing the sin which you think our first parents were guilty of, you have run into another of equal if not greater magnitude. Nor will I charge you with being whoremongers / and adulterers in the flesh; this yourselves and spiritual wives can determine. But one thing is strange, that you should abstain from wives in the flesh, cleave to them in the spirit, and even impose one upon Christ, and declare that without which no church regeneration nor spiritual offspring can be had!!! In the flesh treat the woman as an abomination; but in the spirit exalt her as a blessing and the only means of salvation. “If you are so unfaithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will give you the true riches?” If you thus abuse tem*

Not that Christ and Ann Lee shall be to the people a God, and their offspring shall be to them a people.

220

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

poral gifts, how will you improve spiritual ones? If you will not believe Moses and the Prophets, how can you be persuaded by one from the dead? Therefore, for the Lord’s sake, for your own soul’s sake, and that of the blessed cause of Christianity, be not reproached and become a hiss and a by word among the nations, “return unto the Lord who will have mercy, and unto our God who will abundantly pardon. He will teach you of his ways, and guide you in his paths, which are pleasantness and peace.” For your acts, your system making, and your doctrine as loudly proclaims you to be out of the way, as a tree is known by its fruits. You say, “the spirit of Christ was never committed to man to be at his disposal. God always required that man should be subject to the dictates of the spirit.” This is very correct; but how do you act up to it? Your general reputation in the line of your dealing, with what you call the world’s people, stands pretty fair; I mean as to the articles you raise, make and vend, with a few exceptions. But is this the result of the dictates of the spirit? If so, infidels may lay claim to it in their honesty and integrity; for I know some of them whose standing in this respect is as high as yours, and yet they reproach not the christian cause by perfidious actions, which is more than can be said of any christian name under heaven. But the truth is, it needs no greater revelation than the spirit of Antichrist to be honest in things that pertain to his kingdom; for this spirit can dictate that your character in dealing must stand fair, or you cannot be built up in outward glory. Still, I leave it to you to determine, whether it is the spirit of Christ, or the world, that governs you in things temporal. There is one thing , however, I will observe – if the spirit of the world in you was subject to the controul and under the government of the spirit of Christ, I very much doubt whether you would have systematized against the commands of God in nature, and distrusted his power in grace. Was the spirit of Christ your guide, when you wrote “Christ’s second appearing?” If it was not, you had better revise it and let it be dictated by his spirit, that it might be something like his second appearing, without sin unto salvation – or annihilate it. When his spirit becomes your wisdom, his light your director, his life “your comfort and your hope,” doubtless the world will have a better specimen of it than this book, your preaching or example affords. Which I humbly crave may be the case, that ye may be clothed upon with his spirit, and redeemed from your strange delusions. / I do not wish to be tedious or troublesome. Please to bear with me little further, for it is for your sakes as well as my own that I labor. Please to say what spirit dictated this assertion in your Christ’s second appearing, page 397 and 8: “William, Prince of Orange, first established liberty of conscience by law in England, about the year 1689. To his honor, the Friends partook of that righteous grant; but to their shame, as the witness of God, it was granted to them, in particular, upon their humble request, and their religion established by law.”

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

221

This is a loose phraseology, and may be understood in this way: that the Friends, to their shame, partook of a righteous grant, the liberty of conscience. But I suppose you meant that it was a shame for them as the witnesses of God, to petition secular power for this grant; not a shame to accept the privilege, without petitioning for it. If this is your meaning, I heartily concur with you in sentiment. But what have you done 127 years since, when you have had the experience of so many years to improve in? Have you petitioned a secular power on the very same account, but much less in magnitude? You will perhaps say nay. If so, what do you call your pamphlet printed in 2d mo. 20th, 1816;15 and laid before the members of the legislature of this state, wherein you plead like Emperors to be freed from taxation in lieu of personal military duty? You may call it what you please. The world’s people and this carnal power (the legislature) to whom to your shame and indignity you have petitioned for favors, will call it a remonstrance; as your concluding paragraph humbly sheweth, thus – “We confidently trust, that the [not honorable, but what is the difference in point of flattery between that and] respectable Legislature of this slate will consider our cause to be just, and will take measures to secure to us our religious and constitutional rights; and that they will not exercise less liberty in regard to our conscientious feelings, than the neighboring states have done.”

“Thou therefore which teachest another teachest thou not thyself ? Thou that preachest that a man should not commit steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” Therefore to your shame it is a disgrace, as professing christians, that wherein ye fault others ye are guilty yourselves. And you say their [the Friends] religion is established by law. The loose manner in which you have thrown these expressions together, seems to imply quibling, when you are tested on these points. But that you intended that it should be so understood, see further expressions of your same book, rage 403: “But again, when the Friends, in the declining state of their power, applied to an arm of flesh for protection, and had their religion established by law, they united with the remaining power of the beast, through the influence of which they became a dead, lifeless body as people.’”

If it was so, that the Friends had their religion established by law, they are much to be blamed; because by this act they must have abjured their faith in Christ, their only head potentate, prophet, priest and king. You must produce better proof of it than establishing liberty of conscience by law, as you throw your own “church among / the general wreck of false buildings,” which you are endeavoring to establish upon the ruins of all others. See wherein you judge others you

222

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

condemn yourselves. Your remonstrance to (what in your religious strains you call the power of the beast, yet when you humble yourselves before it for favors you call it respectable) the legislature for liberty of conscience, in paying a $4 tax in lieu of military service, is a much fouler stain upon you and argues greater weakness in the christian faith than the Friends petitioning for liberty of conscience, that they might worship God peaceably unmolested, free from stripes, imprisonment and death, which many of them experienced. If granting liberty of conscience is establishing religion by law, then you are equally guilty with the Friends, and your system as corruptly founded, and how much more so, I leave it to you to judge, who have constituted Ann Lee as your mother in regeneration. But the truth is, granting liberty of conscience is so far from establishing the religion of any particular sect or denomination by law, that it is a free toleration to all, “provided such liberty of conscience be not so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the secular power.” That it is a false assertion you have published to the world, that the Friends had their religion established by law, may be clearly seen by the writings of the most eminent among them in that day. See the select works works of Wm. Penn, page 638, in his good advice to the church of England he says, speaking of church establishment by law: “What weight is it to a church that she is the church by law established, when no human law can make a true church? A true church is of Christ’s making, and is by gospel established. It is a reflection to a church, that would be thought true, to stoop to human laws for her establishment. I have often been scandled at that expression, from the sons of the Church of England, especially from those of the robe. ‘What do you talk for? Our religion is by law established;’ as if that determined the question of its truth against all other persuasions.”

This is the doctrine of the friends as to church establishment, from the earliest times down to the present day. Therefore you see what you have premised in regards to the Friends is false, and it is but fair to conclude that your conclusions as to their becoming a dead, lifeless body, as a people, are without foundation. Your language to other denominations seems very much like the impious, haughty strain of the church of England above quoted. “What do you talk for? Our religion teacheth to bear our cross against the flesh, and is by Christ and Ann Lee established.” As if the religion of all rest of mankind, that are in the habit of marrying, was false and without foundation. Is copulation under the most legal circumstances sinful? If so, then according to this conclusion, if would have been better not to have made man male and female. If so, then you have become wise above what is written, and beyond God himself, whose wisdom ordained the male and the female, but not in vain, but

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

223

for the very express purpose of conjunction, as saith Christ in the scriptures, see Mat. / xix. 4: Mark x. 6. God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, what therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder. But you teach a different doctrine, forbidding to marry, which the scriptures say is the doctrine of devils. So, is your wisdom to avoid the flesh, have you not become preachers for the devil? Are ye so without understanding, both in nature and grace, as to stile sexual intercourse a sinful act, because it is an act of the flesh, when every act of man which is under the controul of a carnal spirit is the work of the flesh? Whether in eating or drinking, or whatever else is done under the presiding of this spirit, even taking up the cross against the flesh, and all pretensions to worship God, is still the works of the flesh; and you cannot, nor dare not, deny it. And on the contrary, every act of the creature which is under the presiding of Christ’s spirit in man, is to the glory of God, and you dare not to say to the contrary. Has he not made made man male and female, in order to a succession in a natural sense, in order to inspiration? This you dare not deny. These two points being established, what follows? Shall not his works go into operation? You say yea, both by precept and example, except begetting successors. Why would you stop or withstand God in this, as without it his whole creation and design as to man be frustrated? This you dare not deny. Do you not see yourselves opposed to God, by tradition and doctrine and example too? Does it imply defectiveness on your part, or on the part of God Almighty? On your part you must own, with blushing and confusion of face. But for his sake and his cause, which he has ordained, first in nature, in order to grace; that man should first exist in nature, then in grace, and so by grace through faith be made an heir of immortality and eternal life. If you have not strength and faith enough to bear it, and vision enough to see it, do not oppose him any longer by perpetuating your traditions to after ages. But silently and meekly confess your weakness, that through want of an entire faith in God you have to cut off right hands and pluck out right eyes, to enter his kingdom. But I beseech you for the righteous cause and blessed Redeemer’s sake, don’t proclaim this doctrine to the world, that the kingdom of heaven must be entered only by the halt, by the blind and the maimed; for the defect only lies with the creature and not with the creator. Thus you see your want of faith renders you unequal to fulfil God’s design; therefore forbear your presumptuous precepts, that your society, and those of your faith constitute the only true church on earth. Call in your publications, which shew to the world that you would fain build up a society by your traditions and not by the alone power of God, which you say in man is nothing without the woman! When I began to write I had no prospect of extending beyond the limits of a sheet; but the more I read your book, the more I discover your want of truth and

224

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

consistency. Please to read your ideas of / Christ’s church in the apostles days, see C. second appearing, Page 104; and then read concerning the foundation pillars of the church page 439, 440, &c. At the day of pentecost, “the Apostles were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave then utterance. “Then, and not till then, they began to know the truth of Christ’s words, relating to the design of his work and the nature of his kingdom. This was the spirit of anointing with which Jesus himself was anointed, and which he had promised to send them, to lead them into all truth. “Here, then, was the true institution of the primitive Church; even the spirit of truth and revelation of God given to the Apostles, was the foundation upon which the church was built. The anointing of the Holy Ghost, that is, Christ in himself being the chief corner stone: Christ dwelling in his people and they in him, according to promise.” Again – “Jesus promised them saying, ‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit it of truth, whom the world cannot receive.’ When he (the spirit of truth) is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will shew you things to come. “This was the spirit which the Apostles received on the day of pentecost. – This was the rule of their faith, the bond of their union, and the spring of their actions.”

Now let me ask you, granting this description of the true church to be correct, seeing its genuineness, foundation and increase consists in the divine spiritual revelation of God to man, and he becomes a member of it by receiving, and remains one by obeying this spirit of revelation, where in is it defective and not complete in all its parts? – Was not this spirit, which you say the Apostles received and was to be with the followers of Christ to the end of the world, and was the rule of their faith, the bond of their union, and the spring of their actions, sufficient to make all who would receive and obey it, the children of regeneration? Did it not make the Apostles so, and all who have experienced this change from that day to this? Did not Christ declare himself to be the vine, his true followers the branches; and as the branch cannot bring forth fruit except it abide in the vine, so neither can ye except ye abide in me? Is not therefore an abiding in Christ sufficient for renovation, regeneration and the new birth? The Apostle says it is: “if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature.” Not if any man is begotten by Christ the father, in Ann Lee the mother, he is a new creature. This is your doctrine: The above is Christ’s and his apostles. You say that Ann Lee is the mother of all living in the new creation: see page 439. And again: “Then the man who was called Jesus, and the woman who was called Ann, are verily the two first foundation pillars of the Church of Christ – the two anointed ones – the first heirs of promise, between whom the covenant of eternal life is established – the first Father and Mother of all the children of regeneration.” See page 440.

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

225

Now you see your want of faith, honesty and consistency. In pages 104 and 5, your description of the church was very like the true. There you say, “the primitive Church was not built upon any human system whatever, artfully formed by man’s device; but upon the inspiration of the living God.” What hath bewitched you in writing 300 and odd pages, that ye have not obeyed the truth, but that you / have been artfully forming a human system, to present to the world that Ann Lee and her offspring constitute in the latter day of christendom the true church? Nay, I need not confine it to that number of pages, for that seems to be the object of the whole book, containing 622 pages. Therefore, ye are witnesses against yourselves, that ye are out of the spirit and doctrine which Christ and his apostles were in; but in that fleshly state which would lay another foundation than that he has already laid, to get to yourselves a name. Thus you prove yourselves, notwithstanding your fair show in the flesh, pretending to be more faithful in bearing a testimony against the flesh, to be out of Christ’s spirit, in the very spirit which is Anti-Christ and a deceiver, because you do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, that is in your fleshly spirits, there to rule and to reign whose right it is, God over all blessed forever, and so through this medium become his church and people; but you must acknowledge Ann Lee to be the only mother of all the regenerated offspring of Christ, and your church, which rests upon her, the only true church, and that out of it there is no salvation!!! This is the tone of your writing, and spirit of your doctrine. What works can be more in the flesh, than to state the expressions of Christ and his followers to play upon the weakness and credulity of the inexperienced, to gather them together under the sacred name of religion, to constitute a church not according to the revelation of the will of God, but according to the will of designing men, who doubtless have their carnal views and selfish ends to answer by it? Is not this prostitution of soul much more abhorrent in the divine sight, than that among whoremongers and harlots? And do not the latter stand a better chance to enter the kingdom of heaven than the former? Answer to this, ye that are guilty, and come out from your abominations ye fleshly minded systematizers, and no longer pervert the way of the Lord by teaching the people “statutes that are not good, and judgment whereby they cannot live.” The world needs none of your systems, creeds and inventions, because cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and that maketh flesh his arm; but blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. The Lord is equal to his own work, and whose hope the Lord is. The Lord is equal to his own work, and he will carry it on in the earth to the gathering of the people unto himself, to the praise of his own blessed name; not confined to sects, denominations, modes nor forms; but to those in every nation, kindred, tongue and people, that fear him and work righteousness, are accepted of him.

226

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

If thy brother trespass against thee, tell him his fault between him and thee alone; if he hear thee, then thou hast gained thy brother. Your publication is, in my opinion, no small trespass upon the christian cause, derogatory both to the goodness and wisdom of God, inasmuch as it teacheth a way for salvation that Christ and his disciples never knew nor taught. Therefore, please to hear and forbear; if not, if I have life and ability, I have it in my heart to tell it to the / church. That is, make it so public as that those of the truly begotten of God in Christ Jesus, wherever they may be scattered, by whatever name they may be called, may hear the complaint and labour for your restoration, whom if you will not hear, you must then be unto them as heathenish men. I mean the leaders of your society or church as you call it. Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken to the voice of the Lord is better than the fat of rams. It is not out of ill will, hatred or malice to you, have I written; but out of regard to the precious cause of truth and good will to you; that you may abandon the works of the flesh* in systematizing, as well as in every thing else, for this act is the heighth of abomination, because it teaches the way of the Lord (or pretends to teach it) in the very spirit of Anti-Christ – is nothing less than the spirit of Satan transformed into an angel of light. Herein lies your deception, and if possible this satirical spirit, in the delightful seraphic appearance of an angel from Heaven, would deceive the very elect; those I mean who have not chosen Ann Lee, nor lying vanities, but the Lord for their spiritual portion, and the God of Jacob for their inheritance. Therefore, bear with me and permit me to turn your attention not to societies, men, nor books, but simply to that which is accessible to all even the meanest capacity among you – I mean to the light of Christ in the conscience; the grace of God, which the Apostle saith, hath appeared to all men. This, like the philosopher’s stone, will turn all into gold. Like the power of Christ outwardly, which healed all manner of diseases, so inwardly it will as there is faith in it, heal all the maladies of the soul. This is all that is wanted by devotion to produce a change of soul, that it may have immortality and eternal life conferred; and what can produce this but the light which I have mentioned, which the Apostle says is the life of men? That is to say, confers immortality and eternal life to the soul as it is obedient to it. Now, brethren, in the freedom of the gospel affection I salute you and bid you farewell; hoping the freedom which I have taken will not lessen your esteem for the cause of truth, not bar me from your bosom nor your doors; for it was out of good will to the cause that I came to see you, and I trust if health permits the same good will will prompt me to see you again. And I have a particular desire that when any of your society passes through where I live, you would if conveni*

But let the spirit of Christ have the rule over your spirits, then whatever you do, as to religion or the world will be to the glory of God.

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition

227

ent call and see me; for I have (as the ancients say) both straw and provender and places to lie down in, and you shall be as you always have been heartily welcome. If you think I have any selfish ends to answer, by my severity and freedom towards you, you are mistaken; for both have been extended out of good will, and for the building up in the precious cause. Therefore, to that precious light in the conscience, the grace and gift of God in the soul, for justification, sanctification and redemption, I commend you with my own soul.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

BLACKBURN, A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE RISE, PROGRESS, DOCTRINES, AND PRACTICES OF THE PEOPLE USUALLY DENOMINATED SHAKERS

Absolem H. Blackburn, A Brief Account of the Rise, Progress, Doctrines, and Practices of the People usually Denominated Shakers (Flemingsburg, KY: A. Crookshanks, 1812).

Absolem Blackburn’s Brief Account is one of the richest Shaker apostate narratives ever written. Elizabeth A. De Wolfe, in her essay ‘A Modern Pamphleteer’, recognized that instead of a detailed theological tract, Blackburn offered ‘something far more valuable – a candid description of his experiences among the Shakers; a peek at the inner workings of Union Village and West Union when Shakers were under continued attacks from apostates in the east and west’.1 And what a peek it is. Blackburn’s Brief Account is the best contemporary account of daily life at the westernmost Shaker community, West Union, Indiana. The text is a good example of how Shaker apostates – despite the scurrilous content often found in their works – can sometimes offer the best eye-witness testimony to what it was like to live in a Shaker community. Blackburn, and other apostates like David Lamson,2 recorded mundane details about architecture, food, clothing, ritual and other aspects of Shaker life that often go unremarked upon in Shaker manuscript sources. From his own narrative we know that Blackburn joined the Shakers at Union Village, Ohio, in 1819, only to leave on 5 January 1820. The Union Village journals of the period make no mention of his presence, which is not unusual for a novitiate member. After an intermission of over three years Blackburn returned to the material security of Shaker life at West Union, where he rejoined on 5 June 1823. Deaconess Salome Douglas, for whom he evinces great affection in his writing, nursed him back to health from a serious illness. Despite her gentle care Blackburn lasted just shy of eight months at West Union, leaving on 29 January 1824.

– 229 –

230

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

In A Brief Account Blackburn is clearly conflicted about his relationship to the Shakers. West Union, Indiana, Shaker Elder Henry Miller probably hit the nail on the head when he wrote to Blackburn after his second apostasy on 25 April 1824, that you have been here among the Shakers, for which you are sensured by some of your respectable neighbours, who are unacquainted with the people, and in order to wipe off the Stigma, it becomes necessary that an excuse should be sought for, and nothing better than to charge the people with being lier’s, drunkerds, whores, whore masters, thieves and robbers. (p. 254, below)

To his credit Blackburn published this letter in his Brief Account. Like most Shaker apostates he was now compelled to justify to the public why he had – twice – joined the radical sect. His text mixes base slander with unreserved praise. This approach may have satisfied Blackburn at a subconscious level. Blackburn, like other apostates, accused Mother Ann Lee of being a prostitute. His innovation was to claim that she was a favourite of the British Army, who during the Revolutionary War ‘persuaded her to embark for America, in order to preach celibacy to its inhabitants, and also teach the people the great evil of war, or sin of bearing arms’ (p. 235). This claim bears a striking resemblance to the charges levelled in the Dialogue appended to 1780s apostate Valentine Rathbun’s Brief Account (both texts are reprinted in this collection). Blackburn also erroneously links Mother Ann with Jemima Wilkinson. He has a surprisingly cynical take on the Kentucky Revival, positing that of those converted or reborn in Christian faith ‘there were 99 out of 100 that were either base counterfeits, or else subjects of momentary extacy’ (p. 237). In stark contrast with these statements Blackburn offers by far the best – mostly positive – description of Shaker hierarchy, family orders, villages, dwellings, industries, of the period at West Union. Later works, such as Lamson’s Two Years’ Experience and Hervey Elkins’s Fifteen Years in the Senior Order of Shakers3 stand on par with Blackburn in this regard, but they describe the long-lived Shaker communities Hancock, Massachusetts, and Enfield, New Hampshire, respectively. In contrast, Blackburn offers a rare window into the war and diseaseplagued frontier community at West Union that existed from only 1807 to 1827. For this reason alone Blackburn’s Brief Account is invaluable. He lauds praise on Shaker women for their skill in medicine and housekeeping, asking ‘Hear ye Ladies of Kentucky, is this not an example worthy of your imitation?’ Despite his negative take on their history, theology and leadership, Blackburn concluded that the Shakers’ ‘example in decency, good order and decorum, in their external economy, is worthy of the greatest encomiums that may be given them’ (p. 251). The only known Shaker reaction to his work is in a letter sent by the Ministry of Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, to the Ministry of New Lebanon, New York, on

Blackburn, A Brief Account

231

12 April 1825. In a brief listing of current apostate pamphlets they mention a work ‘by Absolem Blackburn of this state … but these pamphlets appear to be of little force’.4 Three years after he published his pamphlet Blackburn married Hilly Thomas on 26 January 1827, in Franklin County, Indiana.5 He was one of the founding members of the Salt Creek Church of Christ (affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement) in Deacatur County, Indiana, on 16 November 1831.6 His fate after that is undiscovered. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

E. A. De Wolfe (ed.), Absolem H. Blackburn’s A Brief Account of the People Usually Denominated Shakers, 1824 (Ashfield, MA: Huntstown Press, 1996), p. 1. Lamson, Two Years’ Experience Among the Shakers. H. Elkins, Fifteen Years in the Senior Order of Shakers: A Narration of Facts, concerning that Singular People (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth Press, 1853). Ministry, Pleasant Hill, Kentucky to Ministry, New Lebanon, New York, 12 April 1825, Shaker Collection, IV:A–53, OClWHi. Ancestry.com. Indiana, Marriage Collection, 1800–1941 [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. L. A. Harding, History of Decatur County, Indiana: Its People, Industries and Institutions (Indianapolis, IN: B. F. Bowen & Co., 1915), p. 261.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

Absolem H. Blackburn, A Brief Account of the Rise, Progress, Doctrines, and Practices of the People usually Denominated Shakers (Flemingsburg, KY: A. Crookshanks, 1812).

INTRODUCTION. Preliminary observations, giving an account of the author’s life so far as it relates to his residence among the Shakers. IT is well known by my acquaintances that, in a the year 1819, I left my residence in Kentucky and traveled to the state of Ohio, where I fell in with a society of the Shakers on Turtle Creek,1 Warren county, and being desirous of learning the peculiar tenets and practices of so strange a people, I consented to live with them, as they thought, forever: but this I did not intend. I remained until the 5th January, 1820, making three months, and then returned to Kentucky, being fully satisfied with what I had already learned. I remained near four years in different parts of Kentucky; but not having yet sowed all my wild oats, I unfortunately took a second tramp over the Ohio river. O that I could draw the sponge of oblivion across this part of my life, and leave it a mere blank rather than what it is; but truth, that vehicle of candour must come, though it be at the peril of my already injured character. But to go on without saying any thing more of my iteneracy, than that after traveling through different parts of the states of Illinois and Indiana for upwards of a month, I, from nay inability, was necessitated to stop at West Union, of Shaker town, Knox country, Indiana! Now, reader, before you condemn me altogether, imagine yourself to be in my situation – two hundred and fifty miles from home, in a strange inhospitable land; weary, unwell, maimed, scarce of money, and as scarce of friends; left almost entirely to seek an asylum from the cold hand of charity, badges of which were no where to be seen in this dolorous region, except among the Shakers; who for sinister motives, hereafter to be mentioned, are always ready to extend favors to those from whom they have any thing profitable to hope, advantageous to themselves. / – 233 –

234

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I arrived at West Union on the 5th June, 1823; the inhabitants manifested great friendship, and kindly invited me to stay at least long enough to get my clothes washed – they also presented me with a pair of shoes, my boots being considerably the worse of the wear; and in the mean time, hinted to / me, that for the preservation of my injured health it was necessary to take some medicine, to which I submitted; and in requital of this their kindness, I was about to enter their school family as their children’s tutor. When on Sunday, the 20th of July, I was seized with the intermitant fever. About this time, having done considerable work for them, very much to their pleasing, Henry Miller,2 the elder of the family where I resided, presented a covenant or article3 to me, the contents of which were, that I was not when I left them, if I ever did, to charge them for any labors done by me, and on the part of the society, to charge me for nothing that I received. I readily consented to sign this, which, with an unreserved account of my past life4 was considered an initiation into their society as a probationer. Tell me, reader, would you not have done so too if you knew it was the only means of securing that attention from them, so essential to the lingering bed of sicknes? at least I could devise no better plan to pursue. As to the stigma of having joined the Shakers, I shall hereafter be able to prove, from the tenets of their church, that this was impossible, had I been so disposed; therefore let the mouthes of those be stopped that call me a Shaker, by way of a slur. But to proceed, I lay under the afflicting hand of Providence about three months; and was during this time in the care of Saloma Douglass,5 a young woman of whom I can never think but with emotions of gratitude. As soon as I was able, I entered the school family, in order to remunerate the society for their attention, where I remained until my departure from that place for Kentucky, which happened on the 29th January, 1824, and I once more reached home about the middle of February. And now to satisfy the repeated solicitation’s of many of my friends; and, also, to give the public in general, a true account of the people with whom I have had such repeated interviews, I take up my pen, inadequate as I am, and intend to give a plain statement, as far as I am able, of the Shakers, without attempting to ascend to a learned disquisition of divinity, which would be opposed to the object of this publication, were I adequate. A.H. BLACKBURN /

BRIEF ACCOUNT, &c. ABOUT the middle of last century, two famous heretics arose in Europe, designated by the name of the French Prophets:6 They were by the name of James and Jane Wardly;7 possibly near relatives. They began to exclaim against the flesh as they phrased it – that is, they I represented matrimoney, and copulation, however lawful, notwithstanding, as being the root of all evil, and the most abominable

Blackburn, A Brief Account

235

and desperately wicked thing on the Earth. Among those who followed their precepts were Ann Lee,8 and several of her relations. Now as Ann is a personage of whom I shall have frequent occasion to speak, I shall here insert a small sketch of her life. But as I have no documents relative to her, I hope to be excused if her biography should be imperfect, as it relates to particulars. She was born in England, of poor parents; therefore, her education was but moderate. When she was about nineteen years of age, she accepted the hand of a blacksmith,9 whose name I am not now able to recollect; neither does my memory serve me perfectly, as to the number of the pledges of their love, but they did not exceed three or four.10 For a more clear illustration, it is necessary to state, that Ann was led, when she embraced the faith of the prophets, from motives unknown to me, to alter her name from that of her husband, to that of Lee, the name she bore before her espousals. She also left her husband, pretendedly, for the sake of leading a pure, chaste, and holy life, but, alas, she thereby became a notorious prostitute. Notwithstanding Ann possessed a mind capable of great improvement, insomuch, that the officers of the British army, then at war with the united colonies in America, and who had become familiar with her as a prostitute, persuaded her to embark for America, in order to preach celibacy to its inhabitants, and also teach the people the great evil of war, or sin of bearing arms. She accordingly, with her surviving retinue, consisting chiefly, of her near relatives, (the prophets having long since fell asleep, leaving Ann to be their successor.) embarked for the United States, and on her voyage miraculously / saved the ship and its crew,11 and did many other things which for want of room I omit. About this time she fasted eleven days, and was reduced to a mere skeleton! But for all this she was fully compensated, as she received a special revelation from Heaven, that she must now lay the axe of the Gospel to the root of evil, &c. This she readily obeyed when she arrived in America. I would here remind the reader that the above statement is made by her present followers, the Shakers. The fact is, she began to teach the people who favored her with their attention, that they were blind and deluged in sin; that if they ever wished to be saved, they must throw down their arms, the husbands leave their wives, and wives the bed and board of their husbands, and that all must come and follow her, even as she followed Christ, &c. But the good sense of the Americans was but little moved by such fanaticism, consequently, her proselytes were but few, and she was taken up for treason, and sentenced to die in the prison by hunger. Now see the vigilance of her followers to save the life of their demagogue, and if possible convert the present conflicting scene to their advantage, by using a stratagem to propagate the belief that her life had been miraculously preserved in prison without the natural means of subsistence, they, every night cloaked by the sable shades, would repair to the prison door, and thrusting the end of

236

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

a small hollow tube through the key hole, she thereby would suck milk out of a bottle. This they did till the time expired for which she was sentenced; when, much to the surprise of simple and weak minds, she was taken out alive. This was also a means of gaining her many proselytes, insomuch that she was enabled to settle them together in a society near Albany,12 in the state of New York, which remains to this day, as the principal society of her followers. Now, the next thing to be done, was to establish an order among them, and also a faith, by which the society and individuals were to be ruled. This took her until about the year 1796, in which time one of her principal associates Jemima Wilkinson,13 dissented from her, and drew several with her. About this time it is said that Ann had great labor of mind, and was endowed with many excellent gifts; such as that of prophecy, healing, speaking with unknown tongues, &c. In fact it is said of her that although she never learned any / language except English; yet she could speak seventy two tongues and could converse with the dead; and also, had conference with the angels; and more than this, that all the patriarchs, prophets, and saints of old, who had but as yet, after laying off this tabernacle of clay rested under the altar, waiting for the true manifestation of the gospel, come and confessed their sins to her, and began that travel, or work, which they never till now were able to perform. After Ann had established the order that she wished, also delivered to her followers, her testimony, she commissioned ministers to go to certain places and preach this new gospel. She appointed herself to be the Mother of the church, and nominated Elders, Eldresses, Deacons, Deaconesses, Trustees, preachers, &c. to be officers under her; each to fill the gift that might be alloted to them. – By this means, there were several societies formed in different places, and among all the same was the same order established. Her work being now ended on earth, she fell asleep, leaving the living puritans to shift for themselves, while she would go and preach to the spirits in prison, giving the dead, as well as the living, an equal privilege of her gospel. Without saying any thing further of their progress in the Eastern States, I shall now give a brief account of their progress in the West. About the beginning of the present century, there was a great revival of religion14 broke out, first in Kentucky, which spread through Ohio, Tennessee, &c. in which revival, there was no doubt a clear manifestation of the power of God, to the pulling down of the strong hold of Satan. Among the subjects of this revival, were every class of people, some were no doubt true subjects of the converting grace of God, and were actuated by the influence of the holy Spirit, to shout aloud the praise of their redeemer; and there are probably hundreds yet living, who can look back with pleasure to their deliverance, while they date it, as the time that God, for Christ’s sake freely washed them from their old stains, & stamped the image of his divine spirit upon them; for where is the counterfeit that is not preceded by a genuine; but I do not hesitate to say, that in this case, there were 99 out

Blackburn, A Brief Account

237

of 100 that were either base counterfeits, or else subjects of momentary extacy. There were also among the latter class, some who for the moment were satisfied with feeding upon the husks, but not finding any lasting comfort, instead of seeking that true and / vital religion, and the wisdom that cometh down from above, they were looking for some great and wonderful work to be performed in, through, and by them, and began to conclude, that surely Christ would now set up his kingdom on earth, and that the melenial day should be ushered in. Among the latter number, were John Dunlavy,15 Richard McNamer,16 Mathew Huston,17 Malcham Worley,18 Henry Miller, Robert Marshall,19 David Purviance,20 Barton W. Stone,21 and many others, that were leading characters, among their class in the revival. It is candour that obliges me to name the three last, as it is not my intention, nor yet the object of this publication, to enter into a contest with the Arians22 of the day; but as I said before, these among thousands of other enthusiasticks, persuaded themselves, and one another, that this revival was the morning star of the melenial day, and the dawn of the latter day glory, & in this situation, they were ready to receive any wind of doctrine that accorded with their ideas of the times. This I will date about the year 1804, in which some of the above named class of people, were even dogmatical enough to say, that another year would not arrive without ushering in the melenial. About this time, the followers of Ann, at their society in N. Lebanon,23 near Albany, state of New York, came to hear of what was going on in Kentucky and Ohio; and having been directed by their Mother Ann, to send her gospel to the West as soon as it was convenient, they thought this the best opportunity that had, or probably would soon offer. Lucy Goodrich,24 the successor of Ann, by and with the consent of the Elders of the society, denominated the ministry, appointed three men to carry the gospel of Ann to the heathens in the west. John Meacham,25 Benjamin S. Youngs26 and Issichar Bates,27 were the men upon whom the lot fell, to bear the mission, and being equipt, they left the society in the fall of 180428 and after a tedious journey, they arrived at Malcham Worleys, who then resided where the present Union Village29 society of Shakers is located. I soppose that Lot did not receive and entertain the three Angels more cordially than Malcham received these three vagrants. He explained to them the nature of the present revival, and, also his own and neighbour’s feelings; that as to prayer, he had quit it, and only for the sake of formality, he kneeled and returned thanks in his family, each morning and evening, as he used to do, when he kept family duty. These words were swallowed like honey, by the weary pilgrims, but not / more cordially than was their reception by Malcham and some of his family. After the Heretick’s had opened their testimony in full, and had also explained, the object of their itineracy, Malcham for the first confessed his sins, this being the door of admittance into the church at that time; his example was soon followed by his family and several of his neighbours. From thence they

238

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

went to Kentucky, and were received by many as almost Gods. Here also there were many that confessed their sins to them, as also on Eagle-creek,30 state of Ohio, and also in Logan county,31 Kentucky so that there were four settlements of those that joined them in a little while from their arrival. While they were in this promiscuous and confused situation, they would often meet, for the purpose of worship, which insisted in singing, dancing, hollowing, screaming, yelling, walking on their knees, and also on their feet and hands, crawling on their bellies, rolling, patting with their hands on the floor like children, and performing every action of a little child; some of which, when applied to grown persons, the modesty of my pen forbids me to mention. Also, a favourite exercise was whirling round swiftly, as long as their strength would permit, on their feet, singing, clasping their hands, stamping then laughing, aloud, and hissing the devil from among them, &c. Gesticulations, of which the savages themselves, never would have dreamed even at a war dance, or the funeral pile of an enemy, from thence arose the name of Shakers; which name was never applied to them till now – it was not the name they gave themselves, but was given them because of their gesticulations aforementioned, and as it is the name by which they are distinguished from other denominations, it is the name whereby I shall hereafter distinguish them. After they had begun to increase, McNamer, Dunlavy, Houston, and many of their priest ridden rabble, flocked in, the three first named were immediately after admitted as confessors, the three anti-christs, choosing to try the veracity of the old proverb. “Birds of a feather, flock best together.”

Now there were four societies formed; two in Ohio, and two in Kentucky The first was Union Village, Turtle-creek, Turtle creek township, Warren county, Ohio, four miles from Lebanon, and thirty from Cincinnati. The second was on Shawnee-ma,32 Mercer county, Kentucky, 22 miles from Lexington. The third was on Jasper,33 Logan county, Kentucky. The fourth was on Eagle-creek, Adams county, Ohio. The latter was broke up in a little while however, and moved on Busroe-creek,34 creek and Piairia, Knox county, Indiana. They called the name of this settlement West Union. Some time after this, there was the fifth formed / at Water-Vliet,35 Montgomery county, Ohio. These five remain to this day, and are the only societies yet formed in the West. It is said, that there are two others forming, one on White water,36 Indiana, and the other somewhere on the Lake waters,37 Michigan Territory. They have also a great hope of organizing one on Strait-creek,38 Adams county, Ohio, near the place where the Eagle-creek society was formerly located. A Mr. A. M. a man of considerable influence and wealth, and some of his family and neighbours have of late joined them a second time, to my own knowledge.

Blackburn, A Brief Account

239

There are also eleven societies in the Eastern states. Should the three last named in the Ohio, Indiana and Michigan succeed, there will then be twenty societies, containing in all agreeable to their own statement of their number, taken in 1823, near 5,000 souls, including men, women, and children, and it is probable that by this, their number exceeds this, as they are increasing and will increase till Shakerism gets a check. I shall here notice, more particularly, their manner of gathering into societies; and I cannot give this plainer, than by giving an account of their gathering at Union Village, Ohio. As a specimen, I will here give a historical insertion thereof, as taken from their own words. Sometime after Malcham Worley, and several of his neighbours, and people round about, had confessed their sins, Meacham, Youngs, and Bates saw that the only plan for a permanent seat here, was to unite the people that had joined them into a joint interest. To effect this, they drew up a church covenant, as they called it, which covenant bound its subscribers, to devote themselves and their property entirely to the joint interest without any reserve. The manner of effecting this was left to the option of the ministry (Meacham, Young, and Bates) and also, that they were in all things, to submit to the ministry, and to such as they might appoint over them, all that signed this covenant, accordingly, sold all their possessions, and gave its value and consecrated themselves wholly to the joint interest forever. They then bought their land so as to be altogether in a compact form; then went to work, to improve it, according to the directions of the ministry – soon / after a considerable number of persons both male and female, were sent from New-Lebanon, to be elders and eldresses in the several societies. Without tracing them further at this time, as to their progression, I will here insert a brief account of them in their present standing. Their meeting-house stands east of the state road, leading from Cincinnati to Dayton; it is built of plank, framed without, and lathed and plastered within; it is about sixty feet in length, and forty-five wide, if I mistake not. It is two stories high; the lower story is the place of meeting, the floor is entirely smooth, and clear of every obstruction, except seats in front, set for the accommodation of spectators; there is also a seat placed against the wall all around the house, for the leaders of both sexes to sit on in time of meeting; there are two doors opening towards the west, one for each sex to ingress and egress to and from their worship – there are two chimnies, one north the other south, one for each sex. The chimnies are built in the inside of the house, and on the west side of each are the stairs, that lead into the second story; this forms a level front with the front of the chimney, made by a partition that encloses the stairs, through which a door opens into the meeting house, one also opens outward, so that the second story inhabitants in descending, on coming to the foot of the stairs, either go out of or into the meetinghouse; there are also two windows with small shut-

240

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

ters at the head of each pair of stairs that look into the lower story through the partitions; they are about a foot square, this is for the accomodation of the 2d story inhabitants, there are also several large glass windows in both stories. The second story floor supports itself with keys and beams, this is laid off in rooms for the elders to their pleasing, all is as white as chalk, both within and without, and the whole is a neat fabrick; there is a lot of ground paled39 in all round the meeting house, the paling is white – near the north-east comer stood the elder’s shop. On the east end of the meeting-house lot, a long frame building is built, which contains stalls, sheds, and apartments for the elders horses, carriages, harnessing, &c. near each comer, there are 2 small offices of convenience, and at each corner a gate. There are west of the meeting house also two gates opposite the two west doors, and at each gate and door the steps are of hewn stone; the gate posts are also hewn stone, as is also the foundation and corner pillars of the meeting house; across the road from the meeting house there is the centre house, exactly opposite the / meeting house, and two doors opposite the two meeting house doors. In front of them are also two gates, and at the gates and doors are also hewn stone; so that there is a strait walk of plank from the two meeting house doors to the two center house doors; one half a mile east of the centre house is the east house, one half mile north is the north lot, two miles west is the west lot, two and a half miles south-west, is the west section, three fourths of a mile south-west is Cabin-town, forty rods south in south house, some distance north, is the north house, opposite the meeting-house, across the street, is the youth family,40 and a few rods north of that the office;41 at all of which places the men women and managers are placed.. Now the reason I dwell on this part so much is, because every other society in the west is trying to imitate this. The whole number at Union Village is about 800 souls. The elders, as hinted before, live in the second story of the meeting-house. There are also personages living at Union Village, a grade higher than the elders, David Darrow,42 and his paramour Rachel.43 They are stiled father and mother. There are also two elders, the first Solomon King,44 second formerly Peter Peas.45 The names of the two women living with them I cannot recollect; suffice it to say, that they are all yankees, and live together – no body knows how, but themselves, as they will admit none to ascend the hallowed place where they reside, but official characters in their church. To be more particular about father David and Mother Rachel; they rule all the Western world of Shakers; or in other words, the five societies in the western states, with as much imperiousness as the Bashaw of Tunis does his subjects; and the will of the Dey of Algiers, is not more a law to the Algerines, than is the will of father David, a law to the western Shakers. There are in each society, two elders, two trustees, and to each family, two family elders and two deacons, all of whom have their women; that to use their own language, stand in the same gift. The elders are all subordinate to father David and mother Rachel – the trustees,

Blackburn, A Brief Account

241

family elders and Deacons, also the preachers are subordinate to the elders, and the common people are subjects of the whole – this is the general rule, but there are no general rules, without some exceptions, except this one, that I think of at this time, that is they are striving as fast as possible, to obtain this order, but have not yet fully accomplished their end for the want of number’s and wealth. – The trustees live at the office, which is kept as a grocery and private entertainment, with this exception, that they sell no spirituous liquors. The business of the trustees is to trade and / sell the produce of the society, and deliver the money to the elders. The family elders and deacon’s business is to manage the spiritual and temporal concerns of these respective charges. The preachers business is to explain their testimony to the world of mankind, and also to open the door of the church, and hear the confession of the sins of those that enter as probationers. In some instances the same persons, hold two or three posts of honor among them. The family elders and eldreses live in upper rooms adjacent to each other and have free access to each others appartments, at any time. Their fare and accommodations are also superior in general. The deacons and deaconesses have convenient, and centeral apartments, but have not the same access to each other that the elders have – the same thing may be said of the laity or common people. – I presume it would not be altogether disinteresting to the reader, to insert here, a brief account of the society in Indiana state, and Wabash river, Knox county; this society, as hinted before, live on the Western border of Bussroe praira 18 miles from Vincennes, and three from Wabash-river. On the west of them their improvements are bounded west by Busroe creek, and north and east by a bayou, leading out of the creek through the prairia into the river, below the mouth of the main creek. There is also a bayo puts out on the opposite side, a little above the one just mentioned, and discharges some of the Busroe waters several miles above the main body. This bayo, the creek and the river, surround the river bottom, which contains excellent timber, and is indeed excellent lands; but the whole, as well as the creek and west bayo are deluged yearly by the annual inundations of the Wabash, during which time the Shakers premises, which is rising ground is but an island for weeks together. The population of this society is moderate, not exceeding two hundred; they are divided into four families; that is, the center office, north and south families. Their new meeting house, and center house, are in the same order of those as Union Village. They have a grist mill, saw mill, carding machine, filling-mill, flax machine, cotton-gin all are by water. They have also a distillery & shops of various kinds. The names of the elders in this society, are, Archibald Meacham,46 and Issichar Bates; the eldresses Saloma47 and Patience Naylor;48 trustees, Daniel Boyd49 and Benjamin Knox; north house elder, George Ligeur,50 deacon John Johns; center house elders, Jos. Johnson51 and Andrew Martin,52 deacons James McGihan and Jonathan Douglas.

242

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Now I come to speak of the south house – I cannot pass it / unnoticed; it is the most beautiful site I ever saw, for you have a fair view of the whole prairia, and also of the improvements of the society. The name of the elder of this family, is Henry Miller, who is also a preacher and confessor, this being the door family.53 He is a men of considerable intellect, but is somewhat assuming, notwithstanding he is affable in his common deportment. Mary Hopkins54 is eldress; she is an intelligent, neat, tidy woman, and has a free access to Henry’s room, and he to hers, they being adjacent the one to the other, and they are unquestionably far more familiar, and have more intercourse than Mary has with her husband, James Hopkins.55 The deacons name is Thomas Newman; and Saloma Douglass is deaconess. It was under the fostering care of this excellent young woman, that I lay three tedious months sick, and unable to help myself in any thing; for which I shall ever have a heart glowing with the warmest sensations of gratitude. The reason of my being so particular, relative to the names of official characters in this society, is best known to myself. Having now given an account of the rise, and progress of shakerism, I come in the third place, to give to the world a sketch of their doctrines and peculiar tenets, & shall previously make my apology for not being more minute here. My best excuse is this, that I have no books or documents of any kind, now in possession, and of consequence have nothing but my memory to apply to, and of course I am unable to compile any thing from other authors; therefore, I hope the reader will excuse the circumlocutory mode which I am necessitated to use in this theological discussion. What I now write, is taken from their own words, and some of their arguments shall also be given with but little comment leaving the reader to solve them – as the publication is not intended as an argumentative treatise. They believe that there is one God, who is eternal, unchangeable, &c. that there are two persons in the godhead is also a received opinion among them; for a proof of this, they quote Genisis, first chapter, and 27 verse. They also infer from this, that these two persons are of the two genders, the masculine and feminine, power the masculine and wisdom the feminine. They also quote the eighth chapter of Proverbs of Solomon, from which they infer that it was the business of Wisdom to plan and Power to execute, and part of their logic, for a further proof, is that man was created male and female; again that he was created in the image of God, therefore God was male and female, Genisis 1 27. See their testimony on this subject and also John Dunlavy’s manifesto.56 They further / state that when God created man, he created him, male and female, in one person; that the masculine and feminine, were inseparably connected, except by God alone; but he seeing that it was not good for man to be alone, or for the two sexes to be thus blended together, he caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and took from his side a rib, that is he separated the feminine from the masculine, and of the rib he made a woman, and brought her to the masculine, man; and he said this is now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh &c. But the words following are

Blackburn, A Brief Account

243

only the construction of Moses, to favour the flesh, viz. that therefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, &c. They also assert that the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that was in the midst of the garden, of which the man was not to partake was only figurative of this, that he should not partake of or gender with the woman by means of copulation; and that this was the command given him whereby God was to be glorified in his obedience. From this, I must also infer, that the garden of Eden, was but a figure of Eve our first mother; they nevertheless, go on to state, that in certain times and cases, the man and woman might partake of this fruit, viz: When God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth, &c. They say the original text reads miminue,57 I.e. in union with God, or by the special command of God; but say they, Eve first yielded to the temptation of the serpent which was no more than her own natural propensity, given to her for a trial of her faith, and gave unto her husband with her, that is she enticed her husband to break the commandment given him. That the consequence was an immediate discovery of their nakedness – their shame, and also their banishment from paradise, to a cursed earth, with the sentence of hard labour and untimely death – That the fruits of this breach upon the woman, was subjection to her husband, and the bringing forth children, and that with pain and sorrow, an instance of which was soon after seen, for a man child was born, after the image of his father – Here they say, Eve lied in, that she said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” – But let me hasten from this, and just state in a few words, that they assert that it is their design, implanted in the human nature, which they call the flesh, that drove our first parents from paradise and was the primary cause of the general deluge of the world – That also cause, the whole creation to groan and travel together, in pain until now, it is this that has caused the kings and great men of the earth to imbrue their hands in blood, and has spread death and / devastation abroad in the earth, and inundated whole cities; yea, nations in blood and carnage. And in short that there is no evil, either natural or moral, that ever has been, is, or ever will be, burrowed its existence to this root of all evil, as they term it. Well, now, they have got us in a desperate state of sin and iniquity. Let us next search for their remedy. They go on to assert, that as man in both genders was very far gone from original righteousness, even so, that it would take God the masculine, and God the feminine, to open the way that man of both sexes, might be brought back again, that there was no manifestation of light made except to the Israelites, and this was only by types and shadows, &c. for 4000 years after the creation, and that all that were born and died, after the creation, untill this time, rested in hope, under the altar for a clear manifestation of gospel. In order to effect this, power and wisdom must bring forth a son and daughter. The son was to be sent first to prepare the way, and also to set the children of men an example that they might walk in his footsteps; that this son was Christ, that he was sent not to die for the

244

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

sins of the people, but to set the world a pattern, that they should walk even as he walked, and also to give them precepts tending thereunto; that when he had done his work he laid down this human nature and returned from whence he came. The plan of that redemption was not yet fully made manifest, say they, in a word, that nothing was done, only Christ had traveled out of his own nature, and had, crucified his own flesh, with its affections and lusts, and nailed his old man to the cross, showing us thereby, that we must, do so too, if we ever intend to be saved. But still none could attain that crown, that glory, or that immortality, which is laid right hand of God, until the way was made more clear. Now comes the merits of their doctrine; they assert that the judgement of the great day is come; and the kingdom of heaven is at hand! Awfull moment!! What! Christ come the second time; without sin unto salvation? yea!! and how? why he is manifested through our mother! what! manifested through a fleshy women in his glorification! through Ann Lee! When in his humiliation he was born of the Virgin Mary! Astonishing! whither, O whither shall we poor wicked souls fly! Where O Where is the mountain or rock, that can hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne! But hark! what do I hear! it is something whispering in my ear, the words / of Christ, before he left the earth; take heed that no man deceive you, for many shall come in my name, and shall deceive many. Let us therefore examine whether this she Christ may not be an anti-Christ. We shall at least hear the Shakers testimony on this; and as they have arose from the dead and stand before the judgment seat of Christ, they will surely not lie unto us. Well, say, they, Christ was only the son of God; the second Adam. Now, as not only Adam, the first, had transgressed, but also the first Eve, so our good mother Ann was appointed to be the daughter to God, the second Eve, and she through whom a final end of the world of sin, should be made, and as the first Eve began the generation, so the second Eve shall end the generation, by the means of regeneration. But how is it? Is Ann Lee the daughter of God? yea, say the Shakers, she is the daughter of God, even as Christ is the son of God; and again, the word son implies father, and the term father, implies son, or daughter; and how can there be either a father, son or daughter, without being also a mother, there are four persons in the God head, the father the mother, the son, and the daughter; or in other words, Power, Wisdom, Jesus Christ, and Ann Lee!! In truth, then, may Barton W. Stone say, when speaking of the Shakers, that they hold, that we are now to be saved by Ann Lee, and not by Christ, for they do possitively assert, that no man or woman, ever has, is, or ever will be saved, but in and through Jesus Christ – by Ann Lee. That all that died before Ann rested under the altar, until the way was opened, by and through Jesus Christ, by her, into the celestical realmns of glory; also, that all that had died before they had an opertunity of having the testimony of the Shakers, shall have an oppertunity afforded them after death of hearing the true gospel, and traveling out of

Blackburn, A Brief Account

245

the generation into the re-generation; and being saved again; that all the heathens, infants and ideots, shall have the same privilege after death. Thus giving the whole earth an equal chance, for salvation, and all that does not embrace the earliest privilege of Ann’s gospel, shall be damned outright, without any privilege, thereafter forever I forbear comment, but suppose Dives,58 is lisping the praise of Ann Lee in the elision fields of her paradise, and / the happy Lazarus, toiling hard to escape her vengeance. They have set the door of the church wide, and are calling aloud for the sleeping dead to arise and come to judgement! Not those that are realy dead; for all those that are in their graves, shall / hear the voice of Ann in the other world, but their bodies shall never come forth. But it is those that are dead in tresspasses and sins, that the wachman on the walls of zion, are calling to come and confess all their sins to them, and give up all they have, and are commanded, go to work and work out their own salvation with the axe, plow, or whatever instrument the Elders of the new Jerusalem may put in their hands, till death doth come, and say, it is enough then, you shall receive the welcome approbation, of Elder Isichar,59 or some other elder, well done, thou good and faithful servant, thou has been faithful and obedient, enter thou into the joys of our mother Ann – The mighty one of Jacob, has now began to do his work on earth, to purify the hearts of those that will endure the fire of zion, and the furnace that seperateth the foul from the clean; for his word shall be heard from shore to shore, for the judgment of the great day is come, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the righteous shall go into it. Then Brother cast your anger off, And every passion bury; Come in and share the fated calf: Let us all dance and be merry.

To come now to plain language, they deny the resurrection of the body, or any other resurrection, than that which they are in; which they call the first resurrection. They are bound of consequence, to deny the immortality of the soul. They hold to auricular confession of sin, male to male, and female to female. They do not hold prayer as necessary, but rather as blasphemy, it has made my hair almost stand on end, to hear some of them puting up mock prayers in order to contaminate it in the eyes of their audience. They have also discarded the sacraments, orders, and institutions, of the primative or modem churches. As to baptism, they call it the work of the beast: the Romish church, they style the great whore, that sitteth on many waters, and the denominations of the present day her daughters. The pope they style the beast with seven heads, and ten horns, and the protestant church the beast with too horns, i.e. Calvin and Luther – marriage they call a civil rite, and say that it was never ordained or appointed of God. They contemn civil government, and will not bear arms in defence of their

246

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

country. But still they complain greatly of oppression, when the law is exacted upon their persons or property. / The Shakers assert that James and James and Jane Worley60 are the two witnesses spoken of in the 11th chapter of the Revelations; that prophesied 1260 days, clothed in sack cloth &c. Also that Ann Lee, no doubt familiar by this time to the reader, is the woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (representing the twelve christian virtues), who being with child and paining to be delivered &c. And the great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and the seven crowns upon his head, was Great Britain; that the women flying the dragon into the wilderness, was Ann’s departure from Britain, to the wilderness of America. – That the remnant of the womans seed, and the 144,000 spoken of in the 14th chapter are one and the same, with those that came up through great tribulation, and work out their salvation with the Shakers. But it appears that those spoken of in the revelations, were virgins, that had not defiled themselves with women. Let candour decide, whether this is agreeable to the character of the Shakers. A Tree is known by its fruit. The Shakers further assert that when all the world shall be judged and acquited or condemned, that then the new-heaven and the newearth shall appear; also that the old heavens and the old earth are now passing away, and that the holy city new Jerusalem described, in the 21st chapter of the Revelations is the church of believers in Shakerism. See Seth Y. Wells’s61 account of the melenial day. The Shakers also assert, that the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth are Jesus Christ and Ann Lee. It makes me shuder, thus to be necessiated to prostrate the name of the Saviour of the world; but I am bound by candour to tell the truth, and the whole truth. They also state, that the two churibims in Bezalell’s ark;62 were also types of the second Adam and Eve; as also the Kops in the description of the candlestick. See Exo xxxvii, verses 7 and 21 – Also the two tables of stone, spoken of in the xth chapter of Deuteronomy, 1st verse. They hold as a striking representation of the two anointed, so of every other place in the scripture, where the number two is used. They hold it as typical of the two anointed. See their testimony on this subject. The opening of the seven seals; the sounding of the seven trumpets, and the pouring out of the seven phials, the Shakers represent as having alusion to the same times; and that / opening of the first seal, and sounding of the first trumpet and pouring out of the first phial, was all done before the flood. The second, from that time till Abraham, the third from Abraham to Moses; the fourth, from Moses to David; the fifth, from David to Christ; the sixth from Christ to Ann Lee, and the seventh of each is now under Ann’s despensation, opening, sounding and pouring.

Blackburn, A Brief Account

247

That the strong lunged angel is now swearing, with one foot on the sea, and the other on the land, that time shall be no more, to those that hear and refuse the present call to come to judgment – and that the end of the world has already come unto all those that believe in Shakerism. That the Shakers are in the resurrection, and that in the resurrection, they neither mary nor are given in marriage: but are as the angels of heaven. Let us hear their proof that they are in the resurrection, first, say they, a man is not a new creature, except he is in Christ. See second Corinthans, v. Chapter, 17th verse, Christ says to Martha, I am the resurrection, see John xi. Chapt. 15th verse, which two scriptures they compare with Luke xxv. Chapter, and 18th verse. As to dancing, of which their worship chiefly consists, they can also select scripture to justify; read the xxxi Chapter of Jeremiah, till the 15th verse; and you will find the words dance and dances, mentioned once each in promise of the restoration of Israel; which they very incorrectly apply as a prophecy of the Shakers. They also profess to follow the example of David, and he danced! Yes, he danced, once in his life, but prayed five times every day. But no difference for that, there was feasting and dancing, when the poor prodigal returned, and we will dance too, say they. For we love to love the lovely soul – We love the Shakers young and old – We love to see them in the dance; And in it we will all advance. again: O how we love to sing and dance – To sing and dance and play; How we love to follow mother [i.e.] Ann Lee In the living new way &c. For this way is so holy – This way it is so pure; We mean to follow mother Ann, And live for ever more.

This may serve as a speciman of some of the outlines of their doctrines now for their practices. / In giving an account of the practice of the shakers, I shall dwell upon their manners, customs, usage, order, traditions, &c. chiefly. Deviations therefrom may however, accrue for the sake of accuracy. As hinted at before, there are two orders among the Laity, or common people distinguished by the name of Old and young Believers. The old believers are in Church Order, and the young believers are in the order of probationers. But to be more explicit, a child raised among them lives in school orders, (which is also probationary,) till about the age of fourteen, and is then moved to live

248

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

among the old believers, generally in the youth family order, which is a kind of medium between the church and probationary order, until he or she is 21 years of age, being then old enough to make their eternal choice whither they will be a shaker or not – they are initiated into the church and become Mothers children. An adult person going among them, and consenting to live with them, enters his probation by confessing all his sins, from time to time, as he can call them to mind, to the confessor appointed to hear and forgive the culprit, so far as he discloses honestly, his whole mind, of which they make strong pretentions of knowleg, although the heart of man is one of the hidden things of the earth, he or she is placed among his fellow probationers for four years, to stand their trial, after which if he or she proves faithful, obedient, and profitable, he or she is initiated into the church – the faith of the probationer having now become probatumest63 – Here it may be observed there are exceptions, by special gifts from the Elders. All those initiated into the church are placed in the center family, or some other within the bounds of the Village. The church order of each society are placed in one joint interest, and probationers, or young shakers are in another, from among the church are selected the Elders, Deacons, Preachers, and official characters of the shaker order, but still remain and receive their support from the church; the clothing of the elders of the church are sent from New Lebanon, having traveled farther into Shakerism. therefore from thence they receive their apparel, it being superior to that which they can manufacture in the west. Their diet is composed of the best that the society or country can produce. All that can be spared of every article of both joint interests, is placed by the family Elders and Deacons into the hands of the Trustees, to take to markets, and the money received therefor, as hinted / before, is given to the Elders to dispose of as they may think proper. The society is divided into large families, consisting of from fifty to one hundred in each family, commonly, except the probationers, which are from about thirty to fifty in a family for each family there is a large dwelling house, divided into two equal apartments, one for the male, and the other for the female, these apartments are subdivided into rooms, the largest of which in each apartment being adjacent are called the meeting rooms, the second story of the house is also divided into apartments and rooms, suitable for the elders preachers, &c. of the family to reside in. There is also a kitchen, the lower story of which is divided into two apartments; one for cooking and the other for dining. There are also other buildings, viz: barns, stables, shops, ware-houses, cribs, &c. for each family. Each family is distinguished by its latitude or longitude from the center house, the farms of the church order, lie adjacent to the Village – but the young shaker order resides on their farms; the whole is so constructed as to present a regular uniformity, as well as a pleasing variety; and you will in each society see large farms, good buildings, and useful conveniencies; and in most of them there are mills, manufactures, machines, shops, &c, sufficient to live almost independent

Blackburn, A Brief Account

249

of the surrounding country. But in all these cases, there are some exceptions. There are also herb gardens and distilleries, by which their physicians make medicines and physic for the use of the society; the women commonly practice medicine, in which some of them who have made it their study, are by no means unskillful: this I am bound to say, since I myself have felt the salutary effects of the medical and nursing care of one of their Doctress’s when sick among them. I cannot pass without speaking of their gardens, which are managed commonly by the special direction of the Elders. They are divided by a large walk though the middle into two parts; these are again subdivided by lesser walks, crossing each other at right angles; at the farthest end of the walk and garden there are pleasant summer houses, arbours, &c. which are delightful to people of taste and fancy. In these gardens are a pleasing diversity of flowers of various kinds. Herbs, fruit, roots, greens, and all kinds of vegetables that a garden can produce. It is here worthy of remark that the vegetables, flowers, &c. opposite each other on the right and / left of the main walk, are exactly alike, or of the same kind, size, position, &c. thus by examining one side the gardens you can see what is the regulation of the other. Old and young, male and female, official and non-official, in each family that are in health, observe strictly times and seasons, ie: things necessary to be done by all, are done at one time. Let us then follow them through the day for a specimen: At 4 o’clock all rise, and prepare to meet in the landly64 meeting, against half after four, at which meeting they sing a tune commonly by note or the character Law,65 using none else. When this is done, they get on their knees and stand thereon erect for about two or three minutes; then retire. Breakfast is ready by 6 o’clock, after which they go to work, and toil till 45 minutes after 11 o’clock; then prepare to eat dinner, which is ready against 12 o’clock; after dinner they rest till 1 o’clock, then go again to work, and toil till 45 minutes after 5 o’clock; then prepare for Supper, which is ready against 6 o’clock, p.m. they after supper do their chores of work, and prepare for family meeting at 8 o’clock, p.m. When they meet at night, they after singing one of their songs, or Anthems66 hear a harrangue delivered by their Elder, or preacher, which is concluded by the words “prepare to labour,” No sooner said than done. The singers gets to their post, and the dancers to theirs; the singers strike a jig, and sing while the dancers by labour that every nerve, marks the quick time with their feet until the whole are out of breath, and lack strength to labour any longer; they stop short, and clap their hands, after which they hear a harrangue repeated, against which time they are ready to perform one or two more heats at dancing; then retired to their rooms and to bed as soon as the clock by striking nine permits them; the whole society, if small, or the young shakers, if the society is large, meets on the sabbath at noon, and take their seats on the floor, all except the leaders of the meeting, who sit on the seats against the wall, when the elders come in they arise and stand to

250

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

their feet; the men and women facing each other, and the elders and singers of each standing in front. After singing they again take their seats on the floor, and sit till one of the preachers address the audience of spectators; if any or if none they hear a harrangue delivered to themselves, as soon as the speaker is done, all again rise to their feet and sing another song or anthem, of their own composition; then are ordered by the leader of the meeting to prepare to labour. Three / or four singers of each sex then stand posted at the back part of the house; the elders, also, some of them, stand to the right and left of the singers; the dancers then form themselves in a solid square, facing the elders and singers, and front rank of dancers; the square all standing in rank and file form, one of the singers, followed by all the rest, strikes a jig, and each dancer, standing in his or her own place of about a foot square, there dances till the singers by stopping, relieves them for an interval. After blowing a few minutes, they commence again, and again, &c. till the Elder leading the meeting, by signal, relieves them; after which the men and women, facing in rank and file, form as before, sings a parting song, and retire to their places. They hold a great feast once a year, in celebrating the anniversary of our Lords birth; in which they meet and sing, dance, harrangue, run round in a circle, clap their hands, stamp, and perform a vast of such ridiculous gesticulations. Query? Why do the shakers celebrate Christs’ birth and Resurrection in this New dispensation of Ann, when they pretend to do away all ceremonies, ordinances, and institutions, of all other denominations. To be more explicit on their order, as to diet, &c. I shall here insert an additional paragraph, of explication; as mentioned before, they are scrupulously exact about observing regular time in eating; they are equally exact about observing an order in eating; the eldress appoints 3 or more cooks, as necessity may require, who does nothing but attend to the kitchen four weeks: these sound the trumpet 2 blasts, 15 minutes before time of eating, as warning, and one blast when ready; all the eaters being prepared, march in double file, headed each section by an elder or deacon, to a long table; some of them sufficient for 36 or 40 to eat at one time, and being all in abreast, they fall on their knees; no one says any thing; in two minutes they all arise to their feet, then sit and eat about 15 minutes; then kneel, rise again, and countermarch, by double files out again; where there is but one table, the men at first, where two, men and women at the same time, each at their own table; the women observing the same order with the men; their diet is generally vegetables and sauce, (milk, meat, butter, cheese, &c. being used sparingly ) This diet is light, wholesome, and easy of digestion; their habits and regularity contribute much to health. Their dress comes next under consideration; this is plain / uniform and decent for old men and women; but are not suitable in fashion for youth; nor yet becoming for young people. But all ages, grades and conditions, wear the same

Blackburn, A Brief Account

251

fashion. The dress of the men consists of broad rimed, low crowned hats, chiefly made of the buck-eye and quaking ash timbers, some of straw, and some few of fur and wool. Their shoes and boots are plain without lining or binding; their socks, which they call footings, are all mixed and ribed wool socks; their trowsers are short and without suspenders; their waist-coats are long round breasted, with skirts and without collars; they wear what they call frocks made like shirts to labour in; their coats are of broad cloth mixed, some round breasted, but chiefly surtouts; the women old and young, wear white cambrick caps, made plain and decent, and all of one fashion; they think it a shame to be seen in their bare heads by a man; they also wear three square cambrick and muslin handkerchiefs and ruffs, under them they wear petticoats and short-gowns, without skirts; all wear chuck or white aprons, white cotton stockings and cloth shoes. A further description I am unprepared to give did I deem it necessary. Suffice it to say, they keep these cloths clean and neat, and in good order for wearing afer Monday which is the day they wash, dry, and commonly smooth them. Hear ye Ladies of Kentucky, is this not an example worthy of your imitation? sure it is better than to wash, dry, smooth, scrub, scour, clean, sweep, cook, bake and regulate all on Saturday, or sluts-day, so called by way of sarcasm. It is a fact that I am proud to mention, that after all that candour obliged me to say reproachful to the shakers, in speaking of their rise, progress, doctrines, and of their practice, that I am able to say their example in decency, good order and decorum, in their external economy, is worthy of the greatest encomiums that may be given them, they keep their beds that solace of the husbandman, and comfort of the labourer, clean, sweet, and in good order, and diet in due and regular time! How different this from the woman who rises an hour and a half by sun, rubs her eyes half an hour, then sucks her pipe an hour, till an alarm from her child in bed gives her notice that there is need of her there, another hour is spent in making regulations, and against 10 o’clock, she is ready to call the fainting labourer out of the cornfield to a cold dodger, and a bowl of baughnaughclaughber, or a half baked hocake, and a mug of blue John, of which, if he leaves any fragments he can hunt them up for dinner, the lady as / usual being on a visit, and by a quarrel he may get some milk and mush at night. His clothes if wet at all, half washed on Saturday generally and half dried by the fire on Saturday night, and the scorching smoothing iron run over part of them, but not one tore of button or rent repaired!!! But Hark!!! Where is my unruly pen guided by my hair brained head running to, let me examine – Law me Ladies!!! I believe I have got to ridiculing you instead of giving an account of the Shakers, who I have just before held up to you as exemplary! I would cancel the last I have written, were it not for time, ink, and paper. I will only then appologise a little, that my pen ever on excess when speaking of the ladies, could not be restrained when it was unawares led to speak of them in their worst character, a character which I hope not more than the 100th part of

252

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the female population of Kentucky fills entirely; therefore excuse for this time ladies, and I think I will not so deviate from my subject again in this publication, as I feel, that presence of mind is again returning to me so fast, that I shall be able to go on with my account of the Shakers. Another good property of the Shakers is, that they are moral in their conduct and conversation, as well as honest in their dealings with men, that is, they are punctual to fill their contracts. But this I cannot say, as it relates to their manner of opening their testimony to the world; as they first feed them with milk, to use their own expression: that is, they first open to them the most feasible doctrines, and as they travel in Shakerism, they open their peculiar tenets to them: that is, they feed them with meat, until they have impregnated them with / their damnable heresies, and have got them after probation, farily initiated into their church; then comes a clear manifesto of their doctrines, in full, which they are bound by the honor of a Shaker, to support, but not to reveal except by gradual gradition.* The Shakers use plain language, but not yet gramatical, their pretensions to perfection notwithstanding. They use for the negative and affirmative, the words Nay and Yea, the plural pronoun, you, instead of the personal pronoun thou, when speaking to a person. To remedy this impropriety, in the common use of the English Language, they however in greeting a person, speak to the second person in the third, thus, when James and John meet, James says, how is thee John? or how is John’s health. John replies, it is good, how is James? I am well, &c. Old and young call each other by name; the titles Mister or Master, Mrs. Sir, Madam, Gentlemen, Ladies, &c. they will in no case use. When they return thanks for a favour received, it is by the words, “I thank you kindly.” When one calls another, the one called answers, “here” or “here am I.” When they name one of their Elders, they put the word Elder or Eldress, immediately preceding the names: thus Elder Issachar, Eldress Saloma, and so of the rest. Ann Lee, they call Mother, or Mother Ann; David Darrow, they call Father David, and Rachel his spiritual companion, they call Mother Rachel, and so of the rest that receives this title. In argueing in the defence of thier doctrine’s, they use many indecent words, and unbecoming sentences – the modesty of my pen forbids me to give a specimen, the love of the two sexes, the one for the other, they call the flesh lust, &c. Epithets ill becoming an irresistible passiion. Tell me, O! young man, if ever you have had emotions of true love, to the damsel whose – “Cheek is as fresh as the rose, newly sprung, And whose visions are light as her basom is young, Whose lips are as rich as the cornation flower, That showers its perfume on many a bower, *

See Smith, on Shakerism.67

Blackburn, A Brief Account

253

And whose form is the model of passionate love, And fine as the sylph ones that flutter above.”

Whether or no the Shakers can persuade you that these emotions spring from lust! no, for where is the adamantine heart, that is so stupid to feeling, or so dead to virtue, that he would not love the fair nymph, whose garment sweepeth the dew drops from the new stubble and green grass, and whose path is by the murmuring of the purling brook! for Omini Vincet Amor.68 Georgius Wicelsus69 observes that it is impossible for a person to live piously and die righteously in a state of celibacy. But where now have I got to again? Let me go back and examine. Bless me Ladies!!! I am afraid that you will begin to conclude, that I have just been taking philter70 till I am love sick. But not so; for the plaguy Shakers, have only, by one of their observations on Misogyny, excited my frantic pen, / to run clear astray from its text, into encomiums of virtue, when located in the breast of the fair sex, and is blended in all their actions, and buds and blossoms in their whole deportment. But now I have a new pen, and presence of mind is again restored; I will therefore return to my text. They will sometimes curse the flesh vehemently when they meet to perform on the dancing floor. These imprecations are accompanied by stamping and clapping their hands sufficient to almost destroy their flesh, as well as curse it. They call the flesh the god of this world, and say that all the world is serving this god but themselves, and that none but the Shakers, that crucify this god, will ever be saved! If none but Shakers that crucify this god can ever be saved, I fear that there will be but few saved, and those few, will be without elders or leaders. The Shakers are so anxious to make to themselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, and heap up to themselves treasures of the filthy and perishable lucre of this world, that they even grind the face of the poor. A person may work for them after entering as probationer, for months and years; I have heard of some staying three and four years – yes twelve years, and on leaving them, receive nothing for themselves but curses reproaches and anathemas. Their young people connot get to see or hear any thing of the world but its evil. I have heard young people, of from 18 to 25 years of age, assert that they had not heard a sermon, except from a Shaker, nor a prayer or grace at meal, seen any one baptised, or commemorate the Lords supper, or any other ordinance, rite, or ceremony performed, for from 12 to 16 years, and more than this, that some of such, and not a few either, had not been off the Shakers premises for that time. Well might the Holy Apostle St. Peter, speak of false teachers, who privily should bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. Who through covetousness, shall, with feigned words make merchandise of those that follow their pernicious ways, by reason of which the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. But

254

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

hear the malediction, whose Judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Then in truth, they shall bring upon themselves swift destructions; and sudden dessolation on their ill gotten wealth. Then fly from Shakerism; dwell not in all the plains, lest ye also be consumed with righteous judgment. /

The following letter was received in reply, to a letter sent – to which an appropriate answer was forwarded by the Author. West-Union, Indianna, April 25th, 1824. To A. H. Blackburn “I rec’d your communication the other day, it gave me satisfaction to think that the words of Holy writ stands immoveable; when the unclean spirit was gone out of you, you walked through dry places (with your hands on your hips) seeking rest and found none, So you return’d to the land or house from whence you came, I suppose you found it in good order, I wept & garneshed, then you took to yourself seven Spirits more wicked then yourself, (this was folly,) by yor own confession you have ever been govern’d by the basest spirit of ingratitude and dishonesty, when you first came to Union Village, 5 years ago Ohio, to use your own language, you were Peniless and in order to git a little something to better your situation on you impos’d yourself on them, on the principles of dishonesty this you confest with your own tongue to me & others, then like all other dishonest me, you were under the necesity of steeling away. On 5th June last you came to this place, near as Peneyless as before, you were a Stranger in a strange country you were hungry, we fed you, you were naked all to 1 suite & we clothed you, and in a few days you were sick, and we minestred to you necesitys from that time untill not many days before your departure, many a sleples hour have I spent with others, in taking care of you in your sickness, and many a dollar have we spent in procuring you medacal ade, no toil too hard, no expence too grate for us in order to do you good, and for all these things, you are bace enough to subscribe yourself my evr vetret71 enemy, it always hurts my feelings to have a man tell lie’s, when he knows that. I know his statements to be faulse, such is the present case. But then it seems you never had any faith in our Damnable heresy’s – then why did you tell them Damnable lies and confess them Damnable Sins’ but perhaps you came in a state of derangement, if so you are intitled to a free pardon, however the matter stands thus. you have been here among the Shakers, for which you are sensured by some of your respectable neighbours, who are unacquainted with the people, and in order to wipe off the Stigma, it becomes necessary that an excuse should be sought for, and nothing better than to charge the people with being lier’s, drunkerds, whores, whore masters, thieves and robers, when you & your fath the Devil framed these falshoods, you did

Blackburn, A Brief Account

255

not think of ever having to prove them or the picture would have been very different from what it is Absolum, should you make a statement of this kind in relation to me among those where I have formerly lived it would caust you more than your teeth would be worth, altho I am a Shaker, you never caught me in company with Mary Hopkins, or any other woman, in the dark & watchless hours of the night sence the Mid wife Cut your Nable string, and should an angel from Heaven, make the assertion, I should pronounce him a lyer, and God the searcher of all heart would bear be guiltless. Mary Hopkins is not the dame / that you rode so merrely on your lap, the evening before you left us in order to explore this doloraus regen in the West. The unwereed toil through sleepless hours which Saloma Doughless has spent in doing you good when you were uncapable of helping yourself, you engratitude can pay with the most unwarantable charges of lewdness, when at the same time shee is well known to be a young woman of the most amieable charicter, nowever, we cannot think it strange, when you can charge our Elders, with living in copulation, when at the same time your unhallowed feet, never defil’d the flore, on which they love, this was drawing a bow at a venture indeed, and missing the mark too, unless some good messenger from the world of Spirits reviel’d it to you, for flesh & blood never saw it, So the man who would be base enough to assert it must be destitute of ever principle of truth & virtue. As to Thomas Newman he has a desire to see you, and did Elder Issichar git drunt the peole72 in this place have been acquainted with him for years, and among all the fauls statements forg’d against him they never hit on that one untill your sacacious eye caught the seight, however you are good at knowing things which you never saw, it appears that their are more acts of pelphering among us then in any Indian town in your acquantence, last summer you stated that you had never seen an Indian in your life: do you love to lie. Its like your statement in relation to being authorised to forgive the sins of our children, it is true you lived in the family with Som little boys about 3 months in which time it appears you had wonderful labours of mind, through which it appears you would not pass again for all our ill gotten gain, what you have gotten was ill gotten; indeed but who authorised you to forgive sins: it must have been some of your good messengers from the other world, for none in this ever did! your own sins had not yet been bloted out of the book of God’s remembrence; true you had began to confess then according to our damneble Heresees, but you had not forsaken them, therefore you shall not ubtain mersey, for the promice is to those who do both God, or his people would just as soon have authoresed a Hotentot73 or a Winobago74 to forgive sins as you: we did not consider our children as having faith, without which it would be impossible for them to confess their sins according to the gospel but as children I desired you to call them to an account for their chiles conduct, in order to teach them to speak the truth, and protect them from evil. But if their be theits & roberys committed among’s us,

256

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

it is by such as you, who from your own acnowledgement, come amongst us in both cases, for the express purpose of geting that for which you did not labour, this was robery indeed, and for this reson we calculated on keeping an eye upon you; not withstanding you smooth tongue, untill experience taught us that you were more honest then your conduct decleared you to be through life, even from child; out of their own mouth do I judge thee, thos wicked servant. Now can we be sorry that you attach’d yourself to the tribe of Judges as soon as you did, I think not nay verely. I do not begrudge you the coat I gave you, together with all the clothing with which we first you out in the storms of winter; I was always glad to get clear of a man on almost any terms whos soul / was never warmed with even one spark of gratitude. Absolem you are like a wolf, you are caught in the gospel trap, and you are too lustful to abide with the people, and you may run with it to the ends of the earth, and extrecate your self if you can but the grable75 will cause you such twitchings Conshunce that You will find yourself in an on esey Situation through life, in dieth and in the regents of darkness. But I am not your envitret enemy, nay I have a soul in me that is pregnent with good will towards all men, and should I see you in distress, I should grant you relife was it in my power, but I dont wish you here. So be patient, the rod was design’d for the back of the fool, and you must take it, and make this letter as public as you please, put it in the publick prents if you choose’ and should I hear any more of you faulse & ungodly clack. I shall do it for you together with your own, & a little more &c. from one who has been your friend in in time of need. HENRY MILLER. to A H. Blackburn P. S. should you write to me again, pay the postage; or it will not be taken out of the office. H. M P. S. The reader is hereby advertised that the foregoing letter has been inserted, verbatum, as the author had no authority to correct either its punctuation or orthographical errors. I have also omitted both the precedent and answer for want of exact copies thereof – leaving the Rev. Miller to publish them according to promise, although I cannot pledge myself for the certainty of their publication as this letter is an entire fabrication of falsehood and slander, too barefaced to receive the credit of an enlightened public, but I at present forbear comment. A. H. B. /

CONCLUSIVE ADDRESS. FELLOW-CITIZENS – I now come to a close of this small work: it is the first time that I have exhibited myself to the world in the character of a public writer, and when I view my inadequacy to perform so important a task with that elegance which has characterised the multiplicity of modern pamphleteer’s that have preceded me, I hesitate not to

Blackburn, A Brief Account

257

announce, that it is probably the last – except from some unknown cause, I should hereafter be necessiated to take up the pen in vindication of my reputation, which diminished as it is, I regard more than gold seven times tried. A desire of contributing something to the public weal, has ever been a predominant passion of the author. I am not unawares however, that the peculiar tenets of the Shakers are too bold and barefaced an attack on the truth of Christianity, to be received by those who are / truly enlightened and well established in the orthodox opinions of the present enlightened age; but even to those the author hopes this pamphlet may serve for confirmation; but the unestablished, unthinking, unwary, unstable, and may I not add, untaught and hetrodox part of mankind; that are like blanks, ready to receive any impression. I say it is to such as these I offer this small work, unpolished as it is, as a warning to beware of seducers, and search for the truth as it is in Christ. Neither a hope of emolument or applause has induced me to take up my pen against the present most permanent seat of Antichrist, for I had no reason to expect either. But on the contrary, an exposition of the fallacy of the doctrines of these heretics, is a sure means of bringing upon myself, all the anathamas, reproaches, and false statements, injurious to my reputation, which the combined machinations of this branch of Antichrist’s kingdom can devise; for this reason I have been careful in my endeavors to keep truth the basis of all excellence in writing in view, knowing that truth is intellectual gold, which is as durable as it is splendid and valuable. In plain language, there is no doubt with me, for certain very obvious reasons, that this is the beginning of a contest that will end in more than / empty words i. e. either the great injury of my reputation, or else the sapping the foundation of the already tottering fabric of Shakerism. Although two excellent women; Eunice Chapman76 and Mary Dyer,77 as well as the praiseworthy Smith, Stone, Vanvleet,78 Camron,79 &c. have attempted unsuccessfully to complete the final overthrow of those enemies of mankind and rebbles of Heavan; yet who knows, but this is work left for your servant to be instrumental in effecting, his incompetancy notwithstanding, “for the battle is not to the strong, nor the race to the swift,” for says Shakespeare, “A Falcon towering in her pride of place, Was by a mousing owl, hawk’d at and killed.”

But it is upon the public patronage that my success wholly depends, and it is upon the public I now place my sole dependence, and to them I give my weak endeavors to promote virtue and check vice; not forgeting that I am a dependant creature upon my creator, therefore forgive the past, receive the present, and look for the future, and this I have to promise you that should I ever again take

258

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

up my pen to write is contest or otherwise, publicly, I will endeavor to be better prepared with materials for your information than at present. I cannot conclude without returning my warmest thanks and obligations for the favorable reception, my little pamphlet has already met with from the public, without even knowing its contents, and the patronage which has been extended thereunto by my friends. I wish to be considered a citizen of my country, and if not a useful member of society, at least not a blank or pest; my pursuit shall ever be education; my endeavors shall ever be to impart as much information to my fellow mortals, and especially to the rising generation as possible. Permit me to subscribe myself, the friend of truth and equity, and the well wisher of true Christianity, Morality and Literature, and the most obedient humble servant of the public. NOV. 18, 1824. A. H. BLACKBURN.

BROWN, A COUNTERCHECK TO SHAKERISM

Samuel Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism (Cincinnati, OH: Looker & Reynolds, Printers, 1824).

Samuel Brown was a Methodist preacher active in Ohio as early as 1813. In his A Countercheck to Shakerism, he states that he ‘became acquainted with the people called Shakers, about the year 1810’. Brown rode the Ohio Methodist circuit through the 1810s, and in 1818 was assigned to Oxford in the Miami District of Ohio.1 The newly settled lands of the Miami District became the scene of religious revivalism, particularly along the White Water River. In the spring of 1823 Miriam Agnew walked from the White Water River country to Union Village, Ohio, and requested the Shakers to send preachers. The Shakers sent Richard Pelham and George Blackleach to labour with the people. Over the course of the year a number were gathered in, and in 1824 the White Water Shaker community was organized.2 After losing many under his care to the Shakers, Brown lamented that he had recently been ‘a witness of the ascendancy they have gained over the minds of some who were members of the Methodist church’ (p. 261, below). In defence of Methodism, and probably also to reaffirm his own theological potency in the face of such a desertion, Brown took up his pen to attack the Shakers. Unfortunately for those interested in the genesis of the White Water community, or even Shakerism in general, A Countercheck offers very little. His work is a four-part refutation of Shaker theology as expressed in the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing. Structurally it is quite similar to the works of John Bailey, Christopher Clark and the anonymous author of the 1822 Brief Exposition. It surpasses all but Clark for theological density, but lacks even Clark’s occasional humorous digression. As such, it is tough going, and says more about what Methodists in the early nineteenth century believed than it does about Shakerism. Brown recoils at Ann Lee’s presumption in assuming the moniker ‘Ann the Word’. As Christ said, Brown reminds us, ‘If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John: 31’. The Shakers’ belief in her parity with Jesus Christ is highly offensive to Brown, who calls Mother Ann ‘a base and audacious impostor’ (p. 270). In the best piece of descriptive writing in the work, Brown rebuts – 259 –

260

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the Shakers’ claim that Ann Lee was the ‘woman in the wilderness’ spoken of in Revelation 12:6. For the Shakers, Brown posited, this metaphor represented Anne Lee flying from the mad house in England on the wings of liberty and independence to America, and into the wilderness of Niskayuna, where she continued for three years and a half, when she was called forth out of her secret retirement from the world, and, as they say, with audacious effrontery, openly arrayed with fine linen, clean and white. (p. 275)

In a subtle footnote to this passage, Brown declares that Mother Ann was more like the woman from Revelation 2:20: ‘thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols’. Brown’s work consists of eight sections: a proof that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation; a survey of types and prophecies in the Bible, and how the Shakers have misinterpreted them; a proof of the divinity of Jesus; a discourse on the Christian Millennium; a proof of the resurrection of the body; and a proof of the divine sanctity of marriage. Very little information about the Shakers is provided through these lengthy sections. Instead Brown demonstrates through copious scriptural citations the validity of the Methodist interpretation of these doctrines. In one brief moment of humour, he plucks a gem of hypothetical reasoning from the Shakers’ Testimony on the improbability of a physical resurrection: But the most weak and senseless of all the objections to the resurrection, is, that ‘the bodies of mankind, if raised from the dead, would be so numerous, that they would not have ground to stand upon, but must be crowded one upon the top of another, and be in great confusion, and contention about the soil’. (p. 292)

Ultimately Brown’s work, like so many of the other theologically-based antiShaker writings, seems to have gone out with a whimper rather than a bang. In his summary appendix he pleads his case, stating: ‘I have laboured in the foregoing pages to convert you from the error of your way, and should my efforts prove effectual, all the glory shall be ascribed to the grace of God’ (p. 300). The only known Shaker reaction to his work is in a letter sent by the Ministry of Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, to the Ministry of New Lebanon, New York, on 12 April 1825. In a brief listing of current apostate pamphlets they mention a work by ‘one Brown living in Cincinnati – but these pamphlets appear to be of little force’.3 Notes 1 2

3

Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for the Years 1773– 1828, Vol. 1 (New York: Published by T. Mason and G. Lane, 1840), p. 313. For the best written record of these events, see R. Pelham, ‘A Sketch of the Life and Experiences of Richard W. Pelham, Part II’, Shaker Quarterly, ed. T. Johnson, 9:2 (Summer 1969), pp. 53–64. Ministry, Pleasant Hill, Kentucky to Ministry, New Lebanon, New York, 12 April 1825, Shaker Collection, IV:A–53, OClWHi.

Samuel Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism (Cincinnati, OH: Looker & Reynolds, Printers, 1824).

PREFACE. The author of this publication became acquainted with the people called Shakers, about the year 1810. But the doctrines which they advanced, were so extremely unreasonable and so palpably erroneous, he did not apprehend they would be likely to prevail or do much injury. But, having been recently a witness of the ascendancy they have gained over the minds of some who were members of the Methodist church, as well as others, who professed no religion, he thought it was high time to raise a bulwark against these destructive errors, and stop the bitter and poisonous waters of heresy; which he has endeavored to do, according to the modicum of his abilities. If he has failed in this well wished and laudable attempt, he feels a consciousness of having done his duty, which more than compensates him for his labor. False doctrines, erroneous faith, and a spurious religion, will prove as fatal to the soul as practical immorality or open profaneness: therefore, each should be opposed with equal zeal and assiduity, and all the Ambassadors of Christ should level the gospel artillery against all superstition and false doctrines, as well as against infidelity, and the most flagrant transgression of the law of God. S. BROWN. /

INTRODUCTION. THE Shakers remain a comparatively diminutive sect. Few people have any particular knowledge of the principles of their religion, much less of the origin and founders of the sect: wherefore I have thought it necessary to give a concise account of the beginning and first propagators of Shakerism; which I have collected from no other source than “The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing,”1 written by three of the Shakers, printed in the year 1808. The French prophets2 appear to be the beginners of this new religion; of whom we have the – 261 –

262

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

following relation, Test.3 p. 407. “In the year 1688, five or six hundred Protestants gave themselves out to be prophets and inspired by the Holy Ghost. – They soon became so numerous, that there were many thousands of them inspired. They had strange fits, which came upon them with tremblings and faintings, as in a swoon, which made them stretch out their arms and legs several times before they dropped down. They struck themselves with their hands; they fell on their backs, shut their eyes and heaved with their breasts. They remained awhile in trances, and coming out of them with twitchings, uttered all that came into their mouths.” These prophets also pretended to the gift of languages; of discerning of the secrets of the heart; the ministration of the same spirit to others, by the laying on of hands; and the gift of healing. That these were false prophets, appears plain from their saying that the Millenium would take place or be manifest over the whole earth in the / term of three years. It is said, however, that a measure of the same spirit has never since been wanting; and we cannot doubt it. From the introduction to the Testimony, we learn that some of these French prophets came over into England about the year 1706, and opened their Testimony in and about London; and numbers received their spirit, which continued to operate, in a greater or less degree, until its principal effect was produced in a small body of people, who were gathered together under the special ministry of James and Jane Wardley,4 in the year 1747. At this time their number was about thirty. Such were their exercises in worship, as singing, shouting, walking the floor, shoving each other about, or swiftly passing and repassing each other, like clouds agitated by a mighty wind. From these strange exercises they received the name of Shakers. They continued under these operations until the year 1770, when Anne Lee5 was received by them as their spiritual mother. Anne Lee was born about the year 1736, in the town of Manchester.6 It appears she became a member of the society of Shakers, about the year 1758; having been married to one Abraham Standley,7 who was a blacksmith by trade, with whom she lived until she had four children. After Anne Lee, or more properly speaking, Anne Standley, was received and acknowledged by the Shakers as the first spiritual mother, in the line of the female, and the second heir in the covenant of life, dancing was introduced. Such were their extravagancies, that it was not long till Anne was taken and cast into prison, and from thence she was removed to Bedlam, where she continued several weeks. Being set at liberty, it was not long till she, with several other Shakers, embarked for America, leaving James and Jane Wardley behind to die a begging. It is said “the rest of the society, who remained in / England, being without lead or protection, fell into the common course and practice of the world.” What a pity it was they did not believe in an omnipresent Saviour! Anne, with her followers, landing at New-York,8 she continued there until the year 1776, when she went to Albany, and from thence

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

263

she went to Niskeuna9 (now Watervliet) eight miles north-west from Albany, where she fixed her residence. So much I have thought necessary to say concerning the Origin and Founders of Shakerism The faith which the Shakers profess to have in Anne Lee, and the honours and characters which they ascribe to her, undeniably prove them to be Idolators, and idolatry may be said to be one of the capital heresies of Shakerism. It is well known, that from the days of Nimrod to the present time, idolatry has been attended with inhumanity and persecution. If we may judge from the nature and tendency of idolatry for four thousand years past, we may say that idolatry and humanity cannot be reconciled, and that all idolatrous worshippers, when they have power on their side, will persecute the true servants of God. As a specimen of the cruel and more than savage inhumanity of idolators, we have an account of parents offering their own children to the idol Moloch, the god of the Ammonites. According to Rabbi Simeon, this unnatural sacrifice was offered in the following manner: “The child was placed before the idol, and a fire was made under it, till it became red hot. Then the priest took the child and put him in the glowing arms of the idol; and lest the parents should hear his cries, they beat drums to drown the noise.” And as a specimen of the persecution as well as inhumanity of idolators, we have the account given by the prophet Daniel, of three Hebrew children,10 who, for refusing to worship the image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up in the / plains of Dura, were cast into a burning fiery furnace. From the idolatry of the Shakers, and the unnatural and bitter spirit which they have manifested on some occasions, may we not conclude, that if they had power on their side, they would be cruel persecutors of the true worshippers of God and all nonconformists? It appears, that when people become Shakers, they lose that natural affection for their nearest relations, which is common among mankind. There were four Evangelists or writers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: but there are only three writers of the New Gospel of Anne Lee – (The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing) – namely, David Durrow,11 Joseph Meacham,12 and Benjamin S. Youngs.13 This New Gospel History, if I may call it so, comprises five hundred pages,14 consisting of eight parts. The obtuse, multiform, and desultory manner and prolixity of the work, render it inexpedient, and almost impracticable, to give it a regular refutation: Therefore I will decline to take up the different parts as they stand, and to consider all the errors contained in the book; for this would swell the present work far beyond the designed limits: but I will confine my attention to the most capital and pernicious errors advanced by these captious, driveling authors, whose productions manifest the very gewgaws of vanity, and feculence of error and a

264

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

superstition, equal to, if not surpassing, any that can be found among the inhabitants of the antarctic or Levantine regions. There is a striking resemblance between these Shakers and the antient Gnostics.15 It is said of the teachers among them, that “by arts and sorceries which they used, women were thrown into fits like prophetic ecstacies, in which, being prepossessed with fancies and enthusiastic doctrines, they delivered / strange conceits, both to deceive themselves and others.” Fain would I countercharm the enchantment and magic spells by which these infatuated souls are deluded. Fain would I take the torch of truth and set fire to this fungous mass of superstition and baneful heresy, in which are to be found the very depths of Satan; the authors of which have laboured with deep satanical subtility, and unwearied zeal, to rase the very foundation of Christianity. /

JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY SAVIOUR. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways: by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandize of you. II. Pet. ii. 1, 2, 3. The writers of the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing acknowledge (page 6) that the chastity of Anne Lee was called in question. “But, say they, her sustaining the character of a woman of ill fame, was one very striking evidence that she was not of the world.” This assertion is false; for ill-famed or unchaste characters are certainly of the world. They add, “and in this it is very evident that she bore the more striking relation to the Son of God, who as to outward appearance, was particularly noticed for the meanness of his parentage and character: and who was well known to have been a person of ill fame, in Judea, among the Scribes and Pharisees.” I answer, in this respect Anne Lee bore no relation at all to the Son of God: For though Joseph and Mary were poor, they were just, virtuous and honorable. Virtuous and honest poverty is not / meanness, but only a misfortune. As it relates to the character of Jesus, though he was falsely accused with casting out devils, through Belzebub, and with sedition and blasphemy, for which he was condemned and unjustly put to death, he was never charged with unchastity. “When Christ first came, (say the authors of the Testimony) the world looked for him to appear in some splendid form, surpassing that of an angel or any temporal monarch; but behold he appeared in a man, and took on him the form of a servant: Again, they expected him to appear in the form of a man, far surpassing all earthly kings in pomp and grandeur and warlike power; and behold the humble Saviour

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

265

was manifested in the form and likeness of a woman, and assumed the appearance of a hand maid.” Astonishing! And has the humble Saviour who promised his people to come again in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, returned to the world transmigrated into an old woman! And has he debased himself so much as to make his second appearance in Anne Lee? who, according to the authors of the Testimony, grew up in the same fallen nature with the rest of mankind, and was destitute of the knowledge of God, and who was married to Abraham Standley, with whom, according to the Shaker faith, she lived in the practice of adultery for several years, until she had four children! And is such a character as this the desire of all nations and the Saviour of the world? Certainly it requires a very great degree of credulity and enthusiasm, to believe such a report as this. The Shakers do not only profess to believe it, but they also proscribe and doom to eternal destruction all who will not receive it as the true gospel. The Evangelists of this new gospel, endeavoring to show some resemblance between Anne Lee and Jesus Christ, have given an account of her temptations and agony of soul for sin, in the following / words: (p. 23d) “And under the most severe tribulation and violent temptations, as great as she was able to resist and endure, such was frequently her extreme agony of soul, that clenching her hands together, the blood would flow through the pores of her skin.” But, by the by, it appears from the same page, that her sufferings were for her own sins. – “And still finding in herself (say they) the seed or remains of human depravity and a lack of the divine nature,” &c. But Jesus, that was born of Mary, was declared by the angel to be holy. Luke i, 35. He is said by St. Paul, to be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Heb. vii, 26. And he is said by St. Peter, to be as a lamb without blemish and without spot. 1 Pet. i, 19. Then Anne bore no relation to Jesus in this respect, for she endured her extreme agony of soul for her own sins; but Jesus, who knew no sin, suffered, the just for the unjust. 1 Pet. iii, 18. 2 Cor. v, 21. When he entered into the garden of Gethsemane, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy, and being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground, it was the sins of the world that were laid upon him that caused his sorrow and heaviness, his extreme agony and sweating of blood. “The Lord (saith the prophet Isaiah) hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isai. liii, 6. And again, he saith, “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” Agreeing with this, he is said by John the Baptist, to be the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. John i. 29. And the writers of the gospel of Anne Lee, say, “Her testimony was in the power of God, attended with the word of prophecy, and such energy of the Spirit, as penetrated into the secrets of the heart.” / This they have boldly

266

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

asserted, without giving us one single instance of her either foretelling future events, or penetrating into the secrets of the human heart. Again, they say, “To such as addressed her with the customary titles used by the world, she would reply, ‘I am Ann, the Word.’ ” Thus she bore witness of herself. Christ says, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John v, 31. But Anne bears witness of herself, therefore her witness is not true; and when she said “I am Ann, the Word,” she lied most audaciously. It is remarkable, that Jesus refused to bear direct witness of himself being the Christ: and he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt. xvi. 20. When John sent two of his disciples to him, to enquire of him if he was the Messiah, he said unto them, “Go your way and tell John what things you have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.” Luke vii, 22. Thus, if Anne Lee had not borne witness of herself, but had opened the eyes of the blind, and had given hearing to the deaf, and had raised up the dead to life again, there would have been some resemblance between her and Jesus Christ. But as this was not the case, it must require the credulity of enthusiasts to believe that she is the Saviour. But Anne is said to have had power to work miracles. But her evangelists have only recorded one as having been wrought by her, and that is but a meagre one; which is the following: “Mary Southwick went one afternoon to see Calvin Harlow, with a cancer, to get some assistance; that Mother being at the house, Calvin asked her to look at it; that she accordingly came to her, and put her finger into her mouth upon the cancer, – at which instant the pain left her, and she was restored to health, and / was never afflicted with it afterwards. (P. 478.) A monstrous miracle this! Mother touched the cancer in the mouth of Mary Southwick, and she got well afterwards. If such a miracle as this proved divinity in the person that performed it, no doubt many another old woman might lay claim to divinity, on the same footing; and if people could become Deities so easy, we should soon have as many gods as had the Egyptians. If Anne had the power of working miracles, it is a wonder that she suffered two of her faithful disciples, namely, James and Jane Wardley, to go to an alms house, and there to die beggars; since, if she had power to work miracles, she could have wrought a very useful one for their support. The miracles of Jesus Christ were numerous, and many of them were of such a nature, that they could not even be suspected of fraud. Nothing but the power that first said “Let there be light,” could give sight to one that was born blind. And nothing less than the power that first formed the ear capable of receiving and distinguishing sounds, could cause the deaf to hear; and no power less than that which at first endowed the tongue with the power of speech, could make the dumb to speak. And surely nothing less than that power which first gave life to inanimate clay, could, when life was extinguished, restore it to life again. But

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

267

this, Jesus did, and what should be particularly noticed, he did it in his own name; which proves him to be God, the author of life to all creatures. When he raised the widow’s son, he said, “Young man, I say unto thee, arise; and the dead sat up and began to speak, and he delivered him to his mother.” Luke vii, 14, 15. To the Ruler’s daughter, he said, “Talitha cumi,” which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose and walked. Mark v, 41, 42. And to the deaf and dumb man he said, “Ephphatha, that is, be opened; / and straightway his ears were opened, and the strings of his tongue were loosed, and he spake plain.” Mark vii, 34, 35. Ephphatha is a word of sovereign authority, and shows that Jesus had power residing in himself to work miracles. And this plainly appears from John v, 21, where he saith, “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” When any of the Apostles performed a miracle, they did it in the name of Jesus Christ. So Peter, when he healed the cripple at the beautiful gate of the temple, said to him, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” Acts iii, 6. And when the seventy, whom Jesus had sent out to preach, had returned, they said unto him, Even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. Luke x, 17. And the testimony of Jesus was indeed attended with the word of prophecy, and such was his energy that he could penetrate into the secrets of the human heart. He foretold his own sufferings, death and resurrection, and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Jewish nation. Mark x, 33, 34. Matt. xxiv, 2. Luke xxi, 24. It should also be observed, that Jesus Christ taught and prophesied in his own name. To Nicodemus he saith, “Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John iii, 3. And in his sermon on the mount, “For I say unto you,” &c. And, after telling his twelve Apostles what should befal them, he addresses them thus. “For verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” Matt. x, 23. It is said by the Evangelist, after our Lord had concluded his sermon on the Mount, that the people were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes. When the prophets taught the people, their usual address was, “Thus saith the Lord.” / Isai. Ivi, 1. Micah iii, 5. And when prophesying, they commenced, saying, “The word of the Lord came unto me.” Jer. ii. 1. But Jesus Christ in all his teachings, and foretelling future events, spake in such a manner as became a Divine Person. And that Jesus knew what was in the heart of man, is beyond all dispute. Peter said to him, “Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.” John xxi, 17. Again, his disciples said to him, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things.” John xvi, 30. The Evangelist says, “And Jesus knew their thoughts.” Matt. xii, 25. Next, we will consider what relation Anne bore to Jesus in her death. Test. p. 30.

268

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

We have the following account of her death: “Having finished the work which was given her to do, she was taken out of their sight in the ordinary way of all living, (at Water Vliet),16 on the eighth day of the ninth month, 1784.” Thus we are informed, that Mother, as the Shakers call her, was taken out of their sight in the ordinary way, which means that she died a natural death. But Jesus was crucified. “Christ,” saith the Apostle, “died for our sins, according to the scriptures.” 1 Cor. xv, 3. Several miraculous and extraordinary circumstances attended his death, such as the rending the vail of the temple, the shaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks, the opening of the graves, and the supernatural darkness which continued from the sixth to the ninth hour. Test. p. 567, it is said, “Mother in all respects suffered her due proportion, and died upon the same fundamental principles of redemption, that the sufferings and death of Christ were necessary in his first appearing – and in that she died, she died unto sin, once for all, as he died, and revived, and rose again, and ascended into the same divine nature and everlasting union in the spirit.” That / Anne Lee died on the same principles of redemption that Jesus Christ did, cannot be true; for she was a creature, and died a common death, like all other mortals; and that on account of her own sin, hereditarily entailed upon her from Adam and Eve, the first sinners of human kind. As Anne was nothing more than a mere woman, her sufferings and death could not be meritorious, and consequently they could effect nothing towards redeeming the world from sin and death. If Anne Lee had been Christ in his second appearing, she could not have died: “For Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” Rom. vi, 9. “And being made perfect (through suffering) he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” Heb. v. 9. Who that is not bewitched, cannot see a very striking difference between the sufferings and death of Anne Lee and the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ? Christ was without sin. Not only so, he was a Divine Person, and his divinity gave the stamp of merit to his sufferings and death. But it is said, that Anne, after she died, revived and rose again. The Apostles of the female Saviour cannot mean that her body revived and rose again, for they say (page 571) that it is the soul alone that is the proper subject of the resurrection. Then it must have been the soul of Anne that revived and rose again. I would ask, how they came to know a thing so mystical? Did they see her soul revive and arise, and ascend into the Divine nature? If they were to tell us so, we could not believe them, because it is contrary to both reason and Scripture. But from the consideration of the great heresy of which Anne Lee was the author, may we not justly apprehend that her soul, instead of rising and ascending into the Divine nature, for such horrid blasphemy descended into the lake of / fire and brimstone, to be tormented with the Beast and the false prophet, forever and ever?

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

269

But the body of Jesus revived and was raised up by the power of his own Divinity, notwithstanding the Shakers with daring audacity pronounce the resurrection of the body a groundless absurdity. That the body of Jesus was raised by his own divine power, appears from what he said to the Jews of destroying the temple of his own body and raising it in three days. And from his saying he had power to lay down his life, and that he had power to take it up again. St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, saith, “For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according the Scriptures: And that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present: but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time.” I. Cor, xv. 3 to 8. Now, supposing it was the spirit or soul of Jesus that rose on the third day, and that it was his spirit that was seen by the witnesses, his spirit must have continued with the body in the sepulchre from the time he was crucified, until the third day. And how will this agree with his saying to the penitent thief on the cross “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise;” and how will it accord with his saying to his disciples, after his resurrection, “Behold my hands, and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Luke xxiv. 39. And to convince unbelieving Thomas, he said to him, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither / thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless but believing.”* John xx. 27. The Shakers give themselves the appellation of “Believers,” in contradistinction to infidels and all other denominations; but if they had the appellation that *

After the disciples had eaten and drank with their Master, and conversed with him, being perfectly acquainted with him, having attended on him through the course of his ministry, and now seeing the prints of the nails in his hands and feet, and the wound made in his side by the spear: from these marks, the tone of his voice, the aspect of his visage and form, they were fully satisfied, from so many infallible proofs, with respect to the identity of his person, not presuming to ask him “Who art thou,” knowing it was the Lord. He appeared unto them repeatedly, conversing with them with the greatest freedom and familiarity, for the space of forty days, and then in their presence, he ascended upward from the earth, they beholding him in the act of ascending till a cloud received him out of their sight. “And” saith St. Luke, “While they looked steadfast towards heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel; who also said, ye men of Gallilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” But he ascended up into heaven in a cloud, therefore we are certain that when he shall come again, he will descend in the clouds of heaven. See Matthew xxvi, 64, Revelations i, 7.

270

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

properly belongs to them, it would be that of unbelievers; for they deny the resurrection of the body of Christ, on which hangs the whole truth of the gospel. The Shakers explain away the resurrection of the body, by calling it a spiritual resurrection. But to call the resurrection of Jesus Christ a spiritual resurrection, is sublime spiritual nonsense. For however applicable a spiritual resurrection may be to the souls of believing sinners, when they are regenerated and born again, it can never be made to apply to the sinless soul of Jesus. That it was the body of Christ that was raised from the dead, appears from these words of David (psalm xvi, 9. 10) quoted by St. Paul, and applied to him: “Therefore did my heart rejoice and my tongue / was glad; moreover also, my flesh shall rest in hope because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (or hades) neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. Acts ii, 26, 27. And verse 31, the Apostle goes on to observe, “He (David) seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (or hades) neither did his flesh see corruption.” Now, if there be any meaning in words, the flesh or body of Christ must have been the subject of his resurrection. Jesus, after his ascension into heaven, when he appeared to St. John, said, “I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore.” Rev. i, 18. The soul of Jesus could not die, therefore it must be his body that is said here to be alive; for the same that is alive is said to have been dead. I ask, if the body of Jesus did not arise, what became of it? Did his disciples come by night and steal it away while the guard slept? Nay, we learn (Tes. page 577) that the angel who rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre, took care of and secured the body of Jesus. So then, it was the angel, and not the disciples, that was guilty of the theft! If this be so, what a pity the chief priests and elders did not know it, that they might have come off without giving the watch large money for telling such an unreasonable lie, as that of the disciples coming by night and stealing away the body of Jesus while they slept. This account of the angel taking away the body of Jesus, is as chimerical as the fond story, said to be invented by Mahomet, that when Judas with the soldiers came to the garden to take Jesus, the angels came down and took him up to heaven, and Judas was taken and crucified instead of Jesus. – But there is no more truth in either the one or the other, than there is in the account given by the / same impostor, of the infant in the cradle speaking and justifying Joseph from the charge of Potiphar’s wife. From what has been said, it appears that Jesus Christ is no fictitious Deity, but that he is the true Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, and the only Saviour of the world; and that Anne Lee was a base and audacious impostor: and it follows, that those who believe in her as a Saviour, deny the only Lord that bought them, and are guilty of as great and pernicious a heresy as was ever invented by

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

271

man; and if they continue in this heresy, they will bring upon themselves swift, inevitable and eternal destruction. Then let every one that once believed in Jesus Christ as the only Saviour, without a rival and without a help meet, remember from whence he has fallen, and repent and do his first works, before the candlestick, the true gospel, be removed far away from him. My sincere desire is, that God may give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. /

TYPES AND PROPHECIES. Test. page 443 to page 466. They have searched for the old woman among types and prophecies: but the types are of their own making, and the prophecies they have sophisticated. – They mention Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel, the wives of the patriarchs, and Zipporah the wife of Moses. They seem to put much stress on Zipporah as a type, because she was of a different nation and of another color. But why they have mentioned her color, we cannot tell, unless it was to represent Anne Lee, as being of a dark visage and infamous character. They go on to mention several things as figures representing the old lady – such as the two tables of the covenant, the tabernacle, the temple, the cherubims, the scape-goat, &c. Next they mention a few leading prophecies, which they say, serve as a key to all the rest. But I intend to take away their key from them, and then let them unlock the rest if they can. The first prophecy they notice as referring to Anne Lee, is in Psalm xlv. 13, 14, 15 – “The king’s daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold: she shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needle work: the virgins, her companions that follow her, shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king’s palace.” The xlv. Psalm, which is entitled A Song of Loves, was composed on the occasion of Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s / daughter, who it is probable was a proselyte to the Jewish religion. In Jewish marriages, it was customary for the bride to be encircled by a company of young virgins, who sung an appropriate song or psalm in honor of her espousals. What relates to the bride and her attendants, begins with verse 9: “King’s daughters were among thy honorable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and listen, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father’s house; so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord, and worship thou him.” It is natural to suppose that if the bride had sisters, they would be present on the occasion. However, kings’ daughters were a part of the retinue. Pharaoh’s daughter, who was an Egyptian, is called upon to forget her own people and her father’s house, which means the religion of her country,

272

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

which was idolatrous, and on account of her becoming a proselyte to the true religion, the king would greatly desire her beauty. “The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needle work. The virgins, her companions that follow her, shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought. They shall enter into the king’s palace.” Here we have a particular account of the inward endowments and accomplishments of the mind, and of the outward adornments of the bride, and of the company of virgins that followed her from her own country and father’s house to Jerusalem, and to the king’s palace, and their gladness and rejoicing upon their entering into the royal palace. This is the literal meaning of the passage. But has not this passage, together with the foregoing part of the Psalm, a spiritual meaning? Doubtless it has, and that the prophet had in view the Lord Jesus Christ, / the heavenly bridegroom, and the Church who is his spouse and bride. The passage under consideration will apply in every particular to the church. The bride being called upon to forget her own people, and her father’s house, represents the Church being called from among the Jews and Heathens, and required to forsake their former religion, and to adhere to the religion of Christ, and to cleave unto him. Her being all glorious within and her clothing of wrought gold, and being brought unto the king in raiment of needle work, represents the Church being adorned with the graces of the spirit, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and ornamented with good works. The virgins, he, companions that follow her, represent the angels that shall attend upon the Church, and rejoice with her when the marriage of the Lamb shall be solemnized, when she shall enter into the King’s palace above. See Rev. xix, 6 to 9. When the saints number shall be completed, and the glorious day appointed for the marriage of the Lamb shall come, there shall proceed a voice from the eternal throne, calling upon all the servants of God and all that fear him, both small and great, to praise him. Then the universal choir of saints and angels will begin, whose voices will sound like many waters, and mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” “To her was granted, says St. John, that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” As the fine linen, with which the bride is said to be arrayed, is the righteousness of saints (in the plural) the bride cannot be Anne Lee, or any other individual person. And as the New Jerusalem is said to be the bride, the Lamb’s wife, and as the / inhabitants of the New Jerusalem must be understood to be the bride, the Lamb’s wife, it follows it is the Church that is the bride, the Lamb’s wife, and not any individual person. The truth is then, the passage quoted, in the xlv, Psalm, has its fulfilment in King Solomon and Pharoah’s daughter literally;

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

273

and spiritually in Jesus Christ and the Church; so as to exclude every other comment or application, as being absurd and preposterous. The next prophesy they apply to Anne Lee is, Jere. xxxiii, 16, In those days shall Judah be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our righteousness. These subtile catchpolls by their cunning sophistication of this prophesy, have manifested the most sly circumvention and intrigue. They have most violently wrested the obvious and genuine meaning, and perverted the legitimate application of the passage, by making it refer to Anne Lee, when it is plain to every one that is but moderately erudite in Scripture, that it alludes to Jehovah the Lord Jesus Christ, and perfectly agrees with ch. xxiii, 6. The passage now under consideration, begins with verse 14, “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days and at that time will I cause the branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord ( Jehovah) our righteousness. Thus the prophet speaks of the fulfillment of the promise which God had made to Israel of the Messiah, and of the blessings that should follow. In those days of the reign of the Messiah, Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem, mystically the Church. / shall dwell safely, &c. Jerusalem here, is a figure called in rhetoric metonymy, by which one word is put for another. Figures or tropes are very common in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and are frequently used by the sacred writers. Sometimes the writer’s name is used for his books, as in Acts xv, 21; and sometimes the name of the place is put for its inhabitants, as in Rev. xxi, 10, where the New Jerusalem stands for the Church, the bride, the Lamb’s wife; and as in Jer. xxii, 29, where the earth is called upon to hear the word of the Lord, which must mean its inhabitants. The most stress seems to be put on the name wherewith Jerusalem or the Church should be called “The Lord our righteousness;” but, when it is properly explained, there is no difficulty in understanding it. Jerusalem, in this passage, is not only a figure or trope, but it is a double trope. First it stands for the Church; secondly, by another figure called synecdoche, the whole is put for a part, the Church for the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the foundation and the head thereof. There is a parallel passage in Matthew xxv, 14: “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country,” The kingdom of heaven, which frequently means the Church, in this place stands for the King of heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ. They go on to apply the desire of all nations in Hag. ii, 7, to Anne Lee, for no other ostensible reason but that woman is emphatically the desire of all nations.

274

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

By this, the authors of the Testimony have manifested their great prurience for women. Notwithstanding their pretensions to continence, their desire for women so infatuated them and dazzled their eyes, that they could see nothing in the desire of all nations but woman. It is very evident that the second / temple, with its superior glory, represented the Christian Church, when Christ the Messiah, who was the desire of all nations, should have come to his temple. Next they mention the two olive trees which the prophet Zechariah saw by the golden candlestick, one upon the right side and the other upon the left, Zech. iv, 3; one of which, by ingenious distortion, they have made to apply to Anne Lee. They ought to have known that these two olive trees primarily represented Zerubbabel and Joshua, and that they have no more reference to Anne Lee, than to Mrs. Buchan or Jemima Wilkinson. Zerubbabel was a representative of Christ, and the branch mentioned Zech. iii, 8, and ch. vi, 12, has a special reference to him in his first appearing.* Though they have endeavored to make out that the branch in the first place alludes to Anne Lee, it has no more allusion to her than it has to Diana or Pandora. These mystic authors have applied the obscure prophecy in Mic. v, 3, 4, to Anne Lee. Then let us examine this prophecy, and see if the old woman can be found therein. Ver. 3. “Therefore will he give them up until the time that she that travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.” Therefore will he give them up. The pronoun them, refers back to the goings forth mentioned in ver. 2, and means that he, Christ, of whom the prophet speaks, who had been accustomed to appear to his people from age to age / and from time to time, would not appear to them personally and visibly, as formerly he did, until he should be manifested in the flesh. Then the remnant of his brethren, the disciples of the Lord, shall return to, or dwell among, the children of Israel. Ver. 4. “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” And he, Christ, shall stand, &c. And they, his disciples, shall abide, shall be established. And now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth, by the ministry of the apostles. They have also pressed into their service the latter part of the 4th chapter of Micah: but the tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, *

The candlestick, the seven lamps, with seven pipes, and the two olive trees which the prophet Zechariah saw, may have a spiritual signification. The candlestick may denote the Church, the seven lamps may represent the ministers of the gospel, the seven pipes the various means of grace, and the two olive trees may represent Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

275

which they have wrested, refers to Jesus the Messiah; and the daughter of Jerusalem means the Church. See Zech. ix, 9. Matt. xxi, 5. These mystagogues pretend to have found the old woman in the parable of the marriage of the king’s son, and in that of the ten virgins. Matt. xxii, and xxv. From these parables they have labored to make it appear that Anne Lee is the bride, the Lamb’s wife. Upon the most particular examination of the parable of the marriage of the king’s son, what can we infer from it, more than the parable of the great supper in Luke xiv, the intention of which was to show by a great feast, to which all sorts of people were invited, that the ample provision and the abundant blessings of the gospel, were freely offered to all, both Jews and Gentiles? With respect to the parable of the ten virgins,* / however one of the foolish virgins may represent Anne Lee, there appears no resemblance between one of the wise virgins and the old lady. The wise virgins representing the perseveringly faithful people of God, the church, which compose the body of Christ is his only bride, and no individual person can be made out from scripture to be his bride, without the grossest perversion of the sacred Oracles, and offering the most wanton violence to reason and common sense. Finally, they come to speak of the woman St. John saw clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; and after making her out to be the Holy Ghost, they shift their ground and make her† when flying into the wilderness on the wings of a great eagle where she is nourished for a time, and times, and a half a time, to represent Anne Lee flying from the mad house in England on the wings of liberty and independence to America, and into the wilderness of Niskeuna, where she continued for three years and a half, when she was called forth out of her secret retirement from the world, and, as they say, with audacious effrontery, openly arrayed with fine linen, clean and white: And then, say they, was heard in truth and reality, a great voice of much people in heaven, saying Alleluia, salvation and glory and honor and power unto the Lord our God; – for the marriage of the Lamb is come! See Test. p. 465! What horrid blasphemy it is to set up such an old rosse as the wife of Abraham Standley, to be the bride of Christ! † There is truly a striking resemblance between Anne Lee, and the woman mentioned in Rev. ii, 20.17 / *

The parable of the ten virgins represents the visible Church. The five that were wise represent that part of the Church who should have both faith and good works, and endure to the end. The five that were foolish represent those who should have faith without works, or works without the true faith, and those who may have both faith and good works for a season, and then become apostates.

276

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

These sacrilegious men have robbed the Church of her beautiful ornaments, and have adorned therewith most gorgeously an old woman of ill fame, who left her husband, dissolved the bands of matrimony, and took back her former name, and finally they pretend to have her married to Jesus Christ! What a singular phenomenon is this in the Christian world! “Lo, saith Solomon, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” And this is one of them. But they still go farther, and p. 436 and 527, they represent Jesus Christ and Anne Lee as producing a numerous increase of a spiritual posterity, which is a superstition less innocent than the Otaheiteans,18 who believe that the stars are the children of the sun and moon. /

THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER. Confirmed and Established. As the authors of the Testimomy of Christ’s Second Appearing have called in question the Divinity of the Son of God and his equality with the Father, I will bring in sufficient evidence from the holy Scriptures to prove that the Son is eternal and equal with the Father in every respect. Eternity is an incommunicable attribute of the Deity. The Psalmist represents the Father speaking to the Son and addressing him thus: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Psa. xlv, 6, Heb. i, 8. What shall we understand by this address of the Father to the Son, but that he is the essential Jehovah, from everlasting to everlasting, unchangably the same? He is called by the prophet Isaiah “The Everlasting Father,” Isai. ix, 6; which plainly shows that he is eternal. This perfectly agrees with the title which Jeremiah and St. Paul give to the true God. “But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God and everlasting King. Jer. x, 10. “King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” I Tim. i, 17. The goings forth of the Son of God are said to have been from of old, from everlasting. Mic. v. 2. This refers to his appearing to Moses and the patriarchs, and to Adam, / the first of men, and to his existing before the heavens and the earth were made or years began to roll, and his inhabiting all that eternity which is past. He is said, both by St. Paul and himself, to be the beginning: Col. i, 18. Rev. xxii, 13; which means that he was before all things. And he says, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, by which we understand, that he is the great Origin of all things, and the ultimate end for which all things were created.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

277

He is said to be “The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” Rev. iii, 14. The Amen is one of the titles of God in Isa. lxv. 16, (in the Hebrew.) Instead of the beginning of the creation of God, it may be rendered, The efficient cause of the creation of God; the meaning of which is, that the whole creation was produced by him, and that he is the head and governor of all he has made. Again, he says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, – which is, and which was, and which is to come, – the Almighty.” Rev. i, 8. By this we understand that he was before all worlds and was in union with the Father and the Holy Ghost, the first being in existence, and that he possesses all perfections, and is the self-existent, incomprehensible Jehovah. In the 11th verse of the same chapter, he repeats the same titles he had applied to himself before: “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” And again, Rev. ii, 8, he is called “The first and the last.” That our Lord should repeat these titles, and apply them to himself so often, and at the same time mean that he is no more than a deified creature, is altogether unreasonable. The Son of God is not only equal with the Father in his co-eternal existence, but he is also equal with him in power. This is evident from his works of / creation. Power to create, is also an incommunicable attribute of God, and cannot be delegated to any creature. We read, Gen. i, 1, that “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.” And in John i, 1, 2, 3, we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” That St. John by the Word here, meant the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear from his applying the Word to him in his first Epistle, and in the Revelation. For There are three that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: I John v, 7. “And he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God.” Rev. xix, 13. See I John i, 1, ch. ii, 13. These words of the Psalmist, by St. Paul, are applied to Jesus Christ: “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.” Psa. cii, 25. Heb. i, 10. “For by him, (Christ) saith the apostle, were all things created.” Col. i, 16. See Heb. i, 2. Eph. iii, 9. – And it is said, “By him all things consist, and that he upholds all things by the word of his power.” From these infallible proofs, it undeniably appears that Jesus Christ is equal with the Father. Furthermore, Christ is called “Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us” (God and man united together.) If all the attributes and titles that belong to one person, are applicable to another, the two persons to whom the same attrib-

278

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

utes and titles belong must be equal. It will be granted that it is the Father* who saith to Abram, ‘I am the Almighty / God.’ Gen. xvii, 1. But the Son says to St. John, ‘I am the Almighty.’ Rev. i, 8: therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. The Father is called by the prophet Isaiah, “The everlasting God.” Isa. xl, 28. The same prophet has called the Son ‘The everlasting Father;’ therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. The Father is called by Moses ‘A Great God.’ Deu. x, 17. But the Son is called by St. Paul, ‘The Great God.’ Tit. ii, 13: therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. The Father is called by Joshua and David “The living God.” Josh. iii, 10. I Sam. xvii, 26. But the Son is called by St. Paul, “The living God,” and by St. John, “The life.” I Tim. iv, 10. I John, i, 2: – therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. The Father is called by the prophet, “The eternal God.” Deut. xxxiii, 27. The Son is called by the apostle, “The eternal life.” I John, v, 20: therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. The Father is said by the prophet Jeremiah to be “The true God.” Jer. x, 10. The Son is said by St. John to be “The true God.” I John v, 20: therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. – Christ saith, “There is none good but one, that is God.” Matt. xix, 17. But Christ saith again, “I am the good Shepherd.” John, x, 11: therefore Christ is equal with the Father. The Father is said to be above all. Eph. iv, 6. The Son is said to be above all and over all. John, iii, 31. Rom. ix, 5: therefore the Son must be equal with the Father. That being who is able to subdue all things unto himself, must be the omnipotent God. It is said of / the Father, that all things shall be subdued unto him. I Cor. xv. 28. But it is said of the Son, that he is able to subdue all things unto himself. Phi. iii, 21: therefore the Son must be the omnipotent God. He who knoweth all things, must be the omniscient God. It is said of the Father, that he is only wise, and he knoweth the hearts of all men. Rom. xvi, 27. Acts, i, 24. But it is said of the Son, that he is the only wise God, and that he knoweth all things and searcheth the reins and heart. Jude, 25. John, xvi, 30. Rev. ii, 23. It follows, therefore, that the Son is the omniscient God. That being who is every where present, must be the omnipresent God. The omnipresent Jehovah saith, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” And he saith to his Church, “I am with thee.” Jer. xxiii, 24. Isa. xliii, 5. But it is said of the Son, that he filleth all in all; and he saith to his disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” Eph. i, 23. Matt. xxviii, 20: therefore the Son must be the omnipresent God. *

That it was Christ that appeared to Abram, the Shakers will not admit, for they do not believe that he had at that time any existence. (Tes. p. 535.) Neither will the Socinians19 admit it, for they do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ; and the Arians20 cannot admit it without injuring their own system. However, it appears from Mic. v, 2, and many other passages of Scripture, that it was Christ that appeared to the ancient patriarchs and to the prophets.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

279

The most high God alone is Jehovah. Psa. lxxxiii, 18. But the Son is JEHOVAH. Jer. xxiii. 6: therefore the Son is the most high God. The true God is said to be only holy. Rev. xv, 4. But the Son is said to be holy and true. Rev. iii, 7: therefore the Son must be the true God. He who is no creature, must be the uncreated, unoriginated, self-existent and independent Jehovah. St. John saith, “And no man (or creature as it may be rendered) in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book (which he saw in the right hand of him that sat upon the throne) neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man (or creature) was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of / David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.” Rev. v. 3, 4, 5. It follows then, that he who bears the titles of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and the root of David, must be the uncreated, unoriginated, selfexistent and independent Jehovah. The King, the Lord of hosts, that Isaiah saw, Isa. vi, 5, was Christ, according to John xii, 41. The person whom the Psalmist calls “The Most High,” Psa. lxxviii, 17, is Christ, according to I Cor. x, 9. Christ himself says, “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” John v, 21. And for this reason he saith, “All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” Now, if Christ is only a creature, to honor him even as the Father should be honored, is idolatry; and according to I Cor. vi, 9, idolators shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Then it follows, that those who worship Christ, or honor him as they honor the Father, are idolators, and shall not inherit the kingdom of God. It is written, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Matt. iv, 10. It is written of Christ, “And all the angels of God worship him.” Heb. i, 6. – Now, if Christ be not truly and properly God, not only all who worship him on earth, but also the angels and glorified saints who worship him in heaven, are guilty of the heinous sin of idolatry. If Jesus Christ be not really God, it may be said that the writings of the prophets and the predictions of the apostles are vain, and both the prophets and apostles are found false witnesses before God, because with one consent they have testified that he is Jehovah, the true God, and equal with the Father. And if Christ be not the infinite God, the faith of believers is vain, and they are yet in their sins, and they who have died in the belief of his divinity are / lost for ever! But, which is worst of all, if Christ be not the Almighty God, he is an impostor. But, rather let God be true, and every one that denies the divinity of his Son, a liar. The true God, who only hath immortality, is called by St. Paul, King of kings and Lord of lords. I Tim. vi, 15, 16. Jesus Christ is said to be Lord of lords and King of kings. Rev. xvii, 14. To whom will ye liken me and make me equal? saith

280

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the Almighty. Isaiah, xlvi, 5. St. Paul answers this question: speaking of Christ he says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Phi. ii, 6. It is said of Christ, that he hath a name that no man knoweth but himself. Rev. xix, 12. This name must be the mysterious, inexplicable name of Jehovah. “All things that the Father hath (saith Christ) are mine.” John, xvi, 15. All things are said to be the believers, but it is through the merit of Christ. That all things the Father hath belong to Jesus Christ by natural right, appears from his being called the Lord of glory. The apostle also calls him the Lord from heaven. If, then, Jesus Christ is a divine person, what shall we understand by his saying “I can of my own self do nothing: the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me: my Father is greater than I?” I will answer this question in the words of St. Basil,* who lived in the fourth century. “When we descend (says he) from his divinity to his humanity; / when we discourse of his manifestation in the flesh, to effect the redemption of the world; when we describe him saying that he was sent forth, that he was unable to do any thing of himself, and had received a mandate, – let not this incline the to detract from the dignity of the only begotten Son; let not that condescension which was occasioned by thy necessity, be brought forward to lessen the dignity of the Omnipotent. Understand that his nature was such as became a God, and when you meet with any thing which is lowly and ignoble, refer it to the economy of redemption. It is very remarkable, that when men begin to deny the divinity of the Son of God, they are suffered to run into many other extremes, and become guilty of many other pernicious heresies. And it is not likely that they will be reclaimed from their other extravagancies, until they recover their faith in the divinity of the Son of God. The spirit of Arianism, in its first dawning, breathed persecution against the true disciples of Christ. The Arians who sprang up in the year 315, were, from the beginnning, zealous and cruel persecutors of those who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ; and many true believers, in the fourth and fifth centuries, fell victims to their rage. It is said, that Arianism was the inlet to all heresies and calamities, and at length to Mahometanism itself. Mahomet stood greatly opposed to the divinity of the Son of God. Though he taught the people to believe in Christ as a true prophet, he thunders out, in the Alcoran, his anathemas on all who believe him to be God; saying, such should be *

It is well known from the History of the Church, that St. Basil was famous in his day for what was then called orthodoxy; and that in respect to his own faith, the genuineness of it was never questioned. His followers, called Basilians, were very numerous; and produced, from first to last, 1805 bishops, 3010 abbots, and 11085 martyrs. It has been said, that if the writings of all the other fathers had perished, and those of St. Basil only had been preserved, we might still have been absolutely certain that his doctrines were the doctrines of the Church in his day.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

281

precipitated into hell and suffer eternal torments. The persecuting spirit of the Mahometans, is best known by those Christians who have fell into their hands. That many other heresies accompany the denying the divinity of the Son of God, Socinianism is a / specimen. Faustus Socinus and his followers, from denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, go on to deny the existence of the person of the Holy Ghost, the immortality of the soul, the incarnation of Christ, and the existence of angels, – boldly asserting that there is no real Devil, but only a fictitious being, the principle of evil personified, and that the wicked shall be finally annihilated. As the denying the divinity of the Son of God is itself a deleterious error, and is productive of many other pernicious heresies; I have been the more particular in establishing and confirming the Deity of our blessed Saviour, by the plain and cogent testimony of the sacred Scriptures. I will conclude with saying, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall he saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark xvi. 16. /

THE MILLENNIUM: OR, THE

THOUSAND YEARS REIGN OF CHRIST WITH HIS SAINTS, ON THE EARTH. As the Shakers vainly imagine that they are in the Millennium, and that the thousand years reign of Christ with his saints on the earth is actually begun, we will consider the principal prophecies which relate to that glorous period, which shall introduce to the world a scene of uninterrupted peace, tranquillity and happiness. As the authors of “The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing” have twisted and miserably distorted the prophecies of Daniel, in order that they might be fulfilled in the ministry of James Wardley and the introduction of Shakerism, we will take a particular view of them, and also those of St. John which relate to the beginning, the time and the end, of the dominion of Anti-Christ, and the introduction of the true Millennium. As the last of the four beasts which the prophet Daniel saw come up out of the sea, had ten horns, Dan. vii, 7, and the beast which St. John saw rising up out of the sea and afterwards in the wilderness, / had ten horns, Rev. xiii, 1, xvii, 3, both representing the Roman Empire when divided into ten kingdoms or separate independent states, which did not take place till some time after the days of Constantine, and as Daniel has dated the commencement of this era from a time in which, after the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms, the saints should be delivered into the hand of the little horn, Dan. vii, 25, and as St. John has taught us to date the beginning of these calamitous days from the time the woman (the Church) fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent,

282

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Rev. xii, 14, – though the precise time is left indefinite, – we must fix on a point, within a very small circle, from which to date the beginning of the reign of AntiChrist, and it is left for us to determine upon the most probable period; and this we find to be the time when Boniface III, upon the death of Sabinianus ascended the papal throne, and received from the Emperor Phocas the title of Universal Bishop and Supreme Head of the Church, which was in the year 606. We are not only led to fix on this period, from which to date the commencement of the dominion of Anti-Christ, because Boniface was then constituted supreme head of the Church, but because the same year gave birth also to Mahometanism. Though there was much superstition in the Church before, and the worshipping of images and the invocation of martyrs had been introduced, yet no period agrees so well with the time when the saints of the Most High should be delivered into the hand of the little horn, from which time Daniel dates the commencement of Anti-Christ’s reign, as that time when Boniface was made universal bishop. As it relates to the time of the dominion of Anti-Christ, the prophet Daniel, and St. John, are both agreed, and have expressed it by a time, times, and / a half a time. Dan. xii, 7. Rev. xii, 14. St. John has also described it by forty-two months, and by one thousand two hundred and sixty days. Rev. xi, 2, 3. Now, if we reckon a time to be equal to one year containing 360 days, forty-two months or twelve hundred and sixty days will be exactly equal to three years and a half.* In the language of prophecy, natural years are termed days. Numb. xiv, 34. Eze. iv, 5, 6. Agreeably to this mode of computation, 1260 days must be understood to be 1260 years, – and following the same mode of calculation, we must conclude that forty-two months, or three years and a half, expressed by the time, times and a half a time, must be 1260 natural years; by which we are conducted to the year 1866, when the reign of Anti-Christ shall come to a final and everlasting end. This is the conclusion, from the most probable data; but as to the precise time of Anti-Christ’s beginning to reign, we cannot decide with absolute certainty. However, as the period from which we have begun the 1260 years is comprehended in the small circle which must contain the precise point, we cannot be far wrong, and we may pronounce the present age an eventful one. But of one thing we are very certain, and that is, that the reign of Anti-Christ is not yet come to an end, much less that the Millennium is already begun. – Several prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled, before the commencement of that blessed era; such as the restoration of the Jews, the grand confederacy of the beast, the false prophet and the kings of the earth, the battle of Armageddon, and the binding of the dragon. We are bold to assert, though infidels may laugh us to scorn, that the Jews, the ancient people of / God, who are still beloved for their fathers’ sake, shall *

A Jewish year consisted of 360 days.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

283

be restored to their own land and be converted to Christianity. Thus saith the prophet Isaiah, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea; and he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. *The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off : Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.” Isa. xi, 11, 12, 13. This prophesy has not yet had its full accomplishment, but remains to receive its complete fulfilment in the restoration of the Jews. See Hos. Chap. i and xi. Mic. vii. Isa. lii. Zec. xii, 5, 6, 7. Blindness in part, saith the Apostle, is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written. There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Rom. xi, 25, 26. / But what are we to understand by the two last numbers of Daniel, “A thousand two hundred and ninety days, and the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days – Dan. xii, 11. 12, which make seventy-five years more than are found in the former number. May we not learn from thence, that from the beginning of the restoration of the Jews at the end of the 1260 years, to the beginning of the Millenium, there shall be the space of 75 years, in which the Jews shall be gathered together from the various nations among which they have been dispersed, and as the 75 years are divided into two portions, the first consisting of 30 years, and the last consisting of 45 years, may we not suppose that the 30 years shall be employed in restoring Judah, which according to prophecy shall be restored first, Zec. xii, 7, and that the 45 years shall be occupied in bringing back the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. By adding 1335 years to 606, we are brought to the year 1941; at which period we expect the glorious Millennium will begin. *

The accounts given of the number of Jews at this time dispersed amongst the various nations, differ very widely. The lowest I have seen is three millions, and the highest nine millions. The real number of Jews at this time we may suppose lies between these two, and perhaps approaching near to the latter. Did God hear the cry of his ancient people, when their number was not perhaps more than half as many, when oppressed by Pharaoh and the Egyptian task-masters – and did he miraculously deliver them from their cruel bondage; and will he not again hear their groaning and deliver them from the hand of their cruel oppressors, when they shall have sufficiently atoned for the unparalleled crime committed by their ancestors in crucifying the Lord of Glory?

284

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

But before that blissful Era shall commence, the Jews shall not only be restored, but the beast, the false prophet, and the kings of the earth, will join in a confederacy against the people of God, and will come together to the battle of the great day of God Almighty, and shall meet at a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon, and shall make war with the saints. Rev. xvi, 14, 15. Dan. vii, 21. Joel iii, 2, 9, 12, 14. And though, for a time, they shall prevail against the saints of the Most High, God will plead for his people in the valley of Jehoshaphat, Dan. vii, 22, and he will discomfit and destroy their enemies, and the beast, and the false prophet, and the kings of the earth shall be overthrown. Rev. 17, 14. Then great Babylon, the / mother of harlots, shall be brought in remembrance before God to receive her cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath, and the beast, and the false prophet, shall be cast into the lake of fire, burning with brimstone. Rev. xix, 20. We may suppose, that at least two thirds of the confederated army shall be destroyed; and those that shall escape, being convinced by the awful display of almighty power, shall be converted. Zec. xiii, 8, 9. Then the Dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, shall be bound and cast into the bottomless pit, and shut up, and a seal set upon him. Then shall the thousand years of blessedness and rest to the saints commence. The most glorious era this, that has ever been since the fall of man, or that shall be afterwards to the end of the world. See Isa. lx, and lxv. Rev. 20. The happiness of the Millennium cannot, perhaps, be expressed in language more suitable than in the sublime and beautiful description given of it by Mr. William Cowper:21 “The groans of nature in this nether world, Which heaven has heard for ages, have an end. Foretold by prophets, and by poets sung, Whose fire was kindled at the prophets’ lamp, The time of rest, the promised Sabbath, comes. Six thousand years of sorrow have well nigh Fulfilled their tardy and disastrous course Over a sinful world; and what remains Of this tempestuous state of human things, Is merely as the working of a sea Before a calm, that rocks itself to rest: For He, whose car, the winds are, and the clouds The dust that waits upon his sultry march, / When sin hath moved him, and his wrath is hot, Shall visit earth in mercy; shall descend, Propitious, in his chariot paved with love; And what his storms have blasted and defaced For man’s revolt, shall with a smile repair. Sweet is the harp of prophecy; too sweet

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism Not to be wronged by a mere mortal touch Nor can the wonders it records be sung To meaner music, and not suffer loss. Oh scenes surpassing fable, and yet true, Scenes of accomplished bliss! which who can see, Though but in distant prospect, and not feel His soul refreshed with foretaste of the joy? Rivers of gladness water all the earth, And clothe all climes with beauty; the reproach Of barrenness is past. The fruitful field Laughs with abundance; and the land, once lean, Or fertile only in its own disgrace, Exults to see its thistly curse repealed: The various seasons woven into one, And that one season an eternal spring. The garden fears no blight and needs no fence, For there is none to covet, all are full. The lion, and the libbard, and the bear, Graze with the fearless flocks, all bask at noon Together, or all gambol in the shade Of the same grove, and drink one common stream. Antipathies are none. No foe to man Lurks in the serpent now: the mother sees, And smiles to see, her infant’s playful band Stretched forth to dally with the crested worm. To stroke his azure neck, or to receive / The lambent homage of his arrowy tongue. All creatures worship man, and all mankind One Lord, one Father. Error has no place: That creeping pestilence is driven away; The breath of heaven has chased it. In the heart No passion touches a discordant string: But all is harmony and love. Disease Is not: the pure and uncontam’nate blood Holds its due course, nor fears the frost of age One song employs all nations; and all cry, “Worthy the Lamb, for he was slain for us!” The dwellers in the vales and on the rocks Shout to each other, and the mountain tops From distant mountains catch the flying joy; Till, nation after nation taught the strain, Earth rolls the rapturous hosanna round. Behold the measure of the promise filled; See Salem built, the labor of a God! Bright as a sun the sacred city shines; All kingdoms and all princes of the earth Flock to that light; the glory of all lands Flows into her; unbounded is her joy,

285

286

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 And endless her increase. Thy rams are there, Nebaioth, and the flocks of Kedar there; The looms of Ormus, and the mines of Ind, And Saba’s spicy groves, pay tribute there. Praise is in all her gates: upon her walls, And in her streets, and in her spacious courts Is heard salvation. Eastern Java there Kneels with the native of the farthest west; And Ethiopia spreads abroad the hand, And worships. Her reports has travelled forth / Into all lands. From every clime they come To see thy beauty and to share thy joy, O Sion! an assembly such as earth Saw never, such as heaven stoops down to see. Thus heav’n-ward all things tend. For all were once Perfect, and all must be at length restored: So God has greatly purposed; who would else In his dishonored works himself endure Dishonor, and be wronged without redress.”

To conclude the description, I will add the following lines: Then war shall have an end, The cannon cease to roar, And party zeal shall rend The Church of God no more. Peace shall extend her olive wand, And spread from pole to pole, And cheer and bless our happy land, And harmonize the whole. Sin shall be done away, Malignity shall die, And liberty display Her ensigns to the sky. Good will and friendship, truth and love, And righteousness abound, And heav’nly blessings, from above, Pervade the earth around. Christians shall then unite, Of ev’ry sect and name, / And walking in the light, Shall think and speak the same; And each other shall embrace, All party names let fall, And join to praise the God of grace, And Christ be all in all! /

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

287

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY PROVED BY SCRIPTURE. The Shakers, like the ancient Sadducees, with all the boldness and effrontery of infidels, deny the resurrection of the body, calling it “a false and senseless superstition, and a lying vanity.” They do not only deny the resurrection of the bodies of the saints, but they also deny that Jesus Christ arose from the dead, saying that “the rising from the dead had no respect to the natural body of Jesus.” (page 575.) But as I have already proved, from the holy Scriptures, the resurrection of the body of Christ, I will under this head prove, by the sacred oracles of God, the resurrection of the bodies of all mankind, and also answer the principal objections that are made to the resurrection of the body. St. Paul, in his defence before Felix, addresses the governor thus: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets; and have hope toward God, which they themselves allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, / both of the just and unjust.” Acts xxiv, 14, 15. Let a spiritual resurrection be ever so applicable to believers, it never can be made to apply to unbelievers or the unjust. It cannot be said without the most palpable falsehood, that the spirits or souls of the impenitent, unbelieving sinners, shall be raised from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life. But it is asserted in the passage above quoted, that there shall be a resurrection, both of the just and unjust: Therefore their bodies must be the subjects of the resurrection. Our Lord said to the Jews, Marvel not at this for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John v, 28, 29. He informed the Jews (verse 24) that he who heard his word and believed on God, had everlasting life, and should not come into condemnation, but was passed from death unto life. This is the spiritual resurrection, of which the soul that believes is the only subject. He says (verse 25) “Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead [that is, the spiritually dead] shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” And (ver. 26, 27) he goes on to show the Jews, that, as the Father had life in himself, so he had given to the Son to have life in himself: and that he had given him authority to execute judgment also. – Then he says, “Marvel not at this,” [that the spiritually dead should hear his voice and live, and that he had power to quicken and raise the dead, and had authority also to execute judgment] “the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves” [all that are literally dead and in their graves] shall hear his voice, and shall come

288

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

forth: – Not only they that have done good, the saints, the dead in Christ. / unto the resurrection of life, but also they that have done evil, they who have lived and died in their sins, shall come forth unto the resurrection of damnation. All that are in the graves, both good and bad, shall come forth. That this means the resurrection of the body, cannot be explained away, or denied by any, without becoming most glaring infidels. “And many of them (saith the prophet Daniel) that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, – some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Dan. xii, 2. This passage has a particular reference to a general resurrection of the bodies, both of the righteous and the wicked. A sleep is a representation of the state of the bodies of the dead in the grave. The soul cannot be said to sleep in the dust of the earth, and to be the subject of this resurrection, without the greatest absurdity. Then it must be the bodies of the dead that shall awake from the dust; the righteous to life, and the wicked to shame and everlasting contempt. The prophet Isaiah, representing Christ as answering the prayers of his people, speaks thus: “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast the dead.” Isa. xxvi, 19. However this passage may be made to apply metaphorically to the resurrection of the Church, from a state of oppression and affliction, it certainly has a particular allusion to a resurrection of the bodies of all mankind. Job asks the question, “If a man die, shall he live again?” Here this question is answered – “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.” This was exactly fulfilled with respect to many of the saints, when Jesus Christ arose from the dead. And the graves were / opened, says the Evangelist, and many bodies* of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Matt. xxvii, 52, 53. “Thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” Here the prophet represents the energy and power of God to be to the dead bodies in the earth, as the dew of heaven is to the dry herbs; and as the dry herbs, by the reviving moisture of the dew, shall spring from the ground, all flourishing and blooming, so the dead bodies of men, by the quickening influence and powerful operation of God, shall revive and awake to life. *

The bodies of the saints which slept and arose and came out of their graves, cannot mean the souls of the saints. To say that bodies mean souls. is not a concealed, but an open falsehood. – Then if many real bodies of the saints arose and came out of their graves, after the resurrection of Christ, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many, being repossessed by their souls, as they did not return to their graves, they must have gone to heaven. Through flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, the immortal bodies of the saints may be the subjects of the beatitude of heaven, as well as their souls.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

289

The words of our Saviour, in Luke xx, 35, 36, very significantly relate to the resurrection of the body – “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels.” From this passage we learn, that those who are accounted worthy to obtain the heavenly world, after death, and then to obtain a resurrection of the body from the dead to a state of immortality, are like the angels, and shall be no more subject to death. We should take particular notice of this one simple sentence: – “Neither can they die any more.” This cannot mean their souls, for they did not die with their bodies, but their bodies died, and are now risen to die no more. And their being accounted / worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, cannot refer back to their being raised, by regeneration, from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life; for, of a resurrection to that state, as sinners, it could not be said they were worthy. St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xv, 21, 22) is full to the point: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead: For, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” When God made man, he made him immortal; but when man sinned, he lost his immortality and became subject to death: For after man had sinned, the Lord God said unto him, ‘Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.’ Gen. iii, 19. But in the same chapter, ver. 15, he gave to man the gracious promise, that “The seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.” And here we have it: For since by man came death, which followed the first sin; by man, the second man, the Lord from Heaven, came also the resurrection of the dead. For, as in Adam the first, our common head, all die, all become liable to death; so, in Christ, the second Adam, shall all mankind be made alive. This is corroborated by ver. 53 and 54. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So, when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. It cannot be said, without the most glaring absurdity, that this corruptible and this mortal, mean the soul or spirit of man, which is naturally immortal. Then, it undeniably follows, that it is the corruptible and mortal body that shall put on incorruption and immortality. So, when this decaying body, that is now subject to putrefaction, and must soon corrupt in the grave, shall have put / on incorruption and immortality, then shall be brought to pass, or fulfilled, the saying that is written, Isa. xxv. 8 – ‘Death is swallowed in victory.’ The Apostle breaks out in the triumphant song, O death, where is thy sting! O grave, where is thy victory? Then shall be fulfilled the words of the prophet Hosea – “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues, O grave, I will be thy destruction.’ Hos. xiii, 14.

290

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

St. John speaks of the first resurrection, the subjects of which are those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands, and they lived and resigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Rev. xx, 4, 5. This resurrection cannot be made to mean a spiritual one, without the grossest perversion. For there is no propriety in saying, that the souls of some of the dead who were beheaded, lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, but the souls of the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. In the same chapter, ver. 12, 13 – the Apostle says, “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works; and the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every man according to his works.” The dead, small and great, cannot apply to the souls of small and great; for the souls of small and great were not dead. / And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and the grave delivered up the dead which were in them.’ This cannot relate to the souls of the dead, for they were not confined in the sea, neither in the grave, but were in the invisible and spiritual world. Then, beyond all contradiction, the dead, small and great, which St. John saw stand before God, were in their bodies, which were once dead. I will now answer the most capital objections, which the authors of the ‘Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing,’ have made to the resurrection of the body. And first, I will begin with those which are made to the resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ. In page 576, they say, “In the natural sense of a resurrection, some had been raised from the dead among the Jews, before Jesus, so he could not be the first: Elisha had raised the widow’s son; Lazarus had been raised, and the widow’s son at Nain.” The objectors here have manifested a great deal of wilful ignorance in confounding the resurrection of the spiritual body of Jesus with the resurrection of the natural bodies of Lazarus and the widows’ sons who were raised to a state of natural life. But as sure as Jesus Christ was testified to be the first begotten, and the first born from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept, and the first that should rise from the dead, he was the first of all mankind whose body was raised from the dead to a state of spiritual and immortal life. Another objection is raised to the resurrection of the body of Christ on a palpable perversion of the words of St. Paul, in Eph. iv, 10. They have it, “Who is he that ascended, but the same also that descended?” From these words they draw this conclusion:

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

291

“It was not therefore his natural body that ascended, for this was brought forth by a natural woman, / and as it never descended from heaven, so neither was it that which ascended.” Here they forget that they denied that Jesus had any existence before Mary – (p. 530 and 531) – But the passage on which they found their objection, reads thus: “He that descended, is the same also that ascended up, far above all heavens.” What is meant by He that descended, we plainly see from the preceding verse. “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth.” The lower parts of the earth must certainly mean the grave. It was the chief design of the Epistle to the Ephesians to convince the believing Gentiles, as they were attacked by the unconverted Jews, who were bitterly opposed to the thoughts of a Messiah, that should die, that Jesus was the true Messiah, and that he did actually die and was buried; and that he conquered death by rising from the dead: and this the Apostle shows from a passage in the Psalms. Psa. lxviii, 18 – that when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Eph. iv, 3. So he that descended into the grave, is the same that ascended up far above all heavens. But it was the body of Jesus that descended into the grave, therefore it was the body of Jesus that ascended up far above all heavens; not his natural body, but his spiritual body; for, after it was raised, it was no longer a natural body, but a spiritual one. The objectors are so carnal, that they can see nothing in the resurrection, properly so called, but a natural body, with the same nature and the same form with which it descended into the grave. They appear to be altogether ignorant that the bodies of the saints which are now vile, shall be changed in the resurrection, and fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ, after his resurrection. Phil. / iii. 21. Again, it is objected that “If the same natural body (of Jesus) that was crucified of the Jews, arose from the dead and could enter into the house, when the doors were shut, why did not the same come forth out of the tomb without assistance.” To this deistical objection, I answer, it was the same natural body of Jesus that was crucified by the Jews, that arose a spiritual body. Doubtless if in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead, when he repossessed his body, he could have come forth out of the tomb without any assistance. Yea, by the power of his own Divinity, he could in a moment have burst the tomb asunder, and avenged his death, by frowning his murderers into the lowest hell. But he did not choose to do it, for he did not come to destroy, but to save. It is said by the objectors, “A material substance cannot pass through another without making a breach.” But the truth is, the body of Jesus, after it was raised from the dead, was not a material, but a spiritual substance. But, supposing his body was of such solidity as to render it impossible to pass through the walls of the house, could he not have came in at the door as unperceived to his disciples as he was to Cleopas and his companion when he walked and conversed with them on their way

292

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

to Emmaus? The form in which Jesus appeared to his disciples, between his resurrection and ascension, on all occasions was that of a man, though the authors of the Testimony have insinuated, that he appeared in many different forms. Again, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life; then death and life cannot be administered to one and the same.” This is a strange objection to the resurrection of the body, and seems to be intended to show the impossibility of the saints dying, and consequently the impossibility of their resurrection from a state of / natural death to a state of spiritual life and immortality: – that those who receive the gift of God, which is eternal life, cannot die, because death and life cannot be administered to the same persons. It is granted that eternal death, and eternal life, cannot be administered to the same persons. Eternal death is the wages of sin, but eternal life given to believers on earth, was not intended to prevent temporal death; for, ‘It is appointed unto all men once to die,’ and temporal death, as well as life, by the Apostle, is reckoned among the blessings of the gospel; and is said to belong to believers. I. Cor. iii, 22. It is a foolish superstition to suppose that believers cannot die. Jesus did not say even to his beloved disciple John, that he should not die. “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” saith the Apostle. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, saith the Spirit. Rev. xiv, 13. And the Patriarchs died in faith. Heb. ii, 13. We only read of two, in the Bible, that have gone to heaven without dying;* and their translation, we presume, was designed to represent the resurrection of Christ and his saints. But the most weak and senseless of all the objections to the resurrection, is, that ‘the bodies of mankind, if raised from the dead, would be so numerous, that they would not have ground to stand upon, but must be crowded one upon the top of another, and be in great confusion, and contention about the soil.’ This objection manifests a very great degree of carnality, and plainly shows that they who make it. / know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God; or that they are willingly ignorant. This Aristotelian objection to the resurrection of the body, is founded in atheism. It confines our view to earthly bodies, and this world as standing and continuing after the resurrection. These daring infidels deny the word of God, limit the power of the Holy One, and boldly affirm that it is a thing impossible for the bodies of mankind to arise. They ought to have known that God is infinite in power, and is able to raise the dead, and that he is true; and as he has said in his word, this corruptible *

By faith, saith the Apostle, Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had taken him. Heb. xi, 5. Let the word translated, mean what it may, these words, ‘That he should not see death,’ fix the meaning of the passage, and put it beyond all dispute, that Enoch went to heaven in his body, without dying, being made immortal, thus undergoing a change that fitted him for heavenly felicity Elijah was also translated. See II. Kings, ii, 15.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

293

must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality, that he will certainly raise to an immortal life the bodies of all mankind. St. Paul, as though he foresaw that such objectors would arise, says “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them that are asleep: For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch angel and the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” I Thes. iv, 15, 16, 17. The dead in Christ arising first, implies that the dead out of Christ shall rise next. It is written, ‘For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.’ I Cor. v, 10. As sure as the world was once overflowed with water, so sure shall the earth and the works that are therein be burnt up. Yea, the visible heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. II Pet. iii, 6, 7, 10. When all these things are dissolved, who then shall contend about the soil? But there shall be new heavens and a new earth, / wherein dwelleth righteousness. These new heavens, and this new earth, shall be spacious enough to contain all the righteous. And Tophet,22 which is ordained of old, will be found to be deep and large enough to contain all the wicked; and though there shall be contention among the wicked, there shall be nothing of the like among the righteous; but they shall dwell in love, in perfect union, and everlasting friendship. Souls and bodies reunited, Landed on the heavenly shore, Friends by death once separated, Now do meet to part no more. Blooming fair with youth and beauty, And from death for ever free, Free from sickness, pain, and sorrow. Crowned with immortality. /

MATRIMONY. It is very remarkable, that almost all the heretical sects that have appeared in different ages, from the commencement of the christian era, to the present time, have been opposed to marriage. The Abstinents of the third century opposed marriage. They also placed the Holy Ghost in the class of created beings. The Adamites of the second century stood opposed to marriage: and they pretended to be in the same state that Adam was before he fell, and therefore they would go naked. The Hieracites, of the third century, condemned marriage. They held, that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost, and denied the resurrection.

294

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

The Eustathians, of the fourth century, held that in order to be saved, they must forsake all their possessions, and live a life of celibacy. The Marcionists condemned marriage, and they denied the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Saturnians were opposed to marriage: and they denied that God created the world; professing to believe that it was made by seven angels. The Lucianists held it wrong to marry, for fear of enriching the Creator! / The Circoncelliones were enemies to marriage. They assumed the title of vindicators of justice, and protectors of the oppressed. After taking the lives of many, they turned upon themselves, and put an end to their own lives. The Shakers also condemn marriage, and they profess to believe that an old woman is Jesus Christ, in his second appearing! The authors of the ‘Testimony of Christ’s second appearing,’ (p. 54) have made Cain to be the first fruit of the first woman’s rebellion; from which we must infer, that Adam was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to Eve, and that Eve was the forbidden fruit to Adam; and that the original sin of our first parents was committed by doing that which God had commanded them to do. For God had said unto them while they were yet in a state of innocence – “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Gen. i, 23. Thus God is represented to be like a foolish and wicked father, who commands his children to do thus and so, and after they have executed his commands, punishes them severely for having done what he had commanded them to do. And according to this conclusion, God must be the author of sin. If this indeed was the original sin, God, after he had commanded man to be fruitful, to multiply and replenish the earth, must have commanded him not to touch the woman; for sin is the transgression of the law. This would represent God to be worse than Pharaoh. Pharaoh commanded the children of Israel to make brick without straw, but not without mortar. But the conclusion from the premises laid down by these Shakers, is, that God, after he had commanded man to be fruitful, to multiply, &c. commanded him not to touch the woman; thus forbidding him to use any means in order to propagate his species How Adam was to propagate and multiply his / species, without touching his wife, is a mystery that is hard to be explained. After representing Adam’s fulfilling the original command to be fruitful, to multiply and replenish the earth, as the first sin that he committed, (p. 59) to our astonishment we read in the next page, that “The law of the eternal Word which created man, soul and body, male and female, intended by the very law of their creation, that they should be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” They make out that it was right for man to do what at the same time was wrong, and constituted his first sin. What a heterogeneous chaos of inconsistencies!

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

295

It is intimated, (p. 63) by a comparison, that the first sin of man consisted in taking of the forbidden fruit before it was ripe. Was Eve, when God gave her to Adam for a wife, too young for him? If this was so, Adam could not have been too young for Eve, yet the woman was first in the transgression. If God laid an embargo on Adam and Eve for a term of time, intending after the expiration of the term to take it off, how do we come by the information; since the Scriptures give us no account of it? It must come through a new revelation. But such a revelation cannot come from God, because it is contrary to what he has already revealed in the Scriptures. For he speaks in the present tense – Be fruitful and multiply. He does not say, after so many days, or months, or years, ye shall be fruitful and multiply. These Shaker Authors argue, that as man had transgressed the laws of God in his first creation, he had no longer a right to any of the advantages or benefits of those laws. It is granted that man after he had transgressed the laws of his Maker, had no right to the benefits of those laws, until he was restored by grace; but, after the promise was given, man had a right, through faith, in / the promise, to the tree of life, which is Jesus Christ; and consequently, to all the blessings which he had lost by transgression. The Apostle saith, ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.’ And, ‘As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.’ If marriage was a privilege before the fall, it is equally the privilege of mankind now. That it is now agreeable to the law of God, for mankind to marry, and to multiply their species, appears very plain from the following passages of Scripture: ‘And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.’ Gen. ix. 1. Marriage is honorable in all. Heb. xiii, 4. I will therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. I Tim. v, 14. Let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband. I Cor. vii, 2. ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh; wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh! What God, therefore, hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ Matt. xix, 5, 6. That some of the Apostles were married, and continued to live in a state of matrimony, after they were Apostles, is obvious, from these words of St. Paul: ‘Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?’ I Cor. ix, 5. From this passage we learn first that St. Paul had power or authority to lead about a believing wife; and this authority he must have received from Christ. Secondly, That some of the Apostles used the power, and embraced the privilege which they had to marry. /

296

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

And, thirdly, That the brethren of the Lord, James and Jude, and also Peter, had wives, otherwise they could not have led them about. The Patriarchs and Prophets had wives, and sons and daughters. The Priests, under the law of Moses, were commanded to marry. And he (the Priest) shall take a wife in her virginity. But he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Lev. xxi, 13, 14. If connubial union and fruitfulness be contrary to the will of God, why is it said, “A prudent wife is from the Lord; and whose findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.’ Pro. xviii, 22. xix, 14. And why did the Psalmist say, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord.’ And ‘Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.’ Psa. cxxvii, 3, 5. The cxxviii Psalm shows that a fruitful wife and children are blessings that attend the man who fears the Lord. It is bad chymistry to turn good into evil. “Woe unto them, with the prophet, that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” The uncleanness of woman, under the law of Moses, the Shakers seem to think is a strong proof against the lawfulness and innocency of procreation. But they ought to consider, that women were accounted unclean, on account of their unavoidable sickness, and for having the leprosy; but these misfortunes did not denote any personal guilt in those women who were thus afflicted. The ceremonial law had a shadow of good things to come. Heb. x, 1. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Consider the consequences that must have followed, if mankind had not multiplied and propagated their species after the fall. If Adam and Eve / had not multiplied their species, they must have been doomed to inevitable and eternal death, for they could not have been saved, but through the seed of the woman. God had promised that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. If after this promise was made, the woman had had no seed, the promise could not have been fulfilled, and heaven must have wanted millions of its blessed inhabitants, who now stand before the throne clothed in white, with palms in their hands, singing salvation to God and the Lamb. In a word, if the original command had not been fulfilled, all mankind seminally in Adam and Eve, must have been eternally lost. A principle that has such consequences as these cannot be true. Then, let us come to this conclusion, agreeably to the advice given by the Apostle: “Let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband; and bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Train up their offspring for the blessed society above; teaching them, by precept and example, that finally, both parents and children,

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

297

may come to increase the number of the redeemed, and praise God for their personal existence and redemption through Jesus Christ, for ever, in heaven. /

APPENDIX. The book, entitled ‘The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing,’ must be considered as the criterion of the tenets of the Shakers; for the Authors of it have said, ‘It was given through the order and appointment of God, by the joint union of the body,’ (Page 10.) If indeed this book was given through the order and appointment of God, it must be of equal authority with the Bible. The Authors of this Alcoran of the Shakers, deny both the Deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, boldly asserting that he is not very and eternal God, equal with the Father, and that he derived no part of his substance from a woman. See page 529 and 533. They place the Holy Ghost in the feminine gender. When speaking of him, they say (p. 537) “She is unchangeably one with the Father, in union and essence.” It is said (page 159) “The Church remained the only true Saviour of the world.” They apply to themselves. Oba. ver. 21. The Church comprehends a multitude: so we must have according to this, a numerous multitude of Saviours. Page 553 – They profess to have power to forgive sins. Page 468 – They also profess to have the gift of healing – the working of miracles – prophesy – discerning of spirits – diversity of tongues – the interpretation of tongues, &c. These Authors, like the Hutchinsonians, have much to say about the relation that exists between spiritual and natural / things, which at once shows, that they have not the Spirit of God. If they had the spirit which is of God, they would, with St. Paul, compare spiritual things with spiritual. I Cor. ii, 12, 13. Page 438 – “The Divine Essence or Being is incomprehensible, and cannot be known but by the things that are made and their correspondent relations. That the Divine Being cannot be known but by the things that are made, is not true; for the Divine Being may be known by revelation, without adverting to the works of creation, to spell out a part of his attributes there. Though it is said by St. Paul, that the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; we are not to think the Apostle meant, that from the creation of the world, the mysterious and incomprehensible manner of the existence of the Deity is known, and that from thence we can know any thing concerning his moral attributes. The works of creation declare some of the natural attributes of the Divine Being: his power, wisdom, &c. but it is little we know through this medium of his justice, mercy, and goodness. In this respect, ‘No man knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’

298

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

The existence of spiritual things does not depend on natural things, neither can spiritual things be known by natural things: for spiritual things must be spiritually discerned. As long as men continue to explain spiritual things by natural things, they are carnal and in a natural state. Thus, when men make propositions that are not true, and proceed from them to prove by their conclusions their positions, it cannot be expected that their doctrines can be true: For, if the premises be false, the conclusions from such premises must be false also. / The Authors of ‘The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing,’ have laid down false premises with respect to the correspondent relation between God and man, and between the spiritual and the natural world. Thus they have laid the corner stone of their Babel: “Nothing can exist without its correspondent relation, and the attributes of God are evident from the invariable union of things in the natural creation.” And, laying aside divine revelation, they go on with their hypothetick tower. As man was made male and female, they represent God as being both male and female, and make him out to be the Father and Mother of Jesus Christ and Anne Lee. And as Christ is called the second Adam, they make him to be both male and female also; first jointly, and then separately; and under the name of Jesus and Anne, they make him out to be both the Father and Mother of the Church. And according to this, the Church cannot be the children of God, but only his grand children. Thus they express themselves in their poetick Abridgement23 of their book, page 442: ‘Before John’s mission had begun, The Holy Ghost conceived a son.”

And again ‘The Holy Ghost at length did bear The anointed one, the second heir.”

And to complete the castle: As it is wrong for our natural brothers and sisters to marry, so it is not right for spiritual brothers and sisters to marry. But let St. Paul come and only touch it with the tip of his inspired pen, and lo! it comes tumbling down. “There is,” says he, “none other God but one. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” I Cor. viii, 4. iii, 11. The Apostle, speaking of virgins, says ‘Let them marry;’ and he goes on to say “The wife is bound / by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” I Cor. vii, 36, 39. Page 433 – They say, “In the First Appearing of Christ there was male and female jointly, but not separately in order.” If Christ in his first appearing was male and female, and suffered and died, not for men only, but for the sins of

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

299

the whole world, what necessity was there for him to appear a second time, to suffer and to die, to redeem over again the women from the curse and all the sorrow of the fall? Was it because the women, who are said, by them, to be the most glorious part in the creation, were sunk so much deeper by the fall; because the women was first in the transgression; that Christ must needs suffer twice for them? If this be so, the women, instead of being the most glorious part in the creation must be the most inglorious part of all the human creation. But this is not the case; for the man in transgressing the command of God, by eating of the interdicted fruit, was certainly more to be blamed than the woman; though she was first in the transgression. For, the woman was deceived; but the man sinned with his eyes open; and consequently his guilt was so much the greater. The Shakers tell us that we have never heard the gospel, unless we have heard them preach. But St. Paul says ‘Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ He repeats it, ‘as we said before, so say I now again, if any other man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed.’ Gal. i, 8, 9. If any should think that I have been too severe, I would have them to know that I am authorised by the true Gospel to rebuke them sharply that turn from the truth, that they may be sound in the faith. /

THE CONCLUSION, IN AN ADDRESS TO THE SHAKERS; First, to those who experience religion before they became Shakers. I wonder that you have been so easily persuaded to forsake the gospel of Christ and to embrace a new gospel. Do you not fear the curse that is denounced by St. Paul? Gal. i, 8, 9. May I not say, O, foolish Shakers, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified? Did you first receive the Holy Spirit by believing in Anne Lee, or through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you so foolish, having believed in the Son of God, and having obtained salvation from sin by believing in his name, are you now made perfect by faith, in an old woman, and by confessing your sins to man? Nay, but you have crucified to yourselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. O look on him whom you have pierced by your apostacy, and mourn. Though your teachers may persuade you, as you have confessed your sins to them, that you are in a hopeful way, I can assure / you that though the way they prescribe may seem right to you, through their sophisms, the end thereof is the way of death. They extol your privileges while you are their slaves, and they

300

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

exercise over you a false theocracy and absolute authority, whose cruel tyranny is best known by you who feel it. There may appear to you almost insuperable obstructions in the way of your abandoning Shakerism. You have laboured long, and given all you had to support its cause; but if you are now convinced it is a bad cause, you had better make your escape in the yawl than to continue in the wrecked ship and sink with the cargo and be lost in the deep. Remember these words of the Saviour: And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, or wife or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.’ Matt. xix, 29. What is this world compared to heaven? Blessed indeed may you count yourselves, if you may but obtain heaven at the expense of the riches and pleasures of this world. I declare to you, with authority from the infallible word of eternal truth, that while you continue in the Shaker faith, you are still in your sins and without salvation. And if you do not renounce the monstrous heresy of the female Saviour, and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Saviour, and worship God according to his word and the example of Christ, you cannot be saved. I have laboured in the foregoing pages to convert you from the error of your way, and should my efforts prove effectual, all the glory shall be ascribed to the grace of God. I appeal to heaven as witness I have no malignity in my heart against you, but I love your souls because they are the purchase of the Redeemer’s blood. My soul is grieved within me on account of your having forsaken the fountain of living waters / and hewed you out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water; and I call upon you, as a sincere Ambassador of the true Saviour, to return to Him from whom you have revolted, and to believe in Jesus Christ as the only name in which there is salvation; as the only name under heaven, among men, where-by you must be saved; and patiently wait a little longer for his appearing, till he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels, when he shall indeed appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Secondly, But what shall I say to you who never attained to a knowledge of salvation by the remission of your sins, previous to your entering the dark regions of Shakerism? You were blind and led by the blind; and have fallen into the ditch together. More than half your cure consists in knowing your condition. You have been taught to believe in a female Saviour: you have confessed your sins and learned to dance: and you vainly hope that all is well. But though you may think yourselves secure, you are yet under the curse of the law of God; because you do not believe in Jesus Christ as God, and receive him as your only Saviour, who (in his human nature) redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Gal. iii, 13.

Brown, A Countercheck to Shakerism

301

If you believe in Anne Lee as a Saviour, and confess your sins to man, hoping to obtain salvation in this way, I may say to you as St. Paul said to the Galatians, Christ shall profit you nothing. Jesus said, ‘I am the door.’ And again, he saith “He that entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber!” John x, 1. I do assure you that the old woman cannot save you; the church cannot save you; all the men on earth, together with all the angels in heaven, cannot / give you salvation. No being less than the Omnipotent Jehovah can forgive your sins and save you from eternal woe. Then believe in Jesus Christ, as the true God, and keep his commandments, and you shall have right to the tree of life and enter in through the gates into the city.

THE END.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

YOUMANS, AN APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE AND COMMON SENSE

Peter Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense, or, A Death Blow to Shakerism (s.l.; s.n., [1826]).

Peter Youmans was born on 22 February 1777, probably in Sussex County, New Jersey. Like many New Jerseyians of his generation, he immigrated to Ohio, arriving in Morgan Township, Butler County, sometime between 1804 and 1812. He was one of the founders of the Methodist Church in the county, and services were conducted at his residence on Paddy’s Run near Okeana, Ohio.1 Along with Samuel Brown, whose A Countercheck to Shakerism is reproduced on pp. 259–301, Youmans was devastated by the defection of Butler County Methodists to the Shakers around 1820. These people were eventually gathered into the Shaker community at White Water, Ohio. As a Methodist leader, Youmans likely viewed this as a personal failure on his part. His response, like his colleague Brown, was to take up his pen and attack the Shakers on theological grounds. Employing a formula established by many prior anti-Shaker writers, Youmans worked his way through the Shakers’ Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing deconstructing and refuting it. Youmans’s work succeeds in many ways where Brown’s fails. Brown’s Countercheck is a whopping seventy-six pages of dense, stultifying theological analysis. By contrast, Youmans achieved the same ends in only twelve pages of tightly packed prose. His most devastating device is a table that gives a side-by-side comparison of the attributes of Jesus Christ and Mother Ann Lee. This simple and humorous presentation achieves in a half-page what Brown struggled to do in seventy-six. Youmans’s best juxtaposition is: JESUS 5. He was crucified and the third day he rose again and was seen by the apostles and 500 others.

– 303 –

ANN LEE 5. She died and has never been seen since.

304

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Of course, for the Shakers that would make perfect sense, since they believed in a spiritual, rather than physical resurrection. However, any remotely orthodox Christian could not help but guffaw at the deadpan humour. Youmans judged the Shakers to be ‘filthy dreamers’, a ‘body are principally made up of members, fallen from different churches, as the angels fell from heaven’ (p. 310, below). He called Shaker worship a ‘solemn mockery … They dance seemingly with all their might; at times they jump, and clap their hands, and stomp with their feet; they scream, shout, and holloo, like Indians. No person of common sense would call that worshipping God; but rather worshipping the Devil, their master’ (p. 311). An Appeal to Scripture expressed the standard outrage to the Shakers equating Jesus Christ and Ann Lee. Apart from this, Youmans was most concerned with refuting the Shakers stance against matrimony and procreation. This is a subject he was well-qualified to discuss, as he and his wife Sarah had six children. Peter Youmans died on 5 March 1837. His pamphlet survives in only one physical copy. It passed unnoticed by the Shakers, as well as subsequent anti-Shaker writers. Notes 1.

For biographical details on Youmans, see: History and Biographical Encyclopaedia of Butler County, Ohio, p. 426; R. C. d’Armand, DeArmond Families of America (Knoxville, TN: Family Record Society, 1954), p. 272; and W. H. Jones, ‘Welsh Settlements in Ohio’, Cambrian: A Welsh-American Monthly Magazine, 27:7 ( July 1907), p. 315.

Peter Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense, or, A Death Blow to Shakerism (s.l.; s.n., 1826).

The world is as full of nonsense, as it is of Sin. –

Here I give a few items of the Shaker faith, taken out of their book, called “The testimony of Christ’s second appearing.”1 As I shall have occasion to call Anne Lee’s2 name, or rather Anne Standley’s3 name often forward, it will perhaps be necessary here to inform the reader who she was – Her evangelists tell us, that she was born in Manchester, (England) that she was the daughter of John Lee, and that she was married to Abraham Standley,4 that She had four Children: – and in the year 1770 she was received by a certain society as their spiritual Mother; that society has since been called Shakers. Page 21 (Shakers’ Bible.) And they likewise make their Mother to be Christ in his second appearing, and every way equal if not superior to Christ in his first appearing. They make it necessary, that Christ should make his first appearing in the man, and his second in the work. P. 434. They seem to think, that Christ should appear the second time without sin, and none but such should know him, p. 443. They wish to make Christ their father, and Standley’s wife their mother, p. 450. And that sin should never finally be taken away until Christ should come in the flesh of a woman. Ib.5 / In page 451 they appear to make their mother his equal for the expiation of sin. Page 595. They think, that through the Mother the glory and perfection of his divine nature hath been revealed for salvation unto the ends of the earth in these latter days. Page 567. They think their Mother died once for all, as he died, and revived and rose again, ascended into the same divine nature; and that she was in all points tempted like as they are; but that she never yielded to the tempter, that she might be able to succour those that are tempted. Page 453. They make their Mother the Lord our righteousness, or God manifested in the flesh. – 305 –

306

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Page 588. They think no greater absurdity could possibly be invented, than to suppose the Old and New Testament (as they are called) are the only rule to direct us. Page 560. They think it a grand deception, that many have lain under, who have imagined that the holy, harmless, and undefiled Son of God suffered and died in the room and stead of sinners to rescue them. Page 564. They think it evident, that it was not the Son of God that suffered the wrath of his Father at all. They think the same, that suffered, died, and that which died, never did nor never will rise again. Page 436. Then the man who is called Jesus, and the woman who is called Mother, are verily the two first foundation pillars of the Church of Christ, the two anointed ones. O! Full of all subtility and all mischief, thou child of the Devil! Thou enemy of all rigthteousness! Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord! Acts xiii, 10. Beloved! When I give all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it seems needful for me to exhort you, that you should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints; for there are certain men crept in unawares – ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. They are as the angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation. He hath reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the last day, giving themselves over unto idolatry, going / after strange flesh, even the flesh of a Woman. Clouds they are without water, carried about with wind; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit twice dead; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame. These be they, who separate themselves, sensual, having not the true spirit. These filthy dreamers are wise above what is written; they even lay aside the word of God, and assert their own in page 588. We read in the third chapter, second Timothy 16th verse. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Therefore, we have no other rule then to follow the way, and the rule laid down in the Old and New Testament, and thereby we try the spirit. Every spirit, that agreeth not with the Scripture is not of God. – The word of God points out to us the true church, and warns us against false teachers to come in the last days; (we see them already come, which proves the Scripture true.) But Shakers say Christ should come the second time in the flesh of a Woman; and that she has already come in the person of Abraham Standley’s Wife!! It is surprising to see what bad economy they used, in taking up a married woman for their female Saviour. If they had taken up an old maid, one who had never been married, nor had children, for their Christ, they might then have a better plea against marrying. But when he should appear the second time, he would appear without sin; and none but such should know him. They hold forth that every married person lives in adultery; and according to their

Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense

307

own account of their she Christ, she lived in adultery until she had four children, and yet without sin. According to that doctrine, adultery is no sin. – But they strive to make Christ in his first appearing their Father, and Standley’s wife their Mother. How absurd! how inconsistent, is their faith! They think through their Mother, or rather Standley’s wife, the glory and perfection of his divine nature hath been revealed for salvation unto the ends of the earth; and that their Mother died, once for all, as he died! O! wilful ignorance, what wilt thou not do! Rom. iv, 25. “HE was delivered for our offences.” Verse vi. “In due time Christ died for the ungodly.” viii. “God commandeth his love towards us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” x. “We were reconciled by the death of his son.” I cannot find / the death of Mother, any where in the Scripture; neither do I see that she died for any person but herself. But she revived, and rose again, (say they.) If they had any proof of that, it would not look so barefaced; but they strive to enforce such nonsense on the minds of the simple, and some are fools enough to believe them, and so are led astray. But again, she was in all points tempted, but she never yielded to the tempter. Surprising indeed! (If marrying is wicked, she did yield to Standley,) that she might be able to succour those that are tempted. O, human weakness! But their Mother, the Lord our righteousness, our God manifest in the flesh. Was idolatry ever brought to perfection before? It has now arrived to the full stature. They now have an old women, that is Standley’s wife, for their Lord and God manifest in the flesh. – Why not borrow Aarons calf, and they might have a god manifest in gold. which would be more durable. But again, they make their Mother Christ’s equal for the expiration of sin. Here we will compare them, and see what relation they bear to each other, and how near they are equal: – 1. In his first appearing, He was born of a Virgin. 2. He was the Son of God, and God with us. Mat. i. 23 3. He came to establish his own gospel, and live a life of celibacy. 4. He established his character by publick miracles. 5. He was crucified and the third day he rose again and was seen by the apostles and 500 others. 6. He ascended up to Heaven, the apostles saw him go. 7. He is the Almighty. Revelations 1st. In him dwelleth the God head bodily. Eccl.ii.9 8. He will come in the clouds of Heaven with power & great glory.

1. In his second appearing, She was born of a married woman. 2. She was the Daughter of John Lee. 3. She came to establish the latter day glory and was married and had 4 Children. 4. She did, what? She stuck her finger in Mary Southwick’s sore mouth, & it got well. 5. She died and has never been seen since. 6. She descended down to hell, I fear. 7. She, a poor old woman 8. She has come a poor she Christ.

308

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Now, after comparing them, I find no equality as to / the expiating of sin. I would ask, in the name of common sense, what Mrs. Standley can do in expiating sin, or dying for all as he did. She never did as much in her life for her followers, as Balaam’s Ass did for his master, much less yet in her death. Christ is our grand expiatory sacrifice. On the alter of his divinity he offered his own life, a lamb without spot, for the sin of the world. He suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Glorious news! O, infinite, meritorious suffering; but it is the property of falsity ever to be inconsistent. They think it a grand deception, that many have lain under, who have imagined that the holy, harmless and undefiled Son of God suffered and died in the room (say they,) that is was not the Son of God, that suffered the wrath of his Father at all. The same, that suffered, died; and that which died, never did nor never will again. Hark! a deception to imagine the Son of God suffered and died to rescue sinners? And again, it was not the Son of God that suffered the wrath of his Father. I appeal to Scripture. That first epistle general of John iv, xv. “Whosoever shall confess, that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him” v. 5. “Who is he, that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” Now, if Jesus is the Son of God, then it was the Son of God, that died. See Rom. iv, 25. “He was delivered for our offences.” v, 6. For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly, and Christ died for us. 10. We were reconciled by the death of his Son. That proves it to be the Son of God, that suffered and died. What is the human heart not capable of, when abandoned by God, and influenced by Satan? That which died, never did, nor never will rise again, say they. It is very certain, they are willfully ignorant, or they do not believe the word of God by inspired writers, who speak so plain, it cannot be misunderstood. The chief priests and Pharisees strove to hide the resurrection of the Son of God. They gave the soldiers money, and said, “say ye to the people, his disciples came by night and stole him away.” How absurd! As through they thought the people would believe they / knew what happened, while they slept! But, the glorious news cannot be hid. He rose triumphant; He burst the bars of death, and triumphed over the grave. He ascended upon high, and led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. None will presume to deny the resurrection of Christ, but the hell hardened and the infidel. – See Mat. xxiii. 2d. “The Angel rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre. Which angel, says the Shakers, took care of the body, as the body of Moses was taken care of, at once accusing the angel of using deception; for the angel said he is not here, he is risen, come see the place where the Lord lay. See verse 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. See Mark, xvi, 6, 11, 14. Luke, xxiv. John, xix. Acts, 1, 11.

Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense

309

All who deny the resurrection of Christs’ body, look over the above proofs and blush! But the Shakers will ask, how could that body of Christ come into the room, the doors being closed? See John, xx, 19. This is a proof of their blindness; they even call in question the all mighty power of God – a proof of their blindness, I say; for blindness hath not happened unto them in part, but in full. Notwithstanding I have compared Christ and Standley’s wife together, I cannot say my conscience is entirely clear: for it seems wicked even to compare our Lord and Saviour with an old woman, much more to strive to make them appear equal. He bore our sins in his own body on the tree. It is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the world to suffer and die to save sinners. He is the true shepherd; he laid down his life for his sheep. I wish the Shakers could tell of some one good act, that their mother ever did. In page 527 they speak of the Father, and Son, and Daughter; meaning God, the Father Christ the Son, and Anne Lee, the Daughter: and they strive to make themselves the grand-children of God. John v, 23. “All men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father;” & Shakers honor the Daughter, as they honor the Son. In page 436 the man is called Jesus, and the woman who is called Mother, are the two annointed ones; i.e, two Christs. For the word Christ means annointed, and the annointed one means Christ. So / the TWO annointed ones means TWO Christs – i.e. one Christ Anne, and one Christ Jesus. Calvin Morral6 says, in his confession of faith on the other side of the question,7 page 152, he is not ashamed of the gospel of Mother. Hark! Jesus and Christ is one and the same person! So, if they have another Christ, they have another Jesus. Also, Paul says, “If he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we (meaning himself and the other apostles) have not preached;” then after eight verses thrown in by way of digression, he goes on to say, “such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” And no wonder, for Satan is transformed into an angel of light; therefore, it is no great thing, if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their workers. But again; Morral, (a Shaker elder,) says, relative to the Shaker faith, he is not ashamed of the gospel of mother. That is not the gospel of Christ; it is the gospel of Standley’s wife, whom they call mother, as before observed. Listen to what Paul says: “Some would pervert the gospel of Christ; but tho’ we, or an Angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.’ Now, are not the Shakers an accursed people, for preaching the gospel of their Mother? I have been to a great deal of trouble, to acquaint myself with their doctrine. I examined it from beginning to ending, and these only, have I found, not a wind of doctrine which Paul speaks

310

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

of, but a windy doctrine without foundation, that cannot save any person. It consists in wind altogether; nothing substantial can be seen in it. It is built not on a rock, but on an old Woman – even Standley’s wife. The conditions are, confess your sins to an elder; forsake your wife, or husband; give up your property and children; and believe in Anne Lee, as Christ in his second appearing, and you shall be saved.

On the confession of Sin. When Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan, Lo! the heavens were opened, and there came a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Again; on the mount, there came / a voice out of the cloud, “this is my beloved Son, hear Him.” Observe, God acknowledged him to be his Son. Jesus is the Son of God. Scripture says, Jesus died. The Shakers say it was not the Son of God that died. T. P. 560. This is at once denying that Jesus is the Son of God. The epistle general of John says, “Whosoever shall confess, that, Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him. Then it follows, that, if they do not confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth not in them. Paul says, “know ye not, that God dwelleth in you, except ye are reprobates.” It also follows then, that Shakers are reprobates; and shall I confess my sins to a Reprobate? God forbid! No. If I sin against my neighbor, I must confess my sin to him; but if I sin against my God, what will it avail me to confess my sins to a reprobate! But the Shaker body are principally made up of members, fallen from different churches, as the angels fell from heaven, and followed the man of sin. But they are not yet thrust down to hell, but soon will be, except they repent, and do the first works over these fallen creatures. When they knew God, they glorified him, not as God; and their foolish hearts became darkened, and they have given way to strong delusions: to believe a lie, i e. to believe, that Standley’s wife is equal to the Lord of life and glory, the Saviour of the world. Brethren, my heart’s desire is, that ye may be saved. Therefore, stand fast in the gospel of Christ. – For his gospel says, there shall be false teachers and false doctrine. Christ says; “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall never pass away.” His word is this; Christ is the head of the corner: neither is there salvation in any other; for “there is none other name given under heavens among men, whereby we must be saved.” Then reject mother Standley altogether, as Christ in his second appearing. Hark! “When the Son of man, (not the daughter,) shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he (not she) set upon the throne of his glory; and before him (not her) shall be gathered all nations, &c. Now, therefore, let no man deceive us with vain words. Be not carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lye

Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense

311

in wait to deceive; but serve the true and living God, who will not give his / honor to on old woman. But the time is come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but keep to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth. Now if you believe the word of God, who cannot lie, reject Standley’s wife; depend upon it, there is no more merit in her death, than there is, or was, in the death of Ahab’s wife. But remember that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach & seduce the servants of God, and they, by their sanctimonious appearing, and sheeps clothing, would deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. But our Saviour hath told us, that many should come in his name saying, “I am Christ,” but believe them not. Anne Lee says, ‘I am Christ.’ Her apostles tell us, she is Christ. Believe them not; for to us, there is but one God, one Mediator, one Lord Jesus Christ, and in him dwelleth the Godhead bodily. I have written more already than I purposed in the commencement; but the subject seems so interesting, I know not how to stop my pen. I feel for those fallen creatures, who appear to be given over to a hard heart. They, as hungry wolves, catch all seemingly, who stray from the true shepherd. They devour, first the family, then the property, and the devil catches their souls. They will strive to lead you from the true and living God, to worship an old woman, who hath been dead about forty two years, and in hell, for aught I know; for we read, that is the place for false prophets, and false Christs.

Upon their mode of worship. It is a solemn mockery. They sing Lodel! Lodel!8 Which is an empty sound without meaning, any more than ratling an old bell would be. They dance seemingly with all their might; at times they jump, and clap their hands, and stomp with their feet; they scream, shout, and holloo, like Indians. No person of common sense would call that worshipping God; but rather worshipping the Devil, their master.

On Prayer. Christ prayed – the apostles prayed – we are commanded to pray. Shakers are too holy to pray. They are too holy to obey the commands of God; they pretend to be as holy as angels. They have taken much pains in making out their creed. – They have written 600 pages,9 and after much windings and shiftings, which is essentially necessary, in order to support / errors, and absurdities. They have made out a monstrous nothing, when brought together as follows: 1. We believe that Christ hath appeared twice.

312

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

2. We believe he appeared the first time in the person of a man, and his name was Jesus, and that he was a good man, but who his father was, we know not, it is evident Joseph was not. 3. We believe, that he suffered, and died, not for the sin of the world, but unto his own sin; and that which suffered, died, and that which died, never did, nor never will rise again. 4. We believe the angel that rolled the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, took away the body of Jesus, in order to make his disciples believe he was risen, and that his spirit appeared to his disciples, and not his body. 5. We believe he hath appeared the second time in the person of Abraham Standley’s Wife, and lived in adultery, until she had four children; and that she suffered, and died on the same fundamental principles of redemption, as he died, and that she revived, and rose again, and ascended into that same divine nature as he did. 6. We believe that every married man and woman, who live in the ordinary way, live in adultery. 7. We believe we are as holy as angels: no need of prayer. 8. We believe every person, who joins our society, ought to give up his property to our church. 9. We believe our Elders have power on earth to forgive sins. These nine articles include all that they have written on 600 pages; and much easier to be understood. It is surprising how subtle Satan is: he always attacks the weaker vessel. He beguiled Eve, and how many thousands fell in her! again, he beguiled Anne, and how many hundreds fell in her! As the Shakers are much opposed to matrimony, I will conclude this pamphlet by giving some proofs in justification of Marriage, and getting children. I boast not of learning and wisdom, I have none, But I’ll finish my work since I have it begun; Come out from the Shakers, no more with them tarry, I’ll prove by the Scripture, it is right for to marry.

We see that Adam and Eve had two commands given them, the one not to eat of one tree; the other, multiply and replenish the earth. But they broke one command, and that does not free them from the other. We see Enoch walked with God 300 years, and begot sons and daughters. It would be impossible to walk with God, and indulge himself in sin, therefore, we must conclude it was not sin to get sons and daughters then. But again, God says to Noah, be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth. He also made a convenant with Noah and his seed. If God had not intended that Noah should raise seed, he would not have made a convenant with him, and his seed; therefore, I conclude, it was not sin at that time.

Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense

313

But a long time after that, it was the law, if a man died / leaving no seed, his brother should take the widow, and raise up seed to his brother; therefore, God slew Onan, because he would not get children. Gen. xxxviii. verse 9. I conclude it was no sin at that time. But perhaps, they will say that was all done in the old dispensation, all things have become new. If we view the new dispensation, the angel says to Zacharias, thy wife shall bare a son; did he mean that she should bare a son without using the means? Again, the angel said to Joseph, fear not, to take Mary to wife. Also, the angel Gabriel said to Mary, thou shalt conceive and bare a son. Now think for a moment if it were wicked to marry and get children, would all of this have taken place. Do you suppose that God would to have children; or do you suppose Christ would come through a wicked channel. But we read in Matthew, xiii. 55, 56, he had brothers and sisters, yet Mary was blameless. Moreover, we read in Matthew, xix. 4, he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh; wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh; what, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Now, how man and wife are joined together so as to become one flesh, Paul explains, where he says, “whomsoever is joined to a harlot is one flesh with her.” But again, Christ came to reprove sin, but he did not reprove the wedding, he and his mother graced with their presence in the land. Yet again, Paul says to the Romans, vii. 3, a woman while her husband liveth, if she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 1. Cor. vii 39, The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to marry whom she will only in the Lord. verse 5. “Defraud not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer and fasting, and come together again that Satan tempt you, not for your incontinency.” Verse 7, Paul says, he would that all men were even as he, but every man hath his proper gift of God. In verse 9, he says, if they cannot contain, let them marry, it is better to marry than to burn – then the question is, how do they burn, and how will marrying prevent burning? The answer is very plain to common sense. 10th verse. “Let not the wife depart from her husband. 11th. And let not the husband put a way his wife. 28th. And if thou marry, thou hast not sinned, and if a Virgin marry, she hath not sinned. What is implied in the word marry, I will show hereafter. Again, “A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection, also let the Deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling his children well.” Titus 1. 6. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife having faithful children. Tell me how could he be blameless,

314

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

if it were wicked to have children, and how could they have children without using the means. / But Paul says to the Hebrews, xiii. 4, marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. Shakers cry out works of the flesh, but the works of the flesh is distinctly pointed out in Gallatians, v. 19, 20, 21. Now let us see what is implied in the word marry, we read Adam knew his wife, and she conceived, &c. It would be proper to say, Adam married his wife, and she conceived; and the xxxviii. Chapter of Genesis, 8th verse, will show what is implied in the word marry. It would be impossible for man and man to marry, or for woman and woman to marry; they could not be joined together, so as to become one flesh. But the Shakers forbiding the act of joining, in the strict sense of the word, forbiding to marry, and the very people Paul is speaking of in the 4th chapter, 1st Timothy, 1, 2, 3, verses, he says the spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times, (referring to these days) some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbiding to marry. But Paul says to the Phillippians, iii. 2. ‘Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers.’ And I say beware of Shakers, for they professing themselves wise, they become fools, for even their women do change the natural use, into that which is against nature; and likewise, also, the men leaving the natural use of women; therefore, they are given over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient, and many shall follow their pernicious ways. But to sum up the matter, Christ was miraculously begotten, but came into the world in the ordinary way of all children. Mary had other children, yet blameless. A Bishop may have a wife and children, yet blameless. A Deacon may have a wife and children, and be blameless. And if thou marry, thou hast not sinned, and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned, of course blameless. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, so blameless. Man and woman may become one flesh, by joining together, and yet blameless; man and wife may raise up children to praise God in this world, and the world to come, and be blameless. Willful ignorance! O, how many poor Shakers does this sin kill. October, 1826.

WHITBEY, BEAUTIES OF PRIESTCRAFT

John Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft; or, A Short Account of Shakerism (New Harmony,1 IN: Printed for the Author at the Office of New Harmony Gazette,2 1826).

‘The Fourth of July is already passed, and Mental Independence is declared’. This statement from John Whitbey’s Beauties of Priestcraft fairly sums up the text. Shaker Richard McNemar called Whitbey ‘a man of an insinuating turn, but volatile & unsteady, & from long habit, much given to fruitless speculations’.3 Whitbey was a square peg in a round hole if there ever was one, and his cool rationalism nearly destroyed the Shaker society at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. His apostate narrative is among the most effective ever written. In contrast to writings that tried to disprove Shakerism by comparing scripture with the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing, Whitbey’s narrative demonstrates how Shaker principles affected the actual people who were governed by them. Whitbey truly tested Colonel James Smith’s anti-Shaker canard that the Elders were infallible. Although such infallibility is not doctrine among Shakers, the leadership at Pleasant Hill – after enough calm probing by Whitbey – exploded with blind authoritarian rage suggestive of infallible self-righteousness. Whitbey’s exposition of the unthinking hierarchy by which the community was led did not shed favourable light on the divinely-inspired gifts of the Elders. By his own account, John Whitbey grew up in a strict Methodist household run by his father. Early on he became dissatisfied with Methodism and disturbed by the religious strife endemic in Christian denominations. He became: ‘disgusted with the world, sickened with the ways of men, and wearied with society’ (p. 333, below). In the spring of 1818, he visited the Shaker community at Pleasant Hill. He joined the Gathering Order, located at the North Lot House, under the care of venerable theologian John Dunlavy and his counterpart Betsy McCarver. Whitbey was naturally given to an inquiring, highly rational, turn of mind. By the autumn of 1822, his questioning came to the attention of the Shaker leadership and his faith was examined. A turning point in Whitbey’s respect for the Shakers was the peremptory expulsion of two young men from the community. Whitbey reflected; ‘I knew the young men were both disorderly, yet I thought, that was a very strange way to reclaim them; but, as I did not know the extent of their crimes, I could feel no disposition to cut them off from all union’ (p. 339). – 315 –

316

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Whitbey’s account of Shaker life at Pleasant Hill is generally very positive. He gives an accurate account of Shaker theology and administrative structure. Whitbey also recognized the power of community activities such as singing and dancing as a ‘means of uniting them together, and leading them on to a state of complete order and tranquility’ (p. 328). His description of music-making and hymn-writing among the Shakers in the mid-1820s is very valuable in shedding light on a period when Shaker music moved away from the hymns and anthems of the 1810s. In general, Whitbey saw among the Shakers a degree of love and union ‘exceeded by no society on earth’. Male and female Shakers displayed ‘infinitely more respectful feelings and innocent kindnesses’ between each other than any other people Whitbey had ever encountered. He completely dismissed the common anti-Shaker claim that the Shakers lived in a state of adultery and fornication, calling it ‘so absurd and ridiculous’ as to be ‘unworthy of notice’ (p. 330). Whitbey’s primary point of conflict with the Shakers was his questioning the divine inspiration of the Elders. He ‘considered them to be nothing more than good conscientious men, anxiously employed in the use of such means as they thought were best calculated to bring us into a state of proper feelings and good order’ (p. 335). Personally, Whitbey wished to make decisions for himself – a stance diametrically opposed to Shaker order. In exploring these impulses, Whitbey happened upon Welsh reformer Robert Owen’s New View of Society (1813).4 Owen purchased the New Harmony, Indiana, village from the Harmony Society in May 1825. Whereas the Shakers had considered the followers of George Rapp to be ‘honest, respectable, and cross-bearing people’, the Owenites were ‘a set of infidels, and [New Harmony] likely to become a place of debauchery and pollution’ (p. 353). The new Elders of the Gathering Order, James Rankin and George Runyon, tried hard to suppress Whitbey’s influence in spreading his excitement over Owen’s philosophy, even going so far as to forbid family members from reading the New Harmony Gazette. Whitbey would not be denied though; he wrote a letter to Robert Owen inquiring for further information, for he ‘had long entertained a desire to see what could be done on the free principles of reason, unfettered by tradition and superstition’ (p. 346). Surprisingly, the Elders approved the letter and gave it to another Shaker to deliver. Upon that Shaker’s return, Whitbey found the letter had not been delivered and the brother who had taken it revealed that the Elders had strongly hinted that he should ‘forget’ to deliver it. Whitbey then realized the extent of the oppression he suffered under. He found the Shakers hypocritical in opposing the persecution of fringe sects such as themselves, yet persecuting their own membership. By November 1825, the community reached a boiling point and John Dunlavy was called upon to enforce orthodoxy and obedience to the Ministry. In a meeting he publicly called out Whitbey, ‘observing, he did not consider that

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

317

I had the faith of the Gospel at all, requesting the family, to reject my sentiments, shun my company, and cut me off from all union and fellowship, until I would renounce my vile stuff (as he called it), confess my errors, and reform my manner of conversation’ (p. 353). Dunlavy labelled Whitbey an ‘abominable heretic’. Accordingly, John Whitbey and his brother Richardson left Pleasant Hill together on 21 November 1825, and travelled to New Harmony. Whitbey was happy – for the moment – with what he found, writing ‘the flame of truth shines brighter and brighter, enlightening the understanding, refining the feelings, and warming the affections of our most intelligent citizens; – many of whom have assembled together at New-Harmony’ (p. 364). He returned later in the 1820s to further plague the Pleasant Hill Shakers, leading a group of kindred spirits in publicly attacking the sect. Ultimately, he did lasting damage to the community in a way that few other Shaker apostates managed. He destabilized the leadership, sowed seeds of doubt in the membership, and brought unfavourable public attention to bear. Elder Benjamin Seth Youngs, one of the original Shaker missionaries sent to Ohio and Kentucky in 1805, viewed Whitbey with utter contempt. In a letter to the Ministry at New Lebanon, New York, he excoriated John and Richardson Whitbey, calling them ‘puffed up with new discoveries of light and knowledge & full of ministrations, commissions from the school of infidel philosophy and corruption at P[leasant] H[ill]. They spent as much time here as they pleased, and did as much mischief in secret as they could – left their poison and returned to their places. It is not necessary to inform you the particular effects from the influence of these vile men’.5 Notes 1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

New Harmony was a settlement founded by George Rapp’s Harmony Society in 1814 on the Wabash River in south-western Indiana. It was sold to Welsh industrialist and social reformer, Robert Owen in May 1825. The New-Harmony Gazette was the socially progressive and reform-minded newspaper of the Owenite community at New Harmony, Indiana. R. McNemar, Diary, pp. 73–4, Shaker Collection, Item 254, DLC-MSS. R. Owen, New View of Society: or, Essays on the Principle of the Formation of the Human Character, and the Application of the Principle to Practice (London: Printed for Cadell and Davies, 1813). Benjamin Seth Youngs, as quoted in S. Stein, Letters from a Young Shaker (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1985), p. 124.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

John Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft; or, A Short Account of Shakerism (New Harmony, IN: Printed for the Author at the Office of New Harmony Gazette, 1826).

BEAUTIES of PRIESTCRAFT, &c. &c. This is a momentous age. The faculties of man are aroused to uncommon energy, – and new discoveries, both in the mechanical and moral world, continue to be made. The illuminating rays of truth shine brighter and brighter on man’s benighted understanding, dispelling the gross darkness of ignorance and superstition, the fruitful parents of crime and misery: – and the few, but happy moments of his experience, in the enjoyment of sincere friendship, create in him an unconquerable desire for a greater portion of that inestimable treasure. And as liberty of the press has become a powerful means of disseminating knowledge, many avail themselves of its wonderful advantages, in communicating their thoughts, views, and experience, to their fellow-creatures. And if I, as a free citizen of the American Republic, claim this right, it is with no other than an honest intention of communicating my own just, impartial, and candid views of a virtuous people, who have long been the object of idle speculation in some, and of serious reflection, wonder and astonishment, in others. This people is that society, known by the name of Shakers. A people, with whom I once lived in that degree of union and comfortable feelings, which language cannot express, nor pen describe: and a people, for whom I still feel a kind and tender respect. Many are the stranger views, false notions, and erroneous ideas existing in the minds of strangers concerning that society, and many are the ill-founded conjec– 319 –

320

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

tures / and mistaken opinions of the nature of their system and their principles of government. Although there are several publications circulating through the world concerning the practice of the Shakers, I have never seen one that I consider contains a fair and impartial statement: all that is written by themselves is bound up in mystery, and that which is written by their enemies, betrays a spirit of malice, full of misrepresentation. They are, in fact, so completely secluded from the world in all their ways, that it is impossible for strangers to form a correct idea of that principles of government, or uniting tie, that holds them together: and though a religious sect, they have no written creed, form of discipline, constitution, nor any thing of the kind.1 It will also be a very difficult thing to give the world in writing, just and correct views of the principles of their system, and the influence of their government: but as a friend to truth, and a well-wisher to all who may feel interested in the subject, I feel in duty bound to make the attempt. And should I say anything calculated to raise unjust prejudices in the public mind, either in favor of, or against the Shakers, I well know, it will not be done intentionally. But as I have been well acquainted with them as a member of their community for more than seven years, I hope, by a correct statement of a number of well-known facts, to make myself understood on the subject, and give satisfaction to many who are anxious to know, by what unknown art, this peculiar people are bound together, as a distinct body. Their government is a kind of hierarchial monarchy; the legislative, judicial, and executive power belonging solely to the Priests, or Elders. Among these are different degrees of authority, according to their respective offices, rising in gradation from the lowest to the highest or supreme power. In almost every separate society, there are two or more individuals of each sex, called the Ministry, who superintend the management of all general affairs, having the / power of appointing agents, to fill every necessary office throughout the whole society. Each society is divided into families, commonly dwelling in large and convenient houses, the males occupying one half and the females the other. There are in every well-organized family, two of each sex called Elders, who stand as general directors and instructors to the family, in every respect, but more especially in all their moral economy; they are also assisted by one or more of each sex called Deacon and Deaconess, whose business it is, to superintend all the domestic concerns of the family, according to their instructions from the Elders; appointing to the private members their various occupations, and providing all necessary articles of consumption for the family. And as every private member is under the directions of his respective Deacon, the Deacons under the Elders, and the Elders under the Ministry, they are enabled by that means, to preserve a strict uniformity and correct understanding of all general affairs, through-

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

321

out the whole society. The interest of all the members in each distinct order of the society is one, having (according to the practice of the first Christians) all their property in one common stock. They are a people of excellent morals, very industrious, and in cleanliness, decency, temperance, and good order, unequalled: and as a body, remarkably kind and benevolent; commonly, speaking and acting towards each other, in the most respectful manner. And though they are a people of deep humility, keen sensibility, and modest deportment, yet they are cheerful, affable and uncommonly social. As they have no written form of government, it belongs to the Ministry, through the Elders of each family, to adopt such rules and orders, as the minds of the families are prepared to receive: they that are young (or new beginners) in the faith, being governed by rules and orders very different from those prescribed for the further-advanced members. As the Shakers have made several publications of their own faith, ably supported according to their peculiar / manner of reasoning, I deem it unnecessary to say much on that subject; only to give a short outline of their foundation principles, for the sake of elucidation.* Though their religion is not founded on the Scriptures, yet, (like all other professed Christians,) they believe that the Scriptures were written by inspiration; that the account given by Moses of the creation, original sin, and fall of man, is true. But their manner or unfolding the mysteries of the Scriptures, and that plan of salvation to which they prophetically referred, is very different from any definition, given by any other sectarians. They believe, that salvation from sin redemption from misery, is to be gained, through and by Christ, and by Christ alone; but they neither believe in the atonement, nor the doctrine of imputed righteousness. They believe, that original sin, or the first transgression, consisted in an untimely act of that sexual intercourse, by which all animals propagate their species; suffering their superior, and rational faculties, to be governed by their inferior, or animal sensations; violating thereby the commands of God, and falling into a state of contamination, wretchedness, and ruin. Hence they conclude, that the indulgence of that propensity, is the root of all wickedness. And as this intercourse between the sexes is the foundation of all evil, they consider it utterly impossible to be redeemed from sin and misery while living in the gratifications of such an intercourse. Hence the necessity, that Christ should make his appearance – preach this doctrine to the world – set an example of righteousness by abstaining from the works of generation, and die a very cruel death, as a full proof of his unabating zeal and boundless fidelity. *

In speaking of their sentiments or foundation principles, I only speak of what they, as a body, profess to believe, according to their own manner of explanation; for, as it respects nonessential, or speculative points, which do not immediately relate to practice, there are a variety of opinions among them.

322

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

The Shakers do not consider, that the word Christ, alludes exclusively to that particular man called Jesus, but / that it is expressive of that peculiar spirit, disposition, and qualities of mind, which characterized the man Jesus. They also believe (according to the prophetic declaration of the Scriptures) that not many centuries after the commencement of Christianity, the church began to decline – that Anti-Christ took the lead – that the man of sin [the flesh] dethroned Christ from his temple, [the human body] and that power of the holy people was so effectually scattered, that the real Gospel, or substance of christianity, was not known on earth, for more than twelve hundred years. Hence the necessity of that spirit or principle of holiness which was manifested in Jesus, being revealed a second time. They are opposed to the idea of a triune, or three-fold God, all in the masculine gender; – neither do they accept the common notion, that all things were made out of nothing. They have some kind of an idea of the qualities of both male and female being united in the Deity, or the attributes of Power and Wisdom, justly corresponding to male and female. But as this incomprehensible union was always a mystery to me, I shall not undertake to explain it, for fear of doing them injustice. – But if any feel interested in the subject they may see their views more fully explained in one of their own publication entitled Christ’s Second Appearing. But in order to give satisfaction, I will here insert a short extract from that celebrated book, 3d edition, page 25th: “The Father is first in the order of the new creation, and the Mother is the second, – the glory, wisdom and perfection of the Father. And in and by the son and daughter, or Christ in his first and second appearing, the Father and Mother are both revealed and made known, through the mutual influence of the eternal Word proceeding from both; who are one in essence, nature and union, but two in their office and manner of operation.” And again, in page 509th, when speaking of the divine parentage of Christ, and the miraculous conception of the virgin Mary, they say, “Here then are two, distinctly spoken of by the Angel, / exclusive of Mary, namely: the Highest, implying the superior power and authority pertaining to Father, and the Holy Ghost, implying the superior wisdom and purity essential to Mother, which in their very essence are one, implying the whole order of the divine Majesty.” Again, page 511th, “And if the attributes of Mother pertaineth to man in the perfection of his order, from whence could this attribute flow? or with what did correspond? If the attribute of father and mother in the creation of man, came from father alone, the effect is superior to its cause, and mother must flow from where mother is not; and the female part of the creation can know no corresponding cause of her existence. But as father and mother, or male and female do exist in the creation of man, and are essential to the glory and perfection of that order, and are

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

323

declared to have been created in the image, and after the likeness of God, therefore, if no such relative distinction is admitted in the first cause of their existence, then it plainly followeth, that the perfection and glory of the creature, is as much superior to that of the Creator, as all that is made out of nothing is superior to nothing. This inconsistent and absurd supposition would place even fallen man above all that is called God. – But the truth is, that as God created man male and female, in his own image and likeness, and called their name Adam – two in their order and manner of operation, but perfectly one in their nature and union, constituting one entire man, perfect and complete in the order of his manhood; so man in his first creation, in both parts of his manhood, relatively shewed forth the order, glory and perfection which essentially constituted the First Cause, and was a pattern of that order and perfection which was to be revealed by Christ in the new creation. But man in his natural state could never know the perfection of the invisible First Cause, until they were revealed in the new creation, by Christ in his first and second appearing; in which the Father is revealed / by the Son, and the Mother by the Daughter; and the true order and perfection of Jehovah are made known by those things that are created, revealed and made manifest, in which God became all in all. Therefore by the first appearing of Christ, in and by the Son, was the revelation of God pertaining to the true order of the Father, who was everlasting before all worlds; and by the second appearing of Christ in the Daughter, is the revelation of the Holy Ghost, pertaining to the true order of Mother, who was with him that was everlasting As the Almighty expresseth the substance, but not the order of the Father; so the name Holy Ghost expresseth the substance, but not the order of the Mother. And as the true order and office of the Father was not known until revealed by the Son; so the true order and office of the Mother was not known until revealed by the Daughter.” I have noticed these few remarks, in order to give, if possible, a faint idea of what the Shakers mean by the second appearing of Christ. They do not pretend to say, that the same material body that was crucified on Mount Calvary, in which dwelt Christ in his first appearing has appeared again on earth; but they do say, that the same spirit which animated that body, and all the faithful followers of Jesus, is again revealed, and that through a female; raising the female equal with the male, and completing the whole order of the new creation. Therefore, in all the orders, rules and government in their society, the females have privileges and power equal to the males; being united in one relation, in all the various duties and functions of the church. For, say they, “The man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.” They suppose that the second appearing of Christ – the commencement of the Millennium – the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment to mean about the same thing. They have no faith in the resurrection of the animal body after death, but they consider the soul the proper subject of the resurrection. Neither do they eat / bread and drink

324

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

wine in commemoration of an absent Christ; for, they declare, that Christ has returned, and has taken up his abode in, and with them, and of course, is always present. They also reject all forms of water-baptism; considering that the Holy Ghost, or spirit of practical righteousness with which they are baptized, is fully sufficient. Neither do they see any propriety in fasting, groaning, crying, sighing, and calling aloud to a distant God, for that assistance which they possess in their own church; they would rather eat, drink and be merry – sing and dance – rejoice and be glad – express their love and kind feelings one to another, and often kneel down in silent though humble submission to that gift and spirit of God, which they say is always present, dwelling within and among them. They feel no anxiety concerning a local, or distant Heaven situated out of sight, perfectly inaccessible until the soul and body are separated; but they affirm, that the kingdom of heaven is established on earth by Christ in his second appearing; and as they arise into the resurrection, from a state of spiritual death, into a state of spiritual life, they enjoy the comforts and blessings of the kingdom. Nor do they expect, or seek any other; believing that dying, or going out of the body, makes no immediate change in the mind, but still as before, continue to rise higher in the resurrection, and eternally advance from one degree of glory to another. After dropping the above hints respecting their doctrine, or the foundation principles of their system, I shall proceed to say something relative to the practical part; shewing why, and how it is, that the Elders, or heads, have such wonderful influence throughout the whole society. They believe that Christ is that power of good over evil, that saves the soul from a disposition to commit sin – that none can gain this substance of goodness, only as they receive it through the ministration of those who actually possess Christ: for, say they, those who have not got Christ, cannot administer Christ; and all who have Christ, are able to administer the spirit of Christ to all who will / receive it. And as that female2 through whom Christ was revealed the second time, without sin unto salvation, was the only person on earth, at that time, who possessed Christ, she, and she alone, was enabled thereby, to reveal all the mysteries, beauties, and treasures of the Gospel, to all those, who by a faithful obedience to the precepts of her ministrations, would receive it: those again, were enabled to administer it to others, and so on in regular succession, until every soul of man shall have an offer and either receive, or finally reject it. This is the reason why it is that the priests have taken the power of government into their own hands, and continue to adopt such rules and orders in their societies, as are dictated by the spirit of Christ, independent of any written, or established law. Those who are chosen to the priesthood are generally such as have distinguished themselves by a punctual

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

325

conformity and obedience to all the rules and orders of their predecessors;* and are considered by some, and always spoken of by the priests, as possessing a portion of the spirit of Christ, or gift of God, superior to any other: Therefore, as they stand as the oracles of God to their respective families, it is highly necessary that every individual of each family should yield implicit obedience to all their requisitions; without which it would be impossible to preserve harmony and good order. Almost every society is divided into classes, or orders,3 according to their experience; those who have been gathered together for some years, and have gained a reconciliation and love to their manner of life, are separated from the new beginners; as this class is not prepared by previous habits, to yield that obedience to good order, as is required of the older members. The members of the younger class, or last order, are generally kept in great ignorance of the orders given as a rule of action for the older class, or first order; but the members of the first class, are well acquainted with / the rules prescribed for the younger order, having passed through all those different order themselves. Whenever a new society is about to commence at any place, there are always experienced members, called Elders, sent from some other society, in order to instruct and govern them. These Elders become the Ministry of the young society, but I think, are always measurably under the control of the Elders of that society form whence they came. After the commencement of a new society, it requires several years’ training of the members to prepare them for what is called Church order; but what this order is, I am not able to explain in every respect, having never resided therein, yet I think their rules are similar to those prescribed for the younger class, though far more strict and numerous. The society at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky,4 (to which I was attached) is only divided as yet into two classes, or orders, commonly called Church order, and Young order: to the last of these I belonged. The Elders, or heads of families of our order, were generally composed of members form the first order; and the Elders of the Church order were composed of individuals of its own members: but all the Elders as well as private members were under the control of the Ministry, who were originally, missionaries from the east. As they believe that the forbidden fruit which caused the fall, or depravity of man, as the flesh, (or generation) they of course believe, that it is impossible for any one to be saved from the effects of the fall while living in the flesh: for they ask – How can a soul be regenerated, while living in the generation? And as they believe that the forgiveness of sins belongs to God in Christ, and in Christ alone – and as Christ on earth is no where to be found but in his own church, and in his own temple [the human body] they think it highly necessary that all who become members of their community, should honestly confess all their sins *

It is sometimes the case, that certain individuals are promoted to an office, for their own encouragement; in order to give them sufficient excitement to action, and prevent them from leaving the society.

326

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

to God, in his living temple [the priests] receive forgiveness, and be prepared there by to enter on the work of regeneration. As the priests, or Elders of families, have generally been for a long time / accustomed to hear the whole mind, thoughts, feelings, and desires of different individuals fairly and candidly unfolded, they have become such masters of penetration and discernment, and so skilful in their profession, that they are commonly, able to adopt such rules, or (as they term it) administer such gifts, as will be for a rapid increase, or advancement of the family over whom they preside, into their system. The Elders of families profess to be wholly guided and government in all their ministrations, by a revelation from God; and that every ministration by them as a rule of action to their family, is a direct gift of God; telling the family most solemnly, at the same time, if they violate these orders, they violate the gift of God – and that God will not look on them with pleasure and acceptance, until they confess and eternally forsake such transgressions. As the Elders do not refer to scripture, reason, philosophy, nor any where else, to furnish themselves with arguments except to the superior, or more advanced Elders, they seldom advance any other proof of the propriety of the orders and rules they give to their families, than a positive assertion of their own experimental knowledge of its being the true order and gift of God.* – The instructions, or rather requisitions of the Elders, not only embrace the general outlines and principles of action, but descend to the more minute, or details of practice, comprehending their whole economy. These orders certainly contain a collection of the best and purest of morals, including the whole duty of man; and are not excelled by any people on earth. They generally have a meeting every night, and frequently of mornings, in each family; in which the Elders (when they deem it necessary) most solemnly impress on the minds of the family the great importance of a strict conformity to all the rules and orders / that have been administered, for (as they say) their protection; telling them at the same time of the great reward, or glorious consequences of obedience, and the unspeakable torments, or dreadful consequences of disobedience: insisting, that theirs is the last revelation and finishing work of God, and that all people must sooner or later be judge by their gospel – that all who receive and continue in obedience, will ultimately be completely saved by it – and those who finally reject it will be damned, and suffer the wrath and eternal vengeance of God. – Therefore they earnestly exhort family to give up their own wills, they own thoughts, and own judgments – to humble down their high sense and self-important feelings – to become teachable and tractable, and receive the gifts of God in the simplicity of a little child. And as obedience to the Elders is the only criterion *

This only alludes to their general manner of ministrations to their various families; but sometimes even there, though oftener in private conversations, they reason very shrewdly, and often refer to the various prophecies contained in the scriptures, which they say all pointed to their present work.

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

327

of merit, and disobedience the only criterion of demerit, all who wish to become honorable and respectable, are, of course, very tenacious of good order and obedience. As they believe the flesh to be the root and foundation of all wickedness, they not only reject the generation, but profess to renounce all partial attachments and kindred relations, belonging to it; therefore to be equally kind, generous and benevolent to all – to live in perfect equality, and respect each other according to their works, are matters of great consequence among them. They have regular established hours for eating, sleeping, and family meetings: all of which are desired to be attended to in the most punctual manner; but should any fail of this, they come under the immediate notice of their watchful Elders, who use such means for their reformation, as they think proper; but all violations of order are considered crimes worthy of confessing. Although the power of government belongs solely to the priests, they generally govern in the mildest manner possible: but if mildness fails to produce the desired effect, they resort to other measures more harsh and severe; such as private rebukes, and public reprehensions, becoming / more and more severe, until the unhappy culprit either confesses his errors and reforms his manners, or becomes so much offended as to leave the Society. The Elders often meet with great difficulty in training and bringing beginners into proper order. Some are lazy – some are fractious – some are stubborn, and cannot bear to work under the directions of their Deacons; – some are fretful, and apt to murmur and complain of their Elders, Deacons, and almost every body else – some are continually indicating partial attachments to their consanguineous relations – some are unwilling to live on an equality of food and clothing with the rest – some are dissatisfied with their occupation – some are habitually careless, and not very decent – while almost all, at times are apt to think, that the way of God is rather hard, in restraining them from their false enjoyments of sexual copulation. These tumultuous scenes of imperfection and counteraction, are generally borne by the Elders with great patience; but not without the utmost exertions in the exercise of such means, as they consider best calculated to bring each one into proper order; exhorting them to depend entirely on the gift of God (their ministrations) for that power which will subdue all the evils of a depraved mind, and enable them to gain that purity, love, and union in the spirit of holiness, that will consummate their happiness; asserting, if they keep their union with the Elders, they keep it with God – and if they lose their union with their Elders, they lose it with God. And as there are always some, more orderly than others, they are spoken of by the Elders in terms of great approbation, while the less faithful, meet with rebuke and disrespect. This manner of conduct becomes a powerful incentive to good order; for all must acknowledge, that the orders and requisitions of the Elders are generally founded on strict propriety. The Elders manner of instructions and ministrations in their family meetings, is very singu-

328

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

lar; often varying from subject to subject, so as to suit the present situation of all the members: those who are orderly and / faithful, meet with encouragement, by hearing their works applauded, while they that are disorderly and unfaithful, have to suffer the mortification of hearing their own evil doing described in such plain language, that all can readily guess for whom the hints are intended. This kind of preaching is very common; but if the offending party should still remain stubborn, and continue disorderly the fierce zeal of the Elders increases to such a degree of holy indignation, that they frequently threaten to expose the offenders, by calling their names in public. – They then request the family to unite together in the dance, and exert both soul and body in direct opposition to the ways and feelings just described, and free their minds from every evil and wicked disposition. These exercises are frequently very animating and spirited, amounting often, to great violence; and the Elders consider them far more powerful arguments in producing a reformation, than all rational expositions of first principles; especially, if they can make the family believe them to be real gifts of God. Though meetings of this kind are common, they are by no means the only kind they have; for the Elders, ever willing to create sufficient stimulation, often conduct their meetings in such a manner as to produce the most pleasing and friendly feelings. Their devotions chiefly consists in singing and dancing, or (more properly) laboring; but as the form, motives, principles, and spirit of their devotion, is so extremely different from the dancing exercises among any other people, that there is scarcely any resemblance between them; I believe, that singing and dancing are among their most powerful means of uniting them together, and leading them on to a state of complete order and tranquility. Their songs and hymns are entirely of their own composition, and generally very simple. They make hymns on almost every subject in which they feel interested; and any of the members are at liberty to make and sing what hymns they please, provided they express no incorrect faith. This liberality in hymn-making gives rise to some / hundreds of little compositions of one, two, or more verses, which generally produce an excellent effect: for they do not care how awkward or simple they are, so they express good feelings: believing, that they all have a tendency to unite them closer and closer in that sincere and kind simplicity, which is so desirable. Thus, by the influence of the Elders, and their assistance to each other, they advance from one degree to another, becoming more and more reconciled to their manner of life as habit renders it agreeable, and better and better prepared to receive and practice more strict and orderly rules. Having cut themselves off from nearly all sociability, friendship, and communications with the world, by renouncing its practices, they have no other source of social enjoyment, than the exercise of kind feelings, union and love among themselves; and to this they gradually attain, to a degree (I believe) exceeded by no society on earth.

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

329

Some of their social meetings are extremely interesting, indicating the best of feelings; consisting in singing, dancing, smoking, familiar conversation, eating cheese, sweetcakes, and occasionally drinking a little wine – and often marching in the best of order, to the melodious sounds of beautiful songs prepared for the occasion, performing a great variety of curious and intricate figures. Their customs and manners in some of these meetings, often appear to strangers quite ridiculous; but to an honest-hearted and well-experienced Shaker, they result in the most soul-refreshing consequences. I have known nearly all the members of a family unite together, and march in one solid column for more than a mile, in order to participate in the comforts of uniting in a social meeting with another family; chanting, as they move along in this delightful journey, cheerful songs and animating ditties, expressive of those uniting ties of affection which are their only excitements to action, and which to them, are so dear: while the visited family on the approach of their visitants, with all the enthusiasm that sincere friendship can inspire, advance in respectful order to meet their / beloved guests; and with extended and open hands, beat correct time to the soft strains of their affectionate songs, expressive of the warmest reception and kindest welcome to their peaceful habitation. All their meetings of this kind, as well as all others, are under the direction and immediate control of the Elders; who, from a correct understanding of the state of mind of all the members, are enabled to conduct them in such a manner as to produce the best of consequences; or, in other words, to strengthen them more and more in their principle of government. As the Elders (or heads of families) are the source of influence and center of union throughout the society, they deem it highly necessary, to have, at all times, a full understanding of the state of mind of each member, within their respective families; hence, it is urged as the most essential order, that all the members should without reserve, keep their minds fully and fairly open to the inspection of their Elders. All little aggrievances and disaffections between private members, are settled by the Elders; but not without a suitable acknowledgment being made by the offending party. Speaking disrespectfully of any order, or regulation given to the family as a rule of practice, or against any transactions of the Elders, is considered much of a crime: and for private members to make known to each other their disaffected feelings towards the Ministry, Elders, or any established order of the church, is considered great weakness, and crimes worthy of a mortifying confession. Though, if private members feel aggrieved at their Elders, they have the privilege of making known their injuries to the Ministry, who examine into the affair, and if they find the Elders in an error, they generally strive to settle the matter by such means as will conceal as much as possible the Elders’ faults; fearing that the aggrieved party should entertain an unfavorable opinion of the gift of God: being very apt to give the offending Elders, at the same time, a sound lecture for their conduct. But this seldom happens, for the Elders are generally

330

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

such characters, as will exert themselves / to act according to the directions of the Ministry, let them be right or wrong. The Ministry always make it a point, to watch over the conduct of the Elders, with a jealous and scrutinizing eye; that if any should fail in preserving good order and prosperous feelings in their family, to either correct, or remove them, and fill their places with others, who, they judge, will be able to exercise greater influence in their stead, and insure more success. As their only bond of union and rule of action, is obedience to Elders, it is always particularly requested of the members, to love and respect them; the Elders, also in return, use many ways and various methods, to attract the esteem and love of their families: this they seldom fail to do in an eminent degree, though sometimes, the case is quite different. It is not very common for any one to remain in office very long at a time; for, so strange is human nature, that a long continuance of power is apt to create a spirit of tyranny. It may easily be perceived by what has been stated, that no members, after coming under proper discipline, are admitted to the privilege of choosing their own occupation, or place of abode, but in all cases, are under the directions of their Elders or Deacons: and I believe, that members are often changed from one occupation to another, and from one family to another, in order to ascertain the strength of their faith and obedience. Though changes, especially among young believers, often occur from various causes; yet I think, that after the members have, by a patient and unreserved obedience to all order, give sufficient manifestations of their fidelity and undeviating zeal in the cause, they are organized in such a manner, by being placed in such a relation to each other, as will render them most useful and comfortable; so far at least, as is practicable and convenient. Here it may be proper to remark, that every one has his own peculiar place, or office, assigned to him, not only in occupation, but in meeting, at the table, and in all other respects; the whole presenting a delightful scene of good / order and uniformity. The sociability between the sexes is very different, from what, by strangers, is generally expected. Their interviews of conversation are frequent and very agreeable; but as they dwell in different apartments, their familiarity is not so great as to occasion aversion or disrespect, neither so uncommon, as to produce an imprudent shyness or painful reserve; and there are infinitely more respectful feelings and innocent kindnesses, manifested between male and female among the Shakers, than by any other people I have ever seen. – The common idea among strangers, that the Shakers live in fornication, adultery, and debauchery, is so absurd and ridiculous, and betrays such ignorance of the nature of their system, that I think it unworthy of notice. The same may be said of their bondage, and slavery so much spoken of; as though people of common sense would suffer themselves to be bound in a free country, contrary to their own choice.

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

331

They generally give their youth a plain practical education; but so opposite are their principles to those commonly contained in books, that much reading is not encouraged. The truth is, they do not consider the study of sciences, and a knowledge of what they call nature, to be essential to happiness; but, that happiness is only to be gained, by a faithful practice of their system, as it is administered by those whom practice and experience have rendered capable of instructing: for, they affirm, the way is so plain that a fool cannot err therein; that is, even a fool can understand the requisitions of his Elders. Their property is held in common, though altogether under the control of the Ministry, Elders, Trustees and Deacons; and after coming into church order, they live in one united interest, securing all their previously acquired wealth to the exclusive use of the church by signing a contract or form of covenant to that amount. The case is something different before entering into church order; for when any person first joins the society, an inventory is made of the amount of his property, and if he leaves / the society before he signs the church covenant, his property, or the amount of it is restored; but compensation for labor is seldom made; yet, to this custom there are some exceptions. Their cooperative industry produces the comforts of animal life in great abundance, and they excel any people with whom I have been acquainted in the art of cookery. But, as they are, by no means, satisfied with a mere negative virtue, or the bare removal of the causes of animal sufferings, their greatest exertions are directed to that cultivation of intellect, and purification of mind, which will raise them to the highest state of mental enjoyment. Though almost every thing may be said favorable of the Shakers, respecting their moral virtues, the practice of which is productive of great peace, comfort and tranquillity; yet I think, their first principles contain some imperfection, and a deviation from them by some of their Elders, very serious errors. Their administrations to the world; and their instructions to young believers for several years, are so mixed with mystery and deception, that it is almost impossible to comprehend their principles of government and the full extent of its power. This I shall make plain in the following account of my own experience and observations, while I resided with them, and the cause and manner of my leaving them. But before I commence this account, it may not be imprudent to make a few observations, in order to give an idea of my peculiar state of mind, previous to my first acquaintance with the Shakers. My mother dying when I was very young, I was brought up under the instructions of a very pious father, whose religious restrictions on the conduct of his children were far more than common. Consequently, while other youth of my age were feeding on the vain and frivolous productions of their own recreations and amusements abroad, I was confined at home, – where, instead of acquiring the habits and feelings of my juvenile companions, I imbibed feelings and sentiments quite opposite. Being much crossed in the whimsical desires and fancies of

332

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

my youth. I early / acquired the habit of observation and reflection; especially as it related to the ways and dispositions of men. – And as my father and family were zealous defenders of the Methodist faith, I of course embraced the same doctrine, and became a member of that sect. I was always fond of union and friendship, and forebore to give, and seldom received insults; consequently I remained in the Methodist society for several years, unimpeached and blameless. But at length, as a general disturbance arose in the neighborhood, originated by a Methodist priest and augmented by some of his followers, who were equally as vainglorious as himself, I had the candor to state my serious opinion that the preacher had told a falsehood. – This so exasperated his Reverence that, with the assistance of another priest, and in violation of their own discipline (by going contrary to the wish of the people) I was expelled from the society. This affair was another spur to my reflections and energies of mind, in searching into the various actions of men, and examining the motives and dispositions from which they sprang: and though I never made another application for membership, I by no means abated my excursions through the theological world. But there, I was perplexed, bewildered; and confounded. That heaven, of which the priests so emphatically spoke, was to me an incomprehensible mystery; – what it was – of what materials was it made – in what did it consist, and where was it situated, were ideas full of confusion. And suppose it to be some local situation, as they asserted, where the spirits of millions were gathered together, – why, and how could they be made happier without a thorough change in feelings, dispositions, and affections, were difficulties I could not solve. Would not, thought I, the same counteraction, partialities, emulation, jealousies, envies, strife and contenting prevail there, that are so afflicting and tormenting here? Some wanting to be raised above the rest, and be called Rabbi? Some wanting to be masters, and slaves pining for freedom? But if the reverse of this was what really and essentially / constituted heaven; it consisting in, and proceeding from those lovely, qualities; and disposition of mind, which I plainly saw were the manifest cause of our greatest comforts here, and which were the necessary and natural results of our own conduct, I could see no reason why we should wait for heaven until the dissolution of the body; neither could I see any greater prospect of obtaining it then, than now; for how it was; that death could purify the soul and prepare it for eternal felicity in the exercise of the social affections, was another theological mystery. And in vain did I look into the Christian world for those perfections. Though they often spoke of this wonderful change, which, they declared, gave them so much happiness, yet I never could discover a sufficient change in their conduct; for like other people, strife and contention, discord and animosity, continued to mar their peace and destroy their union. And all their comfortable sensations and happy feelings of which they boasted, as being their strongest witnesses of this happy change, were, either the necessary results of their united

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

333

and friendly efforts in the pursuit of future glory, or an anticipation of that glory, arising from their consciousness of fulfilling the supposed will and law of God. But as love to one another was the fulfillment of the law, and the only criterion by which Christ’s disciples were to be known, and as their frequent contentions manifested a lack of this love, it was impossible for me to believe that this desirable change had been effected; especially, when I could plainly see the real causes of unfriendly, unkind, and discordant feelings, cherished in a greater or less degree, by every one with whom I had ever been acquainted. The doctrine of atonement and imputed righteousness, was another mysterious affair; for it appeared to me, there would be just as much propriety in saying, that a man in America could live on the food eaten by one Europe, as to say, that a practical sinner could be saved from the necessary afflictions of his own evil conduct, merely because Jesus, eighteen hundred years ago possessed the principles of holiness, / and practice righteousness. I had also lost all faith in the resurrection of the animal body; for I rationally concluded, it would be better for the body to remain dead, than to come to life again, unless there could also be a resurrection of the soul; and as a resurrection of the soul could only be gained by a complete fulfillment of the moral law, or the practice of that golden rule of doing unto others as we would that they should do unto us, and as that desirable practice was so little attended to by all professed Christians, I of course, felt disappointed and discouraged; and resolved to give all theological mysteries to the wisdom of the priests and credulity of their converts. In this situation, I remained in society very much alone: let me be where I could or with whom I might, I could plainly discover numerous causes of human wretchedness and misery, practiced by all, professors as well as non-professors. If I partook of the spirit, or indulged in the practices of any society, I felt uncomfortable, knowing them to be very irrational; and if I remained entirely along, I sensibly felt the want of union and sociability: – but I was fully determined never to unite myself again to any body of Christians, unless I should become acquainted with some who were essentially different from any I had ever seen. Thus disgusted with the world, sickened with the ways of men, and wearied with society, my life itself was not very desirable. In this situation, and under these impressions of mind, as I was passing through the state of Kentucky in the spring of the year 1818, I first became acquainted with the Shakers, at Pleasant Hill, Mercer County; though at that time I had not the least intention of becoming a member of that society. – But as I had a brother5 living there with whom I was willing to spend some time, I concluded to tarry awhile for the sake of becoming a little acquainted with the character of the people with whom he had united, and also, to learn something of the nature of their system. On becoming acquainted with them, I found them very different from what they were generally represented. Instead of / that superstitious gloom and religious melancholy which I expected to see – cheerfulness, satisfaction, peace

334

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

and tranquillity appeared to reign throughout their delightful dominions. Though many parts of their system appeared new, and very strange to me, yet I could readily see a great removal of the cause of many or those horrid evils and severe afflictions, of which I had so long complained. This was shortly after the division of the society into the first and second orders;6 this separation being made for the comfort and advantage of both parties – that the first might enter into the practice or such rules and orders as might advance them in the spirit of their system, unmolested by the young and inexperienced, – and that the second might remain a while longer in their inexperienced state, undisturbed by the galling yoke of such orders as they were not prepared, as yet, to receive. The second, or (as it was commonly called) young order7 at that time, consisted of one small family, of which John Dunlavy8 was the first Elder, and Betsey M. Carver the first Eldress. There were several larger families in the first, or church order, under the direction of such Elders of their own order as were chosen by the Ministry. The Ministry was composed of three of each sex, who were the founders of that society, and were originally from the east: of these there was one of each sex, whom the society called Father and Mother, who stood as a center of influence to the others; but in all their proceedings in government they were completely united. Being a stranger, I was unable to form a correct idea of the principles of government, and practical regulations of their community: but the visible effects of their system were very delightful. I received several warm and pressing invitations to unite with them as a member of society; but as I was ignorant of their rules, and dreading the fire by which I had once been burnt, I felt rather shy in placing myself any more under the control of ecclesiastical power: consequently I remained sometime undetermined. Although I made frequent application for an explanation / of their manner of governing, yet I conceited I could always discover a reluctance in them to give it; replying, there was no bondage in the case; every one having the privilege at all times to act their own faith. Such observations gave but little satisfaction; for I knew they must have a center of union somewhere, and that it was necessary some person or persons should give general directions; otherwise it would be impossible to preserve good order. But I expected, as I was a stranger, and rather minute in my numerous inquiries, that this particularity created in them a jealous suspicion of my willingness to comply with their orders; and that this was the cause of their reluctance in giving me information. I afterwards found, however, that to keep their real principles and influence of government concealed from strangers and young believers, by telling them that nothing was required of any but to act their own faith and live according to their own judgment, was a common practice among them; and, in one sense, it is certainty true; but it by no means conveys a full understanding of their meaning for if it did not many would join them. In this point there is much deception. I also had recourse to

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

335

that celebrated publication of theirs, entitled Christ’s Second Appearing,9 in which usurpation of authority over the conscience is spoken of, in most pathetic strains, as being the greatest evil that ever distinguished the reign of Antichrist, especially in those chapters which describe the horrid persecutions of the heretics by the different sectarians. At length, as I discovered such a striking contrast between them and all other people, and being habitually of an inquiring mind, I concluded, that I never should be satisfied until I had given their principles a thorough investigation; and accordingly consented to remain with them, at least for a time. At that time, there was an elderly man living with his own private family a short distance from the village, and as he and all his family were new beginners as well as myself, I was requested by the Elders, to reside with them; I accordingly went and found / them strong in the faith and very agreeable. The old man himself, about that time (as is commonly the case with young believers) was very comfortable; though from his conversation I judged him to be a man unaccustomed to sound philosophical reasoning; but the case was quite different with a son-in-law of his, who lived with him, which occasioned him and myself to receive several severe lectures from the old man. He professed to believe that the Elders were immediately inspired by God in all their proceedings;* and that no person could ever be saved, but by renouncing their own will, judgment, reason, and every thing else, and submitting themselves implicitly to the directions and instructions of the Elders; telling us earnestly, unless we would forsake our carnal reasoning, we should inevitably reason ourselves to hell. Various were the opinions among the young believers, respecting the power and gifts of the Elders; some concluded they were completely infallible, while others thought they possessed such great discernment, that they always knew the feelings, thoughts, and real situation of every one, let that be what it might. My own views were a little different. I considered them to be nothing more than good conscientious men, anxiously employed in the use of such means as they thought were best calculated to bring us into a state of proper feelings and good order; and of course, I still held to the propriety of governing ourselves according to the dictates of our reason and best judgment. About that time two of the Ministry (Father and another of the Elder brethren) were called on to return to the East, their former home; and as it was a common expression among them that “Father’s gift had run out.” I felt anxious to know the meaning of such strange words, and on inquiry, some explained it one way, and some another; but our credulous Patriarch could explain the matter precisely; for the truth was, with him, that Father had lost a portion of the spirit and gift of revelation and had / got too much on the plan of reasoning, – and that was the very cause why his gift had run out. As this worthy old brother *

I have frequently heard the old man express very different faith since then.

336

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

considered himself further advanced in the gospel than the rest of us, I believe he felt it a duty, to watch over us in the most religious manner, and give a full account of all out carnal reasoning (as he called it) to our Elders. From these circumstances, together with some little controversies that took place between them and myself, they had drawn a conclusion that I was a little tainted with infidelity; and that it would be very difficult to bring me into proper subjection to their rules and order; but in this they were mistaken, for I had heard of no order as yet, but what I considered very good; and reason convinced me of the great propriety of good order. I also held farther conversation with John Dunlavy on the subject, who again stated (for my encouragement) that the gospel required nothing of any, but what was exactly according to their own faith; stating, that he felt it his duty to live in subjection to his Elders, and that they were the only persons capable of teaching him the gifts and orders of God. I asked him, if he considered the instructions of his Elders his standard of justification, and whether he would comply with their requisitions if he thought they were wrong. To this he answered, he had never known them require any thing that he considered wrong, and that he had full confidence in them that they never would – but were it the case, continued he, that I conscientiously thought that their requisitions contained moral evil within them, I should certainly reject them. These observations appeared reasonable, and I thought, sufficiently liberal. – But still feeling anxious to acquire further understanding of their principles of government, I took the opportunity of conversing with Eldress Betsy on the subject; stating my surprise at the reluctance I discovered among them to give satisfactory explanations. I also observed, when any one commenced a work of any kind, that he certainly ought to know what it was – so that he might count the cost and examine his own abilities, to ascertain whether / he should be able to complete it. To these observations she replied (as I afterwards found were common expressions among them) that all the gospel required of every one was, to live according to their own faith and teachings; observing, that it was in vain for me to feel anxiously concerned about the further gifts and orders of God in the Church – that they were so completely out of my reach, it was impossible to comprehend them, only as I traveled up to them. In the course of this conversation she made several observations relative to the mystery of the gospel – as its being incomprehensible to the carnal mind – that none could travel in the gospel only as they were taught, &c., with many other remarks – all of which she expressed in that dignified manner so peculiar to a priest, that I felt too much disgusted ever to apply to her again for further information. Though all their customs, manners and feelings, appeared very simple, yet their language was quite mysterious. I recollect that John Dunlavy told me one morning, I would see the time before two years that I should be conscious of utterly hating and abhorring God. I did not believe him then, neither do I believe him yet; but I

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

337

must confess, if I conceived God to be such a character as I have heard John, since then, represent him to be, that I should be compelled to hate him with as much holy indignation as John himself ever hated the devil. But the longer I continued with them, and the better I became acquainted with their system, I felt more comfortable; and as I had heard of no order or rule of practice but what I believed was very good, I felt it a duty to strictly comply with every requisition that had been made. And as I created no disturbance, made no complaints, and conducted friendly toward all, I was consequently treated in a respectful and friendly manner by all, which continued to increase my comfort with my acquaintance. Although I received no reproof, rebuke, nor any thing of the kind, form the different Elders, yet I think, they still retained an idea that my faith was not exactly of the right kind; for after I had been there two or three / years, I was called aside one evening by an Elder, in order, as he said, to put me in a way of being more comfortable. He stated, that shortly after he first come among believers, he found he knew nothing of the gospel, neither could he know, only as he was taught by his Elders; therefore, he gave up his own will, his own feelings, his own judgment, and cast himself entirely on the gifts and orders of God for all instruction; and if I would do so, he said, it would add much to my comfort. I told him, if that was his situation, there was considerable difference between us; for so far from thinking myself entirely ignorant of right and wrong, I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the causes, of both evil and good: but I said, as to such orders and rules of the church, as I had never heard administered, I was certainly quite ignorant, yet I thought it was proper to retain so much of my own judgment at least, as would enable me to form a correct idea of the utility of such orders, when they should be made known, and if they should appear to be good, my own judgment would convince me of the propriety of yielding strict obedience to them. I then told him, if my manner of faith was such as to give dissatisfaction, or become an injury, I was willing to withdraw; for it was not my wish to impose myself on any people. He said that there was no necessity for that – that our understanding was pretty much alike, and he had no doubt, but what in a short time we should come to view things in the same light. I shall notice here, that to come to such great simplicity, as to acknowledge one’s self totally ignorant of the gospel, and believe the ministrations of the Elders to be the real gifts of God, and the only means by which a soul can make any advancement into the spiritual life, is considered a point of great merit and precious faith among Shakers; and I have frequently heard individuals make great pretensions to this much-esteemed ignorance, merely for the sake of honor – when their common murmurings and frequent violations of good order, gave to their pretensions a very different color; whereas, those of us (for there / were several) who believed that the gifts and ministration of the Elders were nothing more than the results of their best judgments, good experience, well wishes, and anxious, desires for

338

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

our prosperity, – seldom complained, – were well reconciled, and generally conducted ourselves very orderly. After this conversation, I do not recollect that my faith was called in question again until the autumn (I think) of 1822. By this time our society (the second order) had considerably increased in number, and was divided into several families; all being under the general directions of the Elders of what we called our center family, and each family under the immediate directions of their own Elders or heads. But there appeared to exist a very peculiar and general insensibility throughout the whole order: many of the members were frequently stepping into forbidden paths; some were lazy – some were careless – some were self-willed, and all our affairs seemed to be in a languishing situation. Our Elders were much dissatisfied with our condition, and made attempts and strong exertions to produce a reformation; but all their attempts appeared fruitless, and their exertions ineffectual. They made some inquiries among us, to ascertain our various views of the causes of our stupidity, but found our ideas very different: some thinking one thing, and some another; and though I very honestly stated my opinion, yet I presume, I was respected none the more for it. The Elder said, that something must certainly be done; but what that something meant, I did not understand. However I did not remain ignorant very long; for shortly afterwards, a time was appointed for all our families to meet at the framed house (our center family) in order, they said, to see the commencement of the purging work of God. The time arrived, and we assembled. Elder Samuel10 (one of the Ministry) made his appearance among us also; but, O, how changed! Instead of that placid mildness, serene tranquility, and lovely humility that commonly adorned his reverend brow, he appeared to have clothed himself, with all the indignation, and / awful terrors, and tremendous thunders of Milton’s Son of God when pursuing the apostate angels. In piercing language he described our miserable condition – Atrocious were our crimes, and many the evils which he enumerated. Then in a terrific voice, with all the majesty of priestly consequence he called the names of, two young men,11 who, he affirmed were then living in open violation of God’s righteous orders – and earnestly requested the society to cut them off from all union and communication, until they would come forward and acknowledge their errors, implore forgiveness, and reform their practices. He then requested us to unite together in the dance, and exert both soul and body in laboring to shake off that load of death, stupidity and darkness, which we had gathered by our unfaithfulness, and strive to become alive and quickened in the work of God. The devotion commenced. Loud shrills of animating songs betrayed the agitated feelings of the singers – while piercing screams, violent exertions, and heavy stamps, manifested such mighty zeal in the laborers, that the devils himself might well have been frightened almost into despair. – Being well acquainted with the two young men spoken of, I well knew they were both disorderly; but not being acquainted with the extent of their

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

339

crimes; not fully understanding this strange manner of purgation, I did not manifest quite so much zeal as some of the rest: this was noticed by our first Elder, who shortly afterwards, called me to an account for my conduct. He began by asking me, if I did not think, that the travels of the children of Israel and the law given them by Moses, were figurative of the gospel. Not knowing his design in asking such a question, I honestly replied, that I seldom troubled my mind with occurrences at so distant a period back as Moses or his law either, considering myself only concerned in things of the present time. He insisted, that they certainly were, and then quoted a passage of scripture something like this in substance: “Cursed be every one that continueth not in all things written in the law to do / them.” Observing, as the law was given by Moses, every one who disobedient to his law, was under that curse. He then said (in order to make the application) when the above-mentioned gift was administered, he thought he discovered a reluctance in me to receive it. I told him, though I knew the young men were both disorderly, yet I thought, that was a very strange way to reclaim them; but, as I did not know the extent of their crimes, I could feel no disposition to cut them off from all union, barely, at the request of another. He replied, that no one was ever exposed in public unless they had went beyond what was common in the violation of order, and in such cases, I ought to have confidence in my Elders. We talked a while longer on the subject, and ended about as we began – each one enjoying his own opinion. About this time there was one among us, who had formerly been a preacher of the Universalian12 doctrine; and as he did not manifest quite so much of that implicit faith as our Elders liked to see, they felt a gift to stir up his mind a little, by way of public hints. Consequently they spoke largely in meeting, of what they called a one-sided faith, as being very injurious to the gospel – that unless those who held such one-sided notions would forsake them, they could not remain in the work of God, &c. Taking care, at the same time, to speak in such a plain manner, that every one knew to whom they alluded. This was the first time I ever heard any thing among them, either in private or public, that had the appearance of binding the conscience. After meeting was ended I went to the first Elder, desiring the privilege of asking him a fair question, to which I wanted a direct answer; observing, that as I believed it to be his duty to answer me candidly, I should certainly insist on it. He required the question. I asked him, whether the time would ever come, according to the faith and practice of the church, that any individual who differed with them in sentiment would have to renounce his own opinion, or else, be cut off from union and fellowship? He, guessing my design, and laughing pleasantly / (and I fear deceitfully) replied, on that ground there need be no difficulty, – that faithful souls would never differ so much on points essential to salvation, as to hinder their practice, and good practice was all that was necessary, and would ultimately bring all into one faith.

340

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Though his answer was, by no means, direct, I thought it useless to interrogate him any further. This man once attacked me on the subject of original sin – the fall of Adam, and man’s natural depravity, &c. And after we had conversed together some time, he said, if he had such faith as I had, he should think there was no need of Christ, and consequently, consider it unnecessary to bear his cross; neither, said he, would he do it; but would turn to the world again, and take all the gratifications, comfort and pleasure that the world could give. I observed that such ideas seemed to intimate, as though he did not practice righteousness for the sake of the benefit or excellence therein, but from a slavish sense of servitude under some despotic sovereign, who imposed on him such laws as were contrary to his better interests, and opposite to those which were in their nature intrinsically the best. The case, I said, was very different with me – I practiced virtue for virtue’s reward, without regard to any other consequences, than those naturally produced by my own conduct. And as to the necessity of Christ, I observed, I saw but little difference between us; he believed in the account given by Moses of original sin, the fall, and universal depravity of man – also on the necessity of Christ to set an example of that righteousness which would redeem the world from its consequent misery: I also believed in the universal misery and wretchedness of man, proceeding from crime and improper conduct – that ignorance of the causes and natural effects of our actions was the occasion of all crime, and that it was absolutely necessary that Christ should be revealed, or some means be made known to remove our ignorance, change our conduct, and produce a resurrection. I likewise said, let our ignorance, wickedness, and consequent misery proceed from what / cause it may, that every reflecting mind discovered the necessity of a great reformation and improvement; and if Christ set that example of righteousness, and taught such doctrines as were calculated to work the desired reformation, I saw no reason why I should not follow his example by obeying his precepts, and partake in all the comforts and happiness that a life of true holiness and spotless virtue could produce. I do not wish to give an idea by what I have stated, that speculative controversies were very common in our society; the case was quite different: we all agreed that good practice was the fundamental cause of all happiness, and that much disputing profited little. But I have noticed these few interviews, merely to explain the only difference in our sentiments, and the only causes they had, to impeach me with heresy. I do not recollect of any other particular argument taking place between any of the Elders and myself until the spring of 1825, except one, on the origin and nature of Jesus Christ. It happened one evening, when several of us were conversing on this subject, that I observed, it contained a mystery that had, as yet, baffled the skill of all divines – that all their views were full of inconsistencies, and that even the Shakers’ own explanations of the subject, implied contradictions. They asked me wherein did the contradictions consist. I

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

341

answered – at one time they would assert, that the Lord Jesus united himself to fallen man, by taking on himself our nature through the medium of a woman, that he might become a proper pattern and example to all his followers, by bearing a cross against that nature – that in consequence of which nature, he was tempted in all points like unto his brethren, &c.: and at another time they would say, that he was altogether of divine origin – that he was begotten by the power of the Highest, and conceived by the Holy Ghost in Mary, but was not the son of either Joseph or Mary. And to say, he had taken on himself the seed of Abraham, or our nature – and that at the same time he was of divine parentage / – was the same as to say, that our nature and the nature of God was the same: which was certainly contrary to all their doctrine. Whether these inferences were correct or incorrect, according to their own writings, may readily be seen by referring to that book entitled “Christ’s Second Appearing:” but for fear of being judged wrongfully, I shall here insert a passage or two extracted from that publication. In page 87th, when speaking of the Ministry of Jesus the Christ they say, “Though the medium of a woman he took upon him, not the nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham; and in this he became united to mankind in their fallen state.” And in page 510th, they assert, “And as the conception of the Son of God was merely in Mary, as the medium of his existence on earth, and not of her substance; hence he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, which came upon her, and was begotten by the power of the Highest, which overshadowed her, and therefore the Holy Ghost was the real and true Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But as union, peace and tranquility, were the only objects of our pursuit, we did not often afflict each other with little frivolous contentions and unnecessary argument on those hidden subjects which we all had to acknowledge were full of incomprehensible mysteries. But early in the year 1825, our Elders were called on by ministry to return home to the church,13 and two young men by the name James Rankin14 and George Runion,15 were sent out to fill their places. James was a man of an excellent disposition, good understanding, and generally avoided controversy. George, though (as I thought) possessing a less penetrative mind, was quite social, full of metaphysical and philosophical discussions, but rather impatient of contradiction. It happened one day as George and I were at work together, and entering into some metaphysical ideas, that we soon found ourselves engaged in an argument. I insisted that the love of comfort, or desire of happiness, was the only principle that actuated all sensitive beings – that the only difference in the moral actions / of men was owing to the different circumferences in which they were placed and their different views of the real causes of happiness, that their will or choice to act was entirely under the control of their judgment – that their judgment was formed by such an association of ideas as experience and reflection had given them; and that every person, according to the situation in which he was placed, always acted in unison with his best judg-

342

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

ment, or in that manner which appeared to him to be productive of the greatest comfort. This doctrine was opposed by George with considerable warmth – he insisted that men often acted in a manner that they knew to be wrong, and ought to be justly criminated for doing so. He also stated that men were rational beings, and had the faculty of arranging their ideas and making comparisons between different objects and causes, and drawing such inferences of the effects, or consequences, as would convict their minds of the propriety of acting very differently from what they often did act; and if they would not do so, their ignorance was highly inexcusable. I most freely acknowledged, that man had the capability of becoming rational, and the faculty of reasoning to a very great extent, provided there was sufficient motive to influence the will, or create a disposition in him to put his faculties in exercise; but as the will or choices, was completely under the influence of external causes and surrounding objects, cooperating with his senses and forming ideas or impressions on his mind, that it was impossible for him to exercise those faculties until surrounding objects, or some other cause created in him the necessary disposition or choice to do so. I also insisted, that all our ideas of right of right and wrong, proceeded from our sensations of pleasure and pain – that those actions which necessarily produced happiness or pleasure. we called right, and such as consequently resulted in misery, we called wrong; and if any person was disposed to do such acts as he believed would produce more pain than pleasure, tracing them through all their consequences and effects, it would necessarily follow, that that person / was actuated by a principle that loved pain, which was certainly contrary to the nature of all sensitive beings. – Yet I said, we might and often did, enter into a course of actions which we knew to be productive of misery, believing that we should gain thereby a greater portion of comfort; but if we knew to the contrary, it would be impossible to feel disposed to perform such actions. Therefore I said, that ignorance of cause and effect was the only reason why every one did not at all times act righteously, or in such manner, according to the circumstances which they were in, as would produce the greatest amount of happiness. I stated further, that as ignorance was the lack of experience, and lack of experience the want of sufficient actions producing their natural causes, and lack of actions the want of sufficient causes to create the disposition, or control the will to perform them, that no person ought to be criminated for that ignorance which he could not avoid. I also contended, that by natural, or consequential effects of one action, or a certain train of actions, become causes of other actions, and that the present influences of causes over the will was just in proportion to the mind’s own peculiar state, into which previous actions had brought it. Therefore I believed, if it were possible for us to trace all our actions and ascertain all their causes to the beginning of our time, we should discover ourselves as completely under the control of necessary laws, as water was, when by its exposure to extreme cold, it was formed into ice. These senti-

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

343

ments were much opposed by George; he replied, that such doctrine destroyed man’s free agency – rendered him unaccountable to God for his conduct – did away with the propriety of confessing sins – gave him liberty to go in the perpetration of any crime that would give him gratification, and even represented God as the author of all sin. I contended, as to man’s free agency, that every voluntary act he performed was certainly of his own choice, but the cause, or causes that irresistibly created that choice, were, by him, unavoidable; for, admitting these causes to be the mere / effects of his previous acts, even those actions were the effects of other previous causes, neither could he be considered a free agent in any other sense. And instead of giving him liberty to commit crimes, he would be compelled by choice to perform no actions, but such as were, in his estimation, naturally right and productive of happiness: – and as to destroying his accountability to God, I continued, it would only remove those slavish feelings of servitude, which his erroneous views of the nature of God had created, and unfold to his mind such excellences in the uniform laws of necessity, as would create in him an earnest desire to conform in all his doings to the will of God; and so far from representing God as the causes of all evil, he would plainly discover, that crime and misery proceeded from his own ignorance. This was about the amount of the substance of our debate, which I think, would not have been taken much notice of afterwards had it not have been for other circumstances which shortly occurred. But not long after that, there was given into my hands a pamphlet published by Robert Owen,16 containing his new views of society;17 on the perusal of which, I immediately pronounced the principles correct and strictly true, at least, those of them which asserted, that the character of man was formed for him, and not by him; in consequence of which, he could not be a proper subject of praise or blame, merit or demerit. But as a little difference of opinion took place between one of the brethren and myself concerning one point, we, of course, entered into a discussion of the matter, and before we finished our conversation, we received the warning to prepare for dinner: – we repaired to the house where several of the brethren were gathered together, and George among the rest; and as we were still conversing on the subjects, George took up the argument against me with considerable zeal; but I defended myself by such arguments, as they all discovered were not easily confused. This, together with a recollection of our former argument, created (I suppose) a suspicion in / George, that my arguments would prove injurious to the faith: therefore, he made his suspicions known to the Ministry. As the pamphlet had excited considerable attention in the society, and some discussion in our family, James Rankin (our first Elder) fearing the consequences, requested me to express my sentiments no further; saying that they were calculated to cause the youth and weak among us to run into evil. I insisted, that it was impossible – that if the sentiments were understood, they would have a very different effect

344

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

– and if not understood, they could not easily be believed; for while any retained the idea of their own capability of governing their choice and controling their will, and knowing at the same time they always acted from choice, it would be difficult to make them believe that they ought not to be blamed for doing wrong. I also said, that a knowledge of the truth of those sentiments would convince the understanding, that acting kindly towards others was the only means of creating in them friendly feelings towards us; and instead of blaming and reproaching others for their imperfections, we should be able, in all cases, to exercise the most unbounded charity; knowing, if they had wrong, it was for the want of a correct understanding of the real causes of happiness. I observed, likewise, that a correct understanding of such sentiments would teach us, that to love and respect others, and to be beloved and respected by others in return, were among our greatest wants and strongest desires; a disappointment of which, was the cause of all the malice, anger, ill-will, and hard feelings, that tormented society – and inasmuch as we loved comfort, we could only love such objects as by some means, administered comfort to us – and as all our fellow members of society were capable of administering comfort, provided they had the disposition – and as the disposition was only created by our administrations of comfort to them, that it would be our greatest interest to conduct ourselves at all times, in the most friendly manner; in stead of taking indulgences in any evil which consequentially terminated in misery. / He said but little more on the subject at that time, only observing, that he did not say the sentiments were wrong, but admitting them to be true, he thought it imprudent to express them in presence of the youth. I believe he thought, that so much opposition made me feel uncomfortable; and as I had been somewhat in the practice of writing poetry, he very friendly requested me to make him (as he termed it) a little hymn. After reflecting on his request a little while, I concluded to write a verse or two, and mix with it a little of the doctrine of necessity, in order to see whether he would receive it. Previous to this we had been in the habit of singing a very simple little verse, accompanied with such gestures as were expressive of our feelings, which gave great satisfaction; the verse was as follows: “How thankful, and happy, and clever I feel! Such streams of sweet union I cannot conceal The cord is untwisting, I’m singing for joy! What sweet animation, and pretty employ! I’ve got a bright treasure, O, don’t you all see! In this little stone there’s a new name for me: Sit with me in heavenly places and laugh; For I am not able to tell you the half.”

I added –

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

345

But this much with pleasure I know I can tell, That Heaven’s bright glory would banish all hell: That light in Mount Zion doth swiftly increase, And we’re marching* on to great comfort and peace. I know that in union all comforts abound; That love in unkindness can never be found; I cannot hate comfort, I cannot love pain, ’Tis this that compels me my rights to maintain I cannot be wicked, I cannot be vile,† I can’t be deceptious, nor tainted with guile; I cannot love darkness, I cannot hate light, For works done in darkness I know are not right; I cannot bear malice; for malice gives pain, Nor brother, nor sister no more can I blame; For were they enlighten’d, I certainly know They could not do evil, nor sin any more.

After writing these verses, I presented them to Elder James, who promised to receive them provided, I would substitute the words will not for cannot and make some other little alterations; but as they were, he said, he should have to reject them. As the principles of the social system had now become a subject of some investigation in the society, I was called on by the Ministry to give an account of my one-sided doctrine of no praise nor blame, no merit nor demerit, no rewards nor punishments, &c. According to request, I went to see them, and found them (as was usual) in a very pleasant mood. I told them, as they had long had an idea that my faith was somewhat heretical, I was glad of an opportunity to explain to them what my real sentiments were; knowing, if they understood my views of which they had heard such strange accounts, that they could, by no means, consider them incorrect. We spent nearly two hours in friendly conversation on the subject, in which time I endeavored to explain to them what I meant, observing, if they understood the science of circumstances, and what I meant by natural or consequential rewards and punishments, they would plainly see that their own works exactly accorded with that doctrine. For said I, all your different gifts, various orders, numerous changes, and deep-schemed regulations, are nothing more than such controlment of circumstances, as you suppose will produce the best effects. But I discovered, that after all my preaching and explanations, they did not understand my meaning; though Elder Samuel insisted that he did, saying, when he was a boy, his own mind was much exercised by such ideas, but us he discovered there was nothing in such notions, he let them go. (A most wonderful way this, of telling me, that such sentiments were only fit for boys and weak minds.) One of them asked me if I did not think Eve was to blame for eating the * †

Marching in various manners was a very common method of our devotion. Meaning, that no cause could be sufficient to influence the will. /

346

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

forbidden fruit! I answered, I could not see wherein she was to blame, – for let that fruit be what it might, it was certainly something that had the appearance of adding / to her comfort, or else she would not have desired it; and as she was totally ignorant of the evil consequences of eating it, and being powerfully influenced by a desire of experiencing the good effects it promise to produce, I thought it was impossible for her to avoid it; especially, when I considered that she had never sinned, and of course had never, as yet, felt one sensation of plain, and consequently could have no idea of death. I also insisted, that if the devil in the form of a serpent or any other deceitful shape, had the magic art of presenting the fruit to her fancy, under such fascinating charms as to seduce her into the transgression, she was not justly to be blamed; for she had no control over the devil to prevent his doing so, and it seemed that even God himself did not choose to do it, for if he did, it would argue, that the devil was too cunning for him frustrated his wishes. They appeared a little diverted at my curious ideas, though I thought, not very well pleased; they said, however, that as it was my faith to be orderly and promote union, my sentiments would do no injury, provided I would keep them to myself, and they earnestly requested I would do so. The truth is, I endeavored at all times, both before as well as after this interview, to avoid needless controversies and strife-engendering arguments; yet, when I was in company with those who were accustomed to reflection and who supposed they had a right to think, we were quite apt to change a few words on the subject. And being often attacked by those who were opposed to the principles of the new system, I felt no great reluctance in making such replies, and using such arguments, as I thought would explain my own views, without giving offence: and I also seriously believed, that a full understanding of the leading principles, would add much to the comfort of our society, by restraining useless censures and afflicting reproaches, of which we were sometimes guilty. Although I felt fully convinced that the foundation principles of the new system were true, yet, when I considered / the very irrational state of society at large I felt rather scrupulous of their immediate practice; but I was very desirous that the experiment should be made, and exceedingly anxious for its prosperity; for I had long entertained a desire to see what could be done on the free principles of reason, unfettered by tradition and superstition; though without the least intention of leaving my own society to engage in any other, neither would I have exchanged my condition for any other society on earth. – I was also desirous to know something of the general character of the population at New-Harmony – their understanding of the principles of the new system – their views of its practice, and their strength of determination to proceed. But as I lived at too great a distance to get much information that could be depended on, I wrote a letter to Mr. Owen, requesting him to send me a correct account

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

347

of the New-Harmony affairs, and if he had made any publications containing a more full explanation of the principles of the new system, to direct me how to procure one. It was an order among us, when a private member prepared written communications to send abroad, to first present them to the Elders, in order to have them examined, and (if any errors) corrected: and as I had always complied with this order, I chose not to violate it in that case; so accordingly, after I had written my letter I presented it to three of them together, expecting they would object to its being sent. As I have the letter yet in my possession, and feeling doubtful that among other misrepresentations, some of them have also misrepresented its contents, I shall here take the liberty to insert it. The letter was as follows: “As making long apologies is a deviation from that simplicity dear to every worthy mind, I shall not use many words in excusing the freedom I have taken in writing to an entire stranger, though no doubt, a sincere friend. A few weeks ago I read, with much satisfaction, a pamphlet written by you, containing the principles of your present / society. Most of the sentiments in that publication appear to me very rational, and I have no hesitation in saying I believe them to be correct. But I should reasonably suppose that the great ignorance, superstition and insensibility in the minds of most people, will be a great hinderance to the immediate and extensive reception of such sentiments and produce some difficulty in those who may first attempt to put them into, practice. I fervently desire your success, and feel exceedingly anxious to receive some correct information of the present condition of your Community: but as I live at a distance, and have not a suitable opportunity of visiting your society, I hope you will not consider it an imposition on your charity, if I request of you to favor me with a few lines containing an account of the number of your members and their present appearance of prosperity; whether they, as a body, feel fully confirmed, and whether they have acquired, (as far as could be expected,) a real understanding of the foundation principles of their profession; for it is one thing to profess, and another to have a complete understanding of what is professed. I should also like to hear your own sentiments concerning religion; whether you believe in the necessity or propriety of any order of religious worship; or whether you believe that that love, peace, union and friendship, consequently existing in your society, when it shall have arrived to expected perfection, will be fully sufficient to complete the happiness of its subjects. But the greatest request I have to make is, that you will send me instructions how and where I may procure one of the largest and most intelligible publications of your sentiments in general; or if you have any by you, if you will forward me one by the bearer of these lines, * * * he will make you satisfactory compensation. Should you feel kindly disposed to indulge these friendly requisitions, you will excite the gratitude of one who is

348

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

a sincere friend and well-wisher to every attempt of lessening the sorrows, and increasing the joys of our fellow-creatures.” / After the Elders had looked over the letter, instead of making objections, they remained altogether silent; but I thought their looks manifested some dissatisfaction. As one of our members intended passing though New-Harmony in a short time, I committed the letter to his care, requesting him to hand it to Mr. Owen if at home, and if not, to some other member of the society. But when our brother returned, the letter returned with him. I asked him it the Elders did not persuade him not to deliver the letter; he said they did not, but as he was so disgusted with the feelings and infidelity of the people at Harmony, he determined not to leave the letter. However, the next day he told me that my question the preceding day in the presence of so many of the brethren, brought him into a close place; he added, that the Elders did not request him to keep the letter concealed, but intimated as though they wished he would forget it, or something like that. About this time, one of our neighbors commenced receiving the New-Harmony Gazette, and as one of our young men in another family was anxious to know what these papers contained, he borrowed one of the numbers, intending to give it a private perusal; but before he had an opportunity, one of the Elders happening to get it into his hands, he conveyed it to the ministry.* This excited a spirit of independence, in some or our people, who, rather than be priest-ridden, borrowed some of the numbers and read them openly. Priesthood, priestcraft, and superstition, had now become a subject of familiar conversation with some. – Others expressed an alarm at the swift increase of what they called infidelity – the priests began to get jealous of their power, and many looked out for a storm. Though many were more or less tainted with what were called heretical feelings, yet I felt very confident if the priests / did arise in the power of their might to suppress our liberality, that their heaviest blows would be directed at me. But as I had never seen among them any great manifestation of tyranny over the conscience, especially in nonessential points of speculation, or sentiments that had no injurious effects on practice, I could hardly persuade myself that they would carry the matter to a very great extent. And when I examined their own publications, and saw how justly and how completely in its own color, they had represented the matchless wickedness of that spirit of persecution in professed christians, against supposed heretics, I could not see how they could have the effrontery to defend themselves with the very same malicious and cruel weapons which they had publicly exposed in the presence of a scrutinizing world, as being the immediate fruit of the flesh – cause of desolating wars – torrents of *

I afterwards learned, that the Ministry and Elders had combined together to make war with what they called infidelity; and prevent, if possible, the reception of all communication from New-Harmony.

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

349

blood – the most dreadful bane of Heaven, and grand ingredient of Hell. But in this, I afterwards found by experience, I was a little mistaken. About this time, one of the females of the Ministry, sent me a very friendly request to write for her a few verses of poetry; and as I did not wish to manifest any feelings of disrespect, I concluded to do so, but felt much at a loss for a proper subject. But as those preeminent feelings of self-superiority which, of course, exist more or less in all people, who hold the old doctrine of merit and demerit, were often distinguished among us by the name of Big I, I concluded to take this for my subject, by personating those, feelings under the character of a hypocritical religionist. Though many, among us had made great advancement in the lovely feelings of equality; yet, the hateful sense of preferment still existed among us to that degree, which, I believe, produced more affliction in our society than any other evil, notwithstanding all our misdirected exertions against it. Under these impressions, I wrote the following lines, and sent them to the person for whom they were written. / I’ve been to the regions of hell, Almost to the gulf of despair; And if you will listen, I’ll venture to tell Which is the worst spirit that’s there. Though many are raging around Whose names are too tedious to call, Religious Big I has for ever been found To do greater mischief than all. With eyebrows most saintly drawn down, He puts on a sanctified face: He’ll wheedle and flatter, he’ll smile and he’ll frown, To manifest wonderful grace. His friendship to all he’ll extend, Who calmly submit to his nod; But those who reject him, his honor offend, Such, loudly, he threatens with God. Then God and his laws he’ll explain, – His wisdom, his power, and pelf;18 But all his suggestions, so foolish and vain, Make God a proud fool like himself. A being exalted, indeed, With wrathful Omnipotence clad: There all must acknowledge and honor him Head, – Or else he gets instantly mad.

350

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2 But let a poor Lazarus rise, In other’s good-will and esteem – Religious Big I seemeth under surprize, For fear he’ll be equal with him. But how to bring Lazarus down, And, how he himself may keep high, Is now the old hypocrite’s greatest concern, – So now let us see what he’ll try. – At first, more religious he’ll grow, And artfully feign to be good: The Pharisee’s trumpet himself he will blow, For fear he’ll not be understood. Of Laz’rus he’ll speak in disguise, And color his language so well, To misrepresent him he’ll almost tell lies, At least, the whole truth he’ll not tell. / Now, would it look foolish and lame To draw an inference from hence? – That this old deceiver is not much to blame Because he has got no more sense: For could the old idiot see Where true peace and comfort doth grow, He’d love to be lowly, be equal and free, Nor be like his God any more.

A few days afterwards I saw the person to whom I had sent the verses, and she professed to be well pleased with them; saying, that she did not care how many attacks were made on Big I, for he must be destroyed. But I have understood since, that some of the Ministry considered the verses to be a slur on them; and have spoken of them as such, in order to excuse the violence of their oppressive dealings towards me afterwards. Although I meant no exclusive personalities, the truth is, the verses were applicable to all who believe in the doctrine of selfcreated merit, and a self-determining principle in the will; for such a doctrine compels every one who believes it, to be in some degree a tyrant, or else uncommonly charitable. I was then reading a book called The History of the Devil, belonging to one who had lately become a member of our family. While I was conversing with him one evening on the subject of his book, I advanced some ideas which he thought were a little different from what had been stated to him by other professors of our faith: and as it was the peculiar office of George19 to pay particular attention to young believers in giving them instructions, our new member hastened to him, wishing to know how it was that our views were dif-

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

351

ferent; for, said he, I thought you were all of one faith. This account being a little distressing to George, he went to the Ministry with further complaints of my infidelity; asserting, that my heresy was injurious to young believers; and a few evenings after I was sent for to the house, into the room occupied by the Elders. When I entered the room I found Elder Samuel,20 (one of / the Ministry) and the two Elders of our family, all seated, On Elder Samuel’s observing, that he wished to have an interview with me, I discovered his feelings were more than usually irritated. He commenced the discourse by asking me what we all meant by the word priest, that there was so much talk about? I answered, that I knew not what others meant by a priest, but I could readily tell what meaning I attached to the word. After I had explained myself, he asked me if I did not think that Jesus Christ was a priest? I answered, if he was, he was a very different character from what I had explained. He then asked me if I did not think that Jesus Christ believed in the doctrine of praise and blame, rewards and punishments, &c., and then mentioned a passage of scripture which appeared as though he did. I answered, I could not tell whether he used such expressions in order to render himself intelligible to the general senses and dark understanding of the people in that day, or whether he really believed in that doctrine. I also mentioned a passage, which, I said, bore the appearance of a full conviction of natural rewards and punishments, but not in artificial rewards and punishments: where it stated, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!” As much as to have said, did they sufficiently understand the science of cause and effect, so far as to comprehend the afflicting consequences of such a persecuting and murderous spirit, it would be impossible for them to feel disposed to act so cruelly; but as they are ignorant, O Father, forgive them. I also insisted, that there could be no other just grounds for forgiveness. We had not proceeded far in the conversation before I discovered, that his questions were so imperative, and his replies so satirical, that I was in some danger of being priest-ridden; consequently I determined to be very plain and independent. He then asked me if I did not believe in the existence of God. I answered, not in such a God as was generally represented, possessing all the vainglorious, vindictive and inimical qualities that were commonly / attributed to him. He asked me if I ever prayed? I observed, he had often told us that God was no where to be found unto salvation, but in our Elders – that in them, and in each other, were the only places to find, respect, love, and serve God; and if that was true, why, said I, should we pray to any one else: though I told him, I did pray all the time. He asked me to whom? I replied, sometimes to one, sometimes to another, and often to myself; for as prayer was nothing more than the cravings and desires of the mind, every time I requested the kindness or assistance of one, I called it prayer; and as feelings of love and respect towards others were very comforting, I frequently labored with or in my own mind to increase in feelings

352

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

of respect and gratitude for favors received from others, and that I called praying to myself. – But to pray to an out-of-sight and unknown God, I hardly thought necessary; for I did not suppose him to be such a fool as to go contrary to his own immutable laws, his own nature and own self, to answer all my little whims, especially when I considered, that being ignorant, I might request something of him, that if granted, might be a great injury to me. After talking some time in this manner, he said, there was no difference in his faith and mine, in substance, but that I had a different way of explaining myself, and he desired I would quit it; saying, that I ought to use such language as became the gospel, so that I might be understood, and not be an injury to the weak. He likewise rebuked me for not fulfilling their requisitions made a few months before, when they cautioned me to speak these things no further. Not long after this, I understood, that John Dunlavy was appointed to purge out heresy from the Church, and was making great exertions with different individuals in a private manner, to convince them of their errors, saying (in order to frighten them) he was determined to purge out all infidelity, if he did not leave twenty-five members in the whole society. Some had already received warning of my pernicious sentiments, while others were making / daily exertions to convict me of my errors. One presented me with a chapter of John’s Manifesto, where he had argued on the necessity of man’s conduct as proceeding from motives; but unfortunately John’s manner of reasoning destroyed itself. He had fairly argued that man’s actions were impelled, or influenced by motives, and that these motives were not originally in himself; – that though he was generally led by such motives as were intrinsically inferior, yet to him, they were the superior and strongest; for, said he, if we do not admit this truth, we have no rule of reasoning. He then went on to state that man was blameable, for not examining the different motives of his actions, so as to distinguish between the evil and the good, – the inferior and the superior or moral motives: but he did not state that man could have no will or disposition to make this necessary examination, unless it were first created in him by some motive or object without, which, according to his own argument, he did not within himself possess; – here was his error, and so plain a contradiction I thought, that every one might easily see it, were they not uncommonly blind. It was about the middle of November, 1825, and on Thursday night, that two of the Ministry and John Dunlavy made their appearance in our family meeting: I was very unwell at that time and sat by the fire, while the family stood up in their usual manner in meeting. Elder Samuel commenced speaking, by saying, the time had come that some could not endure sound doctrine, but were heaping up to themselves teachers having itching ears, &c. He continues to state that there were great heresies creeping in among us, which, without a stop would ruin some of our souls. He insisted, that any thing contrary to the simple faith of the

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

353

Gospel as had been taught by our Ministry, and which had produced such good effects among us, ought to be carefully avoided. He spoke with great indignation, which swiftly increased with his words, till at length, in a very imperative manner he called out my name, observing, he did not consider / that I had the faith of the Gospel at all, requesting the family, to reject my sentiments, shun my company, and cut me off from all union and fellowship, until I would renounce my vile stuff (as he called it), confess my errors, and reform my manner of conversation. After pronouncing many more severe sentences, he ceased speaking, and was succeeded by Rufus,21 another of the Ministry. Rufus said no great deal more, than express his approbation of what Elder Samuel had said. John Dunlavy, the third and most powerful champion of the orthodox cause, next stepped out, with all the majesty of an antichristian inquisitorial judge, and as if ready to burst with holy indignation, he raised his thundering voice in all the anathematizing accents of sacerdotal power: bitter were the curse, many the reproaches, and dreadful the holy invectives that flowed from his sacred lips. He said, while the first inhabitants remained at Harmony, as they were an honest, respectable, and cross-bearing people, that we made no anxious inquiries about them; but now, as it was inhabited by a set of infidels, and likely to become a place of debauchery and pollution, there were a number of us so anxious to get news concerning them, that we were strolling all over the neighborhood gathering up their papers. And in vain, said he, might we plead it as a natural right; for he wanted us to know, that when we came into the Gospel, we had no natural rights, but had given them all up for a right to the Spirit. These and the like abusive sentences he poured forth with unrelenting fury for some time; and then spoke of my heresy in such a manner as completely misrepresented my sentiments; saying, that I denied the existence of God, &c. Then, as though his long-taught reverend tongue was not sufficient to heap on me a sufficient number of reproachful epithets, with heavy stamps on the floor, and in the most contemptible voice he exclaimed, – An abominable heretic! Bringing in damnable heresies! Imposing on the work of God, and intruding on his people! Then, in the most peremptory manner called on the family to / pass me by as they would a dog, until I would either go away, or confess my abominable heresy and one-sided stuff, which came from hell, and would carry all to hell who should have any thing to do with it. Though it was considered by some almost blasphemy to interrupt an Elder while addressing a family,* yet I could not forbear calling on John while he was so scandalously misrepresenting me, requesting him to explain to the family what my real sentiments were; and not persecute me so unjustly by misrepresenting *

I have known a member to be sharply rebuked for even looking at an Elder while he was speaking to the family.

354

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

them. He made no reply, but continued his abuses so far that it had an effect contrary to his design; for instead of prejudicing the family against me, they considered it such a scandalous abuse of power, and exercise of priestly tyranny, that they manifested more kindness to me afterwards, than they had ever done before: George being the only one in the family that obeyed that gift of God to pass me by as they would a dog. After John had discharged the whole volley of his dogmatical bulls and come to a cessation, the two Elders and Eldresses of the family spoke in rotation, expressing their union and approbation of what had been said before; but George exerted himself in such a particular manner as can only be understood by those who are best acquainted with the unmanly zeal of a young priest in presence of his superiors, whose warm approbation and loud applause he is striving to gain. The family was now brought into a close place: obedience to the gifts or requisitions of the Elders was the only political bond of union that had held them together for some years, and which had rendered them exceedingly dear to each other. And now they were called upon by this unheard of gift to treat with contempt, one who had never been, while with them, guilty of one single crime, nor had spoken one word against their orders and government. The male part of the family, particularly as they understood the whole affair, and knowing it to be / a grievous misrepresentation and false accusation, felt much disgusted. The females, as they were unacquainted with the cause of this boisterous scene, stood confounded and astonished; supposing, as some of them afterwards said, that I would have been the last person among them, the object of such public contempt and vindictive anathemas. But now it was, I must either leave the society or confess my errors; or else the family must treat me with the greatest contempt or be disobedient to the Elders, their only center of influence and bond of union – But as part of the family knew, and the other part believed, that I was much imposed on, they manifested great kindness towards me. This alarmed the priests, who, fearing the consequences, made all possible exertions to influence the family against me. In dismal colors they represented the dreadful consequences of disobedience to the gift of God, and displayed the glorious consequences of obedience in all the beauties that language could express, or imagination survey. They called their attention to the wonderful improvements already made among them by the gospel – their love and union – peace and tranquility – great comforts – their soul-pleasing innocence and spotless chastity, and their exalted happiness when compared with the state of the world; all of which, they asserted, was in consequence of obedience to the gift and order of God. The family being much distressed and not knowing what to do, a wonderful contest took place between their feelings, reason, sense of liberty, goodness of their disposition, and their long-imbibed sentiments of obedience to the priests. Some of them expressed a determination to rebel against the gift, rather than use

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

355

me unkindly, and I was determined not to go away unless it was the wish of the majority of the family. The Elders well knew that it was extremely repugnant to my feelings to leave the society, and I believe they thought, rather than do so, I would willingly acknowledge myself to be in an error. They also well knew that I had been some time under affliction and was very weak; and supposing / my weakness of mind to be in proportion to my bodily weakness, I fully believe, they took that advantage to extort from me a confession. But in that, they were mistaken; for, before I would have acknowledged that to be false, which I not only believed but knew to be true, I would have suffered any punishment that an inquisition could have inflicted. The next night in meeting, the same gift was renewed with great fury, though the Elders said but little to me in private until Saturday morning. On that morning, an elderly brother belonging to the church, one who ought to be beloved by every friend of sincerity, virtue, and mental liberty, came to see me. This venerable patron of right cousness and equality, had passed through several scenes himself, something similar to the present, and had always been fortunate enough to abate the fury of the priests by such acknowledgments (or rather explanations) as gave satisfaction, without either contradicting himself, or renouncing his reason. He told me had frequently advanced ideas that others pretended to have stumbled at, and as he was called on to give satisfaction in such cases, he had stated his regret in causing any wound or uncomfortable feelings in any person by what he had said, and that he was sorry they were influenced by it, &c. This kind of acknowledgment, he said, had given satisfaction without in the least weakening the influence of truth. I told him I had been accused of instilling into the minds of others, erroneous sentiments, in consequence of which they had taken the liberty of indulging themselves in evil works; but I was confident the accusation was false; for, I said, take it would certainly be impossible for any person to be so mistaken in any thing that ever I have advanced, as to take from thence the least license in any evil action; but I told him, if I could be made the least sensible of any thing of the kind, I would, without fail, give proper satisfaction. I then requested him, for his own satisfaction, to go with me to the Elders of the family, and there make such inquiries as would fully ascertain all facts relative / to my accusation. We accordingly went and had a long interview with the Elders. We stated to the Elders our design, telling them, if any person had been guilty of the smallest evil in consequence of any thing I had said, we wanted such persons brought forward, that the real truth of the matter might be made known. They said, my doctrines had produced great weakness in the family, and some individuals had received them so far as to actually cause them to violate their own faith. We again requested, that those persons might be brought forward, and either confirm or deny the assertion. They seemed reluctant at first to comply; but after further insisting, one of the Elders went out and brought in a young brother as a witness to

356

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

the truth of what they said. But the young man having no disposition to be a witness in such an ecclesiastical court, looked round with a degree of embarrassment, and then withdrew. I observed to the Elders, they could produce no witness, and that I well knew the accusation to be without any just foundation. They replied, that I had been a weight and burden to the family, ever since I had been in it; and as they were acquainted with the feelings of the family, their words were sufficient, and that they had no right to advance any other proof, nor I to ask it; saying, I ought to put confidence in what they said. I told them, if they would bring one person in the family, that would say they ever felt me a burden or cause of weakness to them, I would be satisfied. They then said that they themselves were of the family, asserting, that I had much injured their feelings. I insisted they were not, but belonged to the Church, and had only come out to our family as directors and not as members. I then observed, that I had no right to put more confidence in them without proof, than in the words of others; but if they would bring one person or persons that would say they ever heard me say any thing disrespectful of their orders or principles of government in the society, or ever saw me guilty of one immortal action since I had been in the society, I would make a proper / acknowledgment. I further stated, if they could bring any person or persons throughout the whole community, that would say, they ever felt me a pest or hinderance to them in any respect, – or if any of the various deacons, under whose directions I had ever been employed would not say, they had ever found as little difficulty in gaining my consent to perform my duty in manual labor as with any other person, I would certainly confess, to have been in an error. I went further still, saying, that if they would trace all my conduct, through the various scenes of life from my youth to the present moment, and would produce one person that could accuse me of one immoral or unjust action, I would yet confess any fault. But said I, you cannot do it; and yet, you want to drive me away from the agreeable society of a loving people, who are more near and dear to me, than any others on earth; a people with whom I have lived for more than seven years, conducting myself in such a manner as have secured their warmest respect and utmost confidence, neither is there one among them that in the least desires my absence, and well you know it. And yet, said I, you pretend to act as God’s Ministers and Christ’s Plenipotentiaries on earth, holding the keys of heaven and hell! Saying, that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. I cannot see, said I, how you can possibly reconcile to yourselves such conduct; but if you can, go on, – expecting, as you say, to be accountable to your God, – and your God and you for it.

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

357

They said they did not pretend to impeach me with any other improper conduct than corrupting the minds of the young and weak in faith.* The substance of these last words with many more, was uttered in the presence of the elderly brother, who stood a silent spectator of all that passed; and though I have never seen him since, nor likely ever shall again, I believe he felt convinced, that my / only crime was truth, and all this disturbance was unjustly created by the Elders. After dinner the Elders called me again into their room, saying; that the young man before spoken of was now ready to state to my satisfaction, wherein and how I had been injurious to him. I went in, and when we were all quietly seated, they requested him to commence; but he still appeared to be a little reluctant to speak, and on their asking him what he was afraid of, and telling him not to be afraid of me, I also requested him to speak; freely, saying, if from any false notion he had received from me, he had violated his faith, that I did not want him to state the crime, but simply to tell whether it was the case or not; he said it was not, in one single instance. They called him a liar, and asked him if he did not say things in my presence, that he would not like to have said in the presence of Elder Samuel. He said he did. They then said he had certainly violated his faith, or else he would have been willing to speak the same words in Elder Samuel’s presence. I said that could be no proof of their assertion; for people whose views were similar could often converse very freely together, when they would hardly be willing to do so in the presence of those whose sentiments were opposite, especially such as thought it their prerogative to govern the faith and control the conscience of others. They then used various others means to extort some confession from him, but all in vain. What appeared much to aggravate their feelings was, I still held to my first principles; telling them, although they treated me so cruelly, yet I did not blame them; for I supposed they thought it was according to the mind and will of God, for them so to control circumstances as to make me confess my sentiments to be wrong, or else leave the society; insisting that their conduct to me was nothing more than creating circumstances, which proved that doctrine to be true. – They replied, such talk as that looked like placing my judgment above theirs, and as much as to say, that they / ought to look to me for instruction, instead of me to them.† Next day, as I was sitting in the room by myself, George came in and took a seat close by; and after remaining some time in profound sanctified silence, he asked me what I had concluded on; I told him, I still intended to act my own faith, and live a life of undeviating righteousness. He then asked me if I was willing to confess my errors? I replied, he might save * †

Whether this resembles the old Popish Inquisition or not, I leave all candid minds to judge. I really felt sorry for these poor priests; fur they had so long considered themselves to be those high-favored saints who were to judge the whole world, that such sentiments as mine must of course wound their feelings exceedingly.

358

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

himself the trouble of asking that question any more, for I never would confess that to be false, which his conduct and every thing else convinced me was true. He then asked me where I got my faith? I told him it was impossible for me to enumerate the countless multiplicity of causes which had created various impressions on my mind, and which had formed my judgment exactly what it was. He then asked me if I did not receive my faith from them, saying, if I did not, I had no business there. I told him, I certainly had received a great portion of it from them; for I had discovered, they possessed great art in controling circumstances so as to bring people into subjection; I further stated that I was still willing to receive more instructions from them, or any one else who was able to give them; for without considerable information, I thought it impossible to always act prudently. Night came on, and we were all again assembled in meeting. The first Elder of the family attempted to speak, but in vain; distressing thoughts had overwhelmed his soul and overpowered all his organs of speech; then falling on his knees in extreme agony he burst aloud into tears. We all followed his example, and a general lamentation pervaded our once cheerful and loving family. When we arose he pronounced dismission, and all began to retire. At that time I felt a strong impression to make a few statements, more particularly to the female part of / the family, in defending my own innocence of the cause of this unspeakable distress. I commenced speaking, but the first Eldress of the family turned round, and in a scornful manner bid me be silent. I continued, but George, the second Elder, began to stamp on the floor in a violent manner, and to scream so prodigiously loud, that he drowned my voice. After this noisy scene was ended, George went immediately to the Ministry to get instructions how to proceed; and they (as I suppose) bid him come home – assemble the females together – give them instructions how to do, and then conduct me into the room to speak to them. He did so, and invited me in – I declined – he insisted – I consented, and we went in together; the first Elder also accompanied us. I began to speak, but was stopped by George, who in a very scornful manner pronounced several contradictions. When he ceased, I began again, and was immediately stopped by the first Eldress, who impertinently contended that I ought to humble myself to the gift of God, and confess my faults as they had done. I asked her what faults? calling on her to mention even one. She said she did not allege to my charge any immoral conduct – that I was a good moral man, but not a spiritual man. Then George said – even George – Tell it not in America – publish it not in the land of liberty, lest rational minds for ever abhor the name of priest! – George said, that even admitting I was altogether innocent, and the Elders were the cause of this confusion, yet I ought to humble myself down to the gift of God, and make confession; and if I refused to do so, I ought to go to hell, with all my vile stuff and heresy, from whence it came. He then stated, that I had said, if I did not respect that family more than I did the Ministry, I should

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

359

not desire to stay there, and that he requested they would cut me off and send me to hell, where I belonged. Here I shall call the attention, for a moment of the liberal minded, to behold the powerful influence of priestcraft over some of these ignorant, though innocent females, / causing some of them to say that for which they shortly afterwards expressed the deepest regret. Part of these females then spoke, saying it was their intention to be obedient to the gift of God, and if I would not, they replied “let him go.” How many spoke I could not ascertain; but I thought there were nearly half; though I have understood since there were not near so many. They again fell on their knees and wept bitterly, and some begged me not to go away.* While they were all on their knees, I again began to speak; but the cunning Eldress, fearing the consequences, arose and withdrew, requiring the others to follow her example. The next morning in meeting at the request of the Elders, several of the brethren expressed their determination of living in obedience to their own faith and gift of God; though there was but one of them that mentioned my name, or expressed the least intention of conducting towards me as the Elders had commanded. The matter had now grown quite serious; I discovered I must either withdraw, or a total division in the family was inevitable. I conversed with many of the brethren on the subject, telling them I was completely at their disposal; that they were well acquainted with the circumstances, and could draw a very correct idea of the consequences – that it was far from my wish to bring any affliction on one of them, and if they in the least required it, I would withdraw. Some of them expressed a strong determination to act towards me with as much friendship and kindness as they had ever done, let the consequences be what they might, and others appeared unwilling to express their real feelings; neither in fact did they know what to say, or how to do in such a case. I considered the matter again and again; I knew the uncomfortable situation in which they would be placed, if they were turned away from there. All their interest, friendship, and every other source of comfort they had on earth, was there, and their habits of life were so different / from any other people, I knew they were but poorly qualified to live in the old world again; not only so, though a number of them had a considerable understanding of the propriety of the sentiments for which I was condemned, yet I knew the minds of many were not sufficiently enlightened, to excuse their conscience in leaving that work which they had long been taught was the only and final work of God. I concluded, however, after mature refection, that the most rational method would be to leave the society. My brother, Richesson Whitbey,22 had been sent by the Ministry, from the church to our family the preceding spring, to assist us in our domestic affairs; we being at that *

They have been taught to consider it a very awful thing to leave their society; as eternal damnation would be the inevitable consequence.

360

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

time considerably in debt, and in great need of some experienced one to conduct our business. And as he was considered by the Elders another champion of heresy, they wished to invent some means to get rid of him also; they accordingly requested him to desist from all business, saying the family were dissatisfied with his proceeding. This was well known to every one to be very far from correct, and a gross misrepresentation; for which they had no other foundation (that ever I could hear of ) than an observation of a young brother, when contending with an Elder in my defence, asking him the reason why they were not as severe with my brother as with me; insisting, that he had the same sentiments. My brother, seeing so much injustice, oppression, and tyranny exercised by the priests towards me and others, and feeling more of it directed at himself than he felt willing to bear, became so much disgusted, that he resolved to leave the society; and on Monday the 21st of November, 1825, we left Pleasant Hill together. And is it so! Adieu, thou blest abode of many a Noble, many a generous soul, adieu! No more I walk thy peaceful streets, No more I claim thee, sweetest home! And O! ye meek and lowly objects Of my kindest love, farewell! No more I join your social band, / No more I hear your cheerful songs! Harmless people! Fair Wisdom’s bounteous hands already have Bestow’d on you, superior bliss; But still she waits, with anxious hope and kind Concern, ’till her resplendent rays shall so Illuminate your minds, that she, with great Delight, may yet on your devoted heads Her most refin’d and choicest blessing pour: Till then, ye lovely partners of my sweetest joys, Farewell!

Although the Shakers are a misrepresented and persecuted people, I well know, they hold a superior place among the various societies of the world, in practical virtue; and though many among them have an excellent understanding, yet as a society, they need a little improvement. And I really believe if them had such an understanding of the eternal and immutable laws of necessity, so as to act in all cases from a conviction of propriety instead of priestly restraint, they would be enabled thereby, so to control and govern circumstances, as would raise them in a short time to the utmost height of human perfection. Then they would be saved from all the evils of numerous little reproaches and reprehending charges, by which in some measure, they still afflict each other; and which

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

361

must consequently exist in the minds of all, who hold the old idea of the power of controlling the choice: They would also be free from all the painful sensations of those envies and jealousies that naturally arise from the long-imbibed notions of superior merit and distinction. They also profess to believe, that their society is susceptible of great improvements, and must and will gradually progress until all its subjects are completely happy. But while they retain the false, ridiculous, and unreasonable ideas of God which are generally professed, a great improvement cannot be expected. And as the world is becoming every day more and more enlightened, liberal minds will discover the great impropriety of going / back to the dark ages of antiquity for a revelation of the will, nature and qualities ascribed by our superstitious ancestors, to an incomprehensible, supreme, and all-powerful cause of all existence; and will consequently refuse to be governed by those possessing such absurd notions, though their examples and rules of practice might be very excellent. Therefore I naturally conclude, that without more toleration and liberality of sentiment should find a place in the Shaker’s Society, it must finally fall. Their strange conduct towards me was, perhaps, the first transaction exactly of the same kind that ever occurred throughout their various societies; and an occurrence, in plain contradiction to all their public writings, and all their ministrations to strangers and young believers. Neither can I yet believe, that I should have met with the same kind of treatment, from almost any other set of Elders with whom I have ever been acquainted; but as Elder Samuel is a man, well known to be uncommonly ambitious, I suppose he would have gone to very great lengths, rather than to have suffered the least contradiction. But why did I receive such cruel treatment? Was it for a difference of opinion relating to rules and orders of practical life? No; for they fairly acknowledged, that my faith and theirs was, in substance, exactly the same. But their only impeachment was, that in the explanation of my sentiments I did not use gospel language – that my manner of explanations were calculated to weaken the faith of others, and not strengthen it. If they had said, that my language was not according to theological mysteries – that my manner of explanations were calculated to strengthen the faith of others, and not destroy it, they would have been very nearly correct; for they well knew, I was always a zealous defender of their moral practices, and all essential orders and rules. But the only difference between us was, that my arguments in pleading the propriety and necessity of such rules, were founded on the natural, necessary, and / consequential effects or good practice, and theirs on (as they laid) the revealed will of God. However; I had no objections to the term revealed will of God, for I considered the words God and good to be synonymous; and as reveal signifies to make known, I felt very anxious that good should swiftly be made known; neither did I care how it came, so we got it. But to suppose that good, or truth, could

362

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

only be made known through a certain order of priests, were ideas I could not so well understand; but then, I was very willing the priests should stand as legislators so long as they granted liberty of conscience, but if that was denied, I could no longer consider it the revealed will of God. I can hardly afford to leave this subject, with out making a few remarks on those particular ideas for which I was accused of heresy. And here I must observe, that their own conduct towards me; was a full proof that they themselves believed in the very same doctrine, which they condemned in me; for their speaking and acting as they did, was only, so to create such circumstances or causes, as would influence me either to renounce my sentiments, or leave the society: and yet they, at the same time, professed to have no such faith, saying, they were guided by the Spirit of Christ. And as to the subject of no praise and blame, at which they were so much offended, they cannot condemn it let them try in whatever manner they may. For, admitting the doctrine of the fall of man and our natural depravity to be true; we are not to blame for it – we did not make ourselves, neither could we prevent Adam from eating the forbidden fruit; for that crime was long before our existence. And if, in consequence of that act, we have become completely under the control of an innate principle of evil, or an abstract spirit called Devil, who by some secret, fraudulent means, unknown to us, diffuses into our minds wicked desires and improper feelings, I ask, how in the name of common sense can we help it! or, why should we be blamed! For, according to their own doctrine, we have no control over / the Devil, until we receive the power from God; of course then, we ought not to be blamed, till God gives us that power; neither ought we to be praised, when he does; for they say, “it is not ourselves, but of God.” I ask, then, why do we praise ourselves and feel so important about it? But they say, the Gospel is administered by them unto all who will receive it, and our blame consists, is not being willing to receive it. But there lies the whole difficulty; for if we are so completely under the power of the Devil that our natures are directly opposite to all that is good, how can we be willing to receive anything else? And if they say, that they by the Spirit of God are able to create in others a will to receive the Gospel, and a disposition to practice righteousness, it only proves my sentiments to be true, by saying, that they are the circumstances or causes, which produce the consequential effects: but it would, by no means follow, that the subject of this reformation are just objects of praise, merely for their obedience to that principles of righteousness which was created in them by others. But if they say, that the merit consists in the willingness to receive, I must again insist, that according to their own doctrine of universal depravity, we cannot posses this willingness, until God by some means or other creates it in us; and that idea would fairly prove the doctrine of circumstances. But should they go so far as to contradict their own doctrine of universal depravity, by saying, that some are good enough to possess within themselves the

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft

363

virtuous principle of righteousness, and a will to do good, I would argue, that even these some did not make themselves, and of course, could not be proper objects of praise, on account of their own goodness. It may be asked by some, if the ideas of merit and praise, and a sense of religious obligation, were destroyed, – what motive or stimulation could we have, to excite us to virtuous actions? I answer, a sense of our own mental, social, and physical wants – which are, in fact, the only moving principles of our conduct, let our attention be directed to whatever / objects it may; and the more we know ourselves, and the better we understand our wants, and the causes which necessarily produce the means to satisfy our wants, the more virtuous we shall of course, become. But, poor ignorant man! Because he knows that his voluntary actions are of choice, he is ready to conclude, that he possesses within himself the principle or power of controlling his choice, and governing his own will: not knowing that his wants exist in the very nature of his organization, and that his will is under the control of such circumstances and objects that give him his numerous ideas, and make the various impressions on his mind through the medium of his sense. For were mankind convinced of this they would be anxiously employed in the impartial investigation of all causes and effects, so as to become able to shun every action which would naturally result in affliction, and act in such a manner as to produce for themselves the greatest amount of happiness. They could no longer remain in a scattered situation, or individual society, but would flock together by hundreds into communities of equality, – unite all their interest and exertions together to promote each other’s happiness, and destroy from among them forever all marks of distinction and preferment. And knowing that each other’s characters were formed for and not by themselves, they would not resort to blame and punishments as means of reformation, but each one would act toward all the others, with the greatest kindness possible, in order to administer to them some degree of comfort; knowing that inasmuch as they loved comfort, they would also love the comforter, and of course, love, in return, to administer comfort to the comforter. Thus their union, love, and good feelings would become reciprocal, and their lives, in this heretofore unfriendly world, would become easy and happy. But while people retain the old notions of free will and moral agency, &c. this happy change cannot he expected. For, as people are different in their organization and have been governed / by a great variety of circumstances, (the smallest of which may give a little turn to the character) we need not expect that the honest views and judgment of every one will be precisely alike in all respects; and as every one’s judgment is right in his own eyes, each one will be too apt to quarrel and contend with all, who differ with him in sentiment. And so long as people retain their old irrational views of the nature and character of God, – his proneness to praise and blame his creatures, and his disposition to inflict artificial punishments, or

364

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

give artificial rewards, – we need not expect them to have more rational ideas of themselves and each other. I will here insert a passage taken from a late author. “Professed preachers of the Gospel have said and wrote much in trying to prove that man was a free agent; which doctrine is the broad road to infidelity. – For if man was a free agent, God would be often disappointed, and all prophecy would be guesswork. Because man can go and come, do this or that, he is persuaded that he is a free agent; can serve God, or let it alone, at pleasure. And if so, it had as well be otherwise, as there is not a just man on earth which doeth good and sinneth not: And yet man is a free agent: – Miserable doctrine! that man should assume a power superior to God himself. For if God is unchangeable, he certainly is not a free agent; for if he was a free agent, he could change; but as he is unchangeable, he is not a free agent.” But the flame of truth shines brighter and brighter, enlightening the understanding, refining the feelings, and warming the affections of our most intelligent citizens; – many of whom have assembled together at New-Harmony, and other places, determined to put in practice the principles of the New and Social System, and be partakers of its unspeakable benefits. Yet I am well aware that the former habits and present ignorance of even some of these, will produce some little difficulties, which will take some time to destroy: but many of the more enlightened, / whose views are getting clear on the subject, seeing that the characters of others are formed for, and not by, themselves, do already consider it very irrational to feel the least angry at any. This sentiment is swiftly gaining influence, and I hope, before long, all discordant feeling will be eternally buried in oblivion. The Fourth of July is already passed, and Mental Independence is declared; and many feel themselves now engaged in an irrevocable war against the combined powers of superstition, mystery, and mental bondage; though the weapons of their warfare are not made of iron, steel, nor brass, but are mighty through good works, to the pulling down of superstition, false imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself above all that is called God. Glorious revolution! may thy heroes prosper! The wonderful effects of the New System, time alone can only unfold. – But how lovely would it be, to see nations of people gathered together in small communities of equality, enjoying all the blessings of mental liberty! where superstition, priestcraft, hypocrisy, anger, emulation and distinction, could never come, nor storms of malice ever blow; but where knowledge, liberty, sincerity, kindness, tranquility and equality for ever dwell, and soul-refreshing gales of union and love, enrapture the innocent inhabitants.

WOODS, SHAKERISM UNMASKED

John Woods, Shakerism Unmasked, or, A Narrative, Shewing the Entrance of the Shakers into the Western Country, their Strategems and Devices, Discipline and Economy; Together with what may seem Necessary to Exhibit the True State of the People (Paris, KY: Printed at the Office of the Western Observer, 1826). ‘John Woods who was 17 years among the Bilievers ... being quite a singular man, ambitious of power & popularity in the extreme & withal both weak wild & fanatical in his imaginations, pursued a course while in the society, that in the issue furnished matter for a detail of circumstances which tho frivolous ... were nevertheless so artfully & spitefully directed against all authority in any lead that it served on weak minds to lessen their sense of obligation to those who had the rule’1 – Richard McNemar

John Woods’s Shakerism Unmasked is a very important text for many reasons: (1) it is the longest apostate narrative published by a member of one of the western Shaker communities; (2) Woods was a Shaker for seventeen years; (3) he lived at, or visited, a number of the western communities; and (4) he personally knew most members of the western Shaker leadership. For these reasons his account offers more information about more aspects of western Shaker life than any other apostate account. Woods could be considered the Odysseus of the Shaker west. He first encountered the Shakers along with his Minister, Presbyterian Matthew Houston, at Paint Lick, Kentucky. He was gathered in at the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community, eventually moved to Union Village (where he spent most of his Shaker life), left for Pleasant Hill without authorization from his Elders in 1821, and was sent to live at the West Union, Indiana community as a sort of punishment. Woods was a keen observer, and his account of managing the boys’ order and teaching school in a Shaker community is unique among early nineteenth-century sources. Woods was from Albemarle County, Virginia, near the Shenanadoah Valley. He married Jane Brank, and they had two sons James and Robert. Caught up in the Kentucky Revival, Woods underwent the religious crisis so typical of those reared in the despairing faith of Calvinism. He embraced the New Light – 365 –

366

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

freewill-salvation tenets espoused during the Revival by his minister Matthew Houston at Paint Lick, Kentucky. Woods noted the great levelling spirit of the Revival that brought together ‘the learned and unlearned, the rich and the poor, the bond and the free’ (p. 370, below). After the arrival of the Shaker missionaries in Kentucky in March 1805, Woods and many others at Paint Lick received their testimony. Woods’s account offers a compelling first-person description of what it was like to convert to Shakerism in the west in 1805, with the resultant loss of family and friends, and public ridicule. Woods unashamedly recounts the fanatical devotion of the converted when proselytizing families: ‘Sometimes we had little to say; but then we must do something that we believed we were directed or had a feeling of the spirit to do, such as dancing, walking backwards, or on all fours, or stripping off a part or all of our clothing, as a sign of the naked situation of those for whom we felt the gift’ (p. 378). Woods’s wife Jane despaired when he joined the Shakers – even to the point where John feared she would commit suicide. Eventually, the Shaker Ministry at Union Village, Ohio, instructed John to bring his older son James to Union Village and leave his wife and younger son Robert to their own devices. Woods agonized over this choice, but followed the Ministry’s instruction like a good Shaker. At Union Village, Woods was appointed schoolteacher for the boys with James Smith (son of notorious anti-Shaker Colonel James Smith, who had similarly abandoned his wife and children). The job of raising children for the Shaker community was a particularly difficult and undesirable task. Woods and Smith had the responsibility of educating and disciplining tens of young and teenage boys, as well as living with them. Woods faced recurrent conflict with prominent Union Village member Malcolm Worley, the Shakers’ first convert in the west and a religious zealot of longstanding, over how to raise the children. Worley favoured a non-violent approach centred on prayer and encouragement, while Woods recognized the practical reality that sometimes children needed physical punishment. For a time Woods was relieved from care of the children. However, much to his dismay, he was sent back to the boys order to work with a thoroughly demoralized Ebenezer Morrell. Morrell reported to Woods with horror that since Worley’s methods had held sway the children ‘gratify the propensities of their nature, one with another, like the Sodomites, and in other ways shameful to speak of. Some of them have gone to sheep and cows’ (p. 399, below). Woods took charge with an iron hand, and wrote that some of the boys ‘on a certain occasion, resisted me, and made efforts of defence so formidable, that I was under the necessity of knocking them down, or choaking them’ (p. 404). The Shaker leadership at Union Village, including, Richard McNemar, Calvin Morrell, Samuel Rollins and Robert Baxter were convened to investigate the conflict between Woods and Worley. Woods believed the deck was stacked against him from the beginning, as Worley and McNemar were friends of many years stand-

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

367

ing. However, Woods was absolved of any serious wrongdoing for his care of the boys and was allowed to transfer back to the Church Family. Shortly after this he resolved to leave for the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, without authorization. Woods summarized some of the grievances of his generation of western Shaker converts. Many of his peers died of disease, and the Shakers were unable to heal them, despite their claims of apostolic gifts. The Shakers’ reply was that ‘the power of the Gospel, which they had brought us, performed greater miracles by raising dead souls, than to raise old, rotten bodies’ (p. 393). Woods accused his former minister, and fellow Union Village member Matthew Houston, of laziness, socializing with women and holding considerable private property. Woods admonished him to ‘quit his partialities and work with his own hands, as the rest did – that he should sup rye coffee, and sage tea without sugar, and eat bean porridge, when we did, unless he be sick; and that he should give up his money and his watch, as we had done’ (p. 397). After Woods’s abortive attempt to escape to Pleasant Hill the Union Village Ministry sent him to the disease-plagued West Union, Indiana, community where he was appointed to run the Shakers’ distillery. In Shakerism Unmasked, he alleged that he filled a ten-gallon keg of whiskey for the Ministry and took it their quarters: ‘where it was kindly received by Izachar Bates, and put away to mellow, till they had used what they had on hand. This good old Apostle then said to me, John, this will give you a good chunk of union’ (p. 409). Woods’s discontent with Shaker hierarchy and privilege was not slaked by his time at West Union. He became seriously ill and was finally allowed to return to Pleasant Hill to convalesce. During his residence there he overheard another member say on two different occasions ‘If Jesus Christ was here in person, the Shakers would shoot him’ – which Woods took as evidence that the Shaker leaders were living a lifestyle very far removed from the simple communism advocated by Jesus Christ. This sentiment confirmed Woods’s private views, and he had seen enough of the Shaker world in his seventeen years to finally decide he must leave them. In his narrative he writes: If I stay with the Shakers and forever be silent on my present views of them, I must die, and leave the world under the impression that I had lived and died in that confidence and faith I once had, and boldly declared to many. Should I do this, I evidently saw that I should seal a lie with my last breath, so far as my influence could have effect. From this my soul revolted. To me it seemed almost intolerable to quit the Shakers, after having lived with them so many years; to go again into the world (p. 414).

The Shakers must have been shocked when Shakerism Unmasked was published. Its effect was amplified when Burton W. Carr republished it in its entirety in his 1829 book Gleanings of Religion.1 Carr’s work provided accounts of many religious sects, and Shakerism Unmasked served as the entire section on the Shakers,

368

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

which could not have pleased them. The net effect on the Shakers of Woods’s narrative is hard to determine since during the time it was published the entire Shaker west entered a very difficult period marked by apostasy, lawsuits and the death of the founding generation. It is certain though that Woods’s account did not help the Shakers public image at a time when they were brought under increasing scrutiny through the combined actions of apostates like Eunice Chapman, Mary Dyer and John Whitbey. For the richness of the information it provides Shakerism Unmasked is invaluable to scholars of the early western Shaker movement. In his Diary Richard McNemar gleefully recorded the following reward advertisement for John Woods, who had committed some offense to horrible to be named in the town of Madison, Indiana. McNemar hoped that Woods’ public shaming would ‘serve as an emetic to release the boowels of his readers from the bane of falshood which they have swallowed from his book. 150 Dollars Reward / The above reward will be paid for the apprehension & delivery in Madison Indiana of John Woods who has lately committed in that place a most infamous and unmanly crime[.] Said Woods is about 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high 40 to 45 years of age, spare face, dark hair, fair complection, speaks abruptly ... July 2, 1827.3

Notes 1. 2.

3.

McNemar, Diary, item 254, p. 81. B. W. Carr, Gleanings of Religion, or, A Compilation containing the Natural History of Man – A True Account of the Different Sects in the Religious World; Together with much useful and instructive Information on Various Subjects (Lexington, KY: Joseph G, Norwood, 1829), pp. 212–70. McNemar, Diary, item 254, p. 81–2.

John Woods, Shakerism Unmasked, or, A Narrative, Shewing the Entrance of he Shakers into the Western Country, their Stratgems and Devides, Discipline and Exonom; Together with what may seem necessary to exhibit the True State of the People (Paris, KY: Printed at the Office of the Western Observer, 1826).

Shakerism Unmasked, &c. &c. &c. As this little publication may extend beyond my personal acquaintance, I shall take the liberty of giving a brief history of my life, prior to my union with the Shakers. I was born in Albemarle county, Virginia, the 25th of February 1780. I came with my father, James Woods, to Kentucky, who settled in Garrard county. Having lived with him till I was about twenty one years of age, I married the eldest daughter of Mr. Robert Brank of the same county. By the friendly attention of our parents, we had a comfortable start for a living. They gave us a good tract of land, and other property, necessary for persons in our situation. Not very long after our marriage and settlement, the memorable revival of religion in Kentucky1 look place. My attention was arrested. I reflected upon my former and frequent vows to God, made while I was growing up to manhood, that when I became settled in the world, as I now was, I would no longer live in neglect of my duty to my God, and of my eternal interest. My own appointed time to commence the service of God had now arrived, and I seriously thought that if I neglected it, God would no longer spare my fruitless life. My father and the church to which he belonged, and the greater part of my relatives, who professed religion, were Presbyterians or Baptists of Calvinistic sentiments; and I, being raised up under their instruction and influence, thought, if the doctrine of particular election and / predestination, as I understood them, – 369 –

370

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

were true, there could be no evidence that I should obtain mercy, were I to seek it. Feeling a wretched, depraved heart, I thought it probable that a mark was set upon me in the foreknowledge of God, which destined me to eternal woe with devils and wicked men. Such thoughts depressed my mind almost to desperation. I labored to reform my life, and engaged in the duties of religion; but bondage, darkness and death, were the unceasing burden of my heart for eighteen months, at which period I was happily relieved by the Savior of sinners. I then experienced the peace and joy of God’s people, and greatly delighted in the exercise of praise and thanksgiving. I felt the spirit of the revival then prevailing, the spirit of love and union with all the saints of God, without regard to names or opinions. I think it necessary in the chain of my narrative to give a concise statement of this extraordinary revival, to which I have just alluded. It was preceded by a very great concern among the professors of religion in the western country. In the circle of my acquaintance of the Presbyterian order, the professors greatly lamented their lukewarmness, and past inattention to the duties of religion. It was a time of great repentance and lamentation for sin and formality. The constant and almost universal prayer was, that God would revive his work in the midst of the years. The Lord heard and answered the prayers of his people. A glorious reviving came from his presence, and various were the effects on the different subjects of it. Some, who once thought they had been converted, and brought to the knowledge of the truth, were now crying to God to undeceive them, to remove their false foundations, to take away their refuge of lies, and to establish them on the rock of ages. Others felt such an intolerable weight and deep concern of soul, that their bodies were so cramped or convulsed, that they fell down, helpless and speechless, and had the appearance of death. Some were / thus affected from a sense of the awful displeasure of God against sin, and a consciousness of their own guilt. Others, from views and considerations of the great goodness and love of God, which produced sweet feelings of repentance, with love and joy indescribable and full of glory. These effects were equally seen in the learned and unlearned, the rich and the poor, the bond and the free. Frequently their countenances seemed to shine, and more clearly expressed the heaven within, than the eloquence, which flowed from their tongues. Sometimes their souls were so elevated with the beauty and excellence, which they saw in God and divine things, that they appeared to be unconscious of the passing events of time, and in this frame were often seen to dance like blazing seraphim, while surrounded with hundreds and thousands of gazing spectators, who were differently affected at the sight. Awful solemnity appeared in every face. The report of these extraordinary works roused the country from their long sleep. The people convened together in such large assemblies, that the meeting houses could not contain them. They had to repair to the woods for worship. The preachers were so zealous and pathetic in their addresses, that the attention of

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

371

almost all was arrested. The different denominations of christians became friendly, and attached to each other, and cordially united in preaching, exhorting, praying and singing together; and frequently they were seen together at the Lord’s table. The multitudes at length became so great and the meetings continued so long, that it was found impossible for one neighborhood to support them in the necessaries of life. This inconvenience was remedied by this means. Families far and near brought provisions in waggons and encamped on the ground in tents, made for the purpose. Hundreds and thousands staid at the encampment all night, and continued to keep up their acts of devotion night and day. The forest all around resounded with the cries, groans and prayers of those, who / had retired thither for more private worship; and often their prayers ended in shouts and songs to him that loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood. After this revival had continued two or three years, several of the preachers of the presbyterian order, were censured by their brethren2 for teaching doctrines, contrary to the confession of faith. The names of these preachers, are, Richard McNemar,3 Robert Marshall,4 John Dunlavy,5 Barton W. Stone6 and John Thompson.7 These men were zealously engaged in promoting the revival. They preached a free and full salvation to every creature through faith in the son of God, and humble obedience to the gospel. They rejected all creeds and confessions of faith as authoritative, but the Bible. They said the Bible was the only book that christians should receive as the infallible directory to heaven, and that a proper understanding and practice of its precepts would qualify them for the enjoyment of God in eternity. They urged the necessity of believing in the saviour of the world; and that now was the accepted time and day of salvation. In order to remove a subterfuge, to which many fled from the weapons of truth, saying they could not believe until God gave them faith, until they were regenerated, &c. they endeavored to prove that sinners had sufficient capacity to believe in Christ from the evidences given in his word; and that they believing in him, and coming to him, would be justified, saved and regenerated, by the spirit given them through faith. They preached that God was no respecter of persons; that he was in earnest when he called upon all to repent and believe the gospel unto salvation, and that if any were damned, it would be, because they would not attend to the voice of mercy, which called them to the provisions of the gospel, so freely and fully offered. Their former ideas of atonement they also rejected; as that Christ as a surety in the room and stead of the elect or of mankind, had paid properly, fully and completely, their debts to law and justice; and that by his obedience to the / precepts of the law, and by his sufferings and death to satisfy the demands of justice, the sinner was justified; this obedience or righteousness of Christ being to him imputed for his justification. This whole system they rejected, as unscriptural; alleging that Christ is no where said to be a surety of any men, or all men; that it is no where said in the Bible, that he paid our debts either to law or justice –

372

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

That if he had paid the debt for all men, all must in justice be saved, and if he paid the debt only of the favored elect, then there could be no salvation for others; which they thought contrary to the whole gospel, which proposes salvation to all. They also contended that the plan of atonement they opposed, destroyed the idea of grace and forgiveness; for if the surety fully, properly and completely paid the debt, there could be no grace or forgiveness for God to release the debtor. They contended that the plan not only was contrary to the scripture, but to matter of fact. For the debt to justice was death temporal, spiritual and eternal. They insisted that if Christ had properly, fully and completely paid this debt then were all those for whom he paid it, forever absolved from suffering death, either temporal, spiritual or eternal. This they said was contrary to fact, for all die a temporal death, and all are spiritually dead, till regenerated by the spirit of God. – They farther contended that Christ could not die a spiritual death, without becoming a real sinner in heart – That a holy law, nor a holy God could not demand the payment of such a debt, without demanding that which he every where forbids, that is, sin – that justice could not be satisfied with the payment of such a debt, unles it could be supposed, that justice can be satisfied with sin. That Christ paid fully and properly the debt of eternal death, they declared was contrary to the New Testament, which states that he rose from the dead the third day, and ever liveth to make intercession for us. Their views of atonement, as I understood them, were these. That the word atone simply signified to be at-one or to be reconciled – They thus applied the doctrine / God and his creature man, were in sweet union, before sin was committed – that sin broke this union, and separated between God and man – that Jesus Christ was sent to destroy sin, or save the creature from sin – that when the sinner is saved from sin, then the separation between him and his God is removed, and the union restored – the creature now receives the at-one-ment, or reconciliation to God. They taught that the death or sacrifice of Christ, was not designed to affect the mind of God, so as to make him, propitious, or merciful to sinners – but that the whole design was to affect the mind of man, and reconcile him to God. The views that these men had, with those who adhered to them, made a final split in the church; For, they withdrew from the jurisdiction of that body,8 and independently preached what they esteemed the gospel. They were zealous, confident, enterprizing and industrious to propagate what they deemed the truth. Their doctrines were received by a great many in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio, and have since spread into many parts of the United States. A great many professed to receive these doctrines, who never understood them; and a great many were sorely disaffected with them, who were equally ignorant of them. This division among the preachers, and their diversity and opposition of sentiments and preaching, caused many to read the scriptures for themselves. By this means, they became settled in their opinions. Among professors in general,

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

373

there was a great deal of religious debate and hard feelings towards each other, and that love and fellowship, which formerly abounded, now was fast declining. I was one of the number, who received the doctrine taught by these preachers. I was requested and encouraged by many of the brethren to preach; but believing that I was not qualified for so high and important a calling, I could not consent. Yet was I conscious, that if I could do any good, and not dishonor the gospel, I was willing to be any thing. Being frequently urged to preach, and / feeling a solicitous concern for my fellow-creatures, who, I believed, must find the favor of God, or be undone forever, I at length consented, and preached some in 1805. In this year, in February or March,9 the Shakers10 came to the western country. Their first visit of importance in Kentucky, was in the neighborhood and congregation of Paint Lick,11 in Garrard county, where I then lived. Having tarried there a short time, and formed an acquaintance with a few, they went away, and visited some other places, where the revival had been, and passed over to the state of Ohio. As they travelled, they spoke a few things of their faith and practice. They were in appearance, men of a sober, orderly deportment, and were dressed in plain, old-fashioned garments, such as are worn by the Friend Quakers. They being entire strangers in the country, with such an appearance and dress, the attention of the religious part of the people was pretty generally arrested, wherever they went. They travelled mainly on foot, there being but one horse for the three men, who first came amongst us. This humble appearance greatly affected the more enthusiastic part of the religious. They thought the Shakers looked so much like Christ or the old apostles, they must be goodmen. The Shakers, when in company with those who engaged in the duty of prayer, would sometimes kneel down, and apparently unite with them in devotion; but would not pray vocally themselves. When invited to eat, they asked liberty to act their faith, which was to kneel down at the table a minute or two, looking very solemn, and apparently engaged in mental prayer or thanksgiving. The same service was performed, when they had finished their meal: also when they went to bed, and when they rose up in the morning. They were very reserve and guarded in their conversation. As far as practicable they endeavored to ascertain what were the favorite doctrines and particular views of those, they intended to visit and proselyte, that they might be prepared to associate / with them in a pleasing manner, and seemingly accord with their opinions, and speak to their experience. They spoke with high approbation of the revival, and signified that they had something more and better, that any thing we had yet experienced. They farther said, that we never could find what we were seeking, nor gain power over sin, unless we confessed our sins to God, and told them what we had done, as Achan did to Joshua, when he had stolen the golden wedge and Babylonish garment. Josh. vii. 19. They said also, that it was the custom and manner, practised under the law, and order of the Jews; which order was a figure or shadow of the gospel dispensation of

374

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Jesus Christ, whose ambassadors they were. That the custom of the Jews was, when they had sinned to bring an offering for their sin – that it was highly necessary for them to signify to the priest, in what they had sinned, that he might instruct them in a suitable manner, and act according to the law in his official station. They affirmed that such confession of sin was the true order of the gospel, in the days of Christ and his apostles, according to Acts xix. 18. That it had been the order under the ministry of John the Baptist; for his disciples were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins. Hence they inferred that they confessed to John himself. This order, they argued, had been observed ever since there had been any true order of God on earth, until it was improperly used, and perverted in the church of Rome; and afterwards entirely lost in the Protestant reformation by Luther and Calvin, and their successors. They made use of a variety of other scriptures and arguments, to establish this doctrine, and conclusively signified, that the carnal fellowship and indulgence of the sex, was that which we professors of religion kept hid, and therefore our progress in the divine life was prevented, and a curse was brought upon the church at this day, like the stolen gold and garment, which Achan concealed, did on the camp of Israel of old. They said that it was in this act that the first man and woman sinned; and that / the curse of God had been on that work, and all who lived in it, in some degree, ever since – that whatever countenance God might have given those who lived in it, or whatever privileges he might have granted them, he eventually intended to put an end to it – that none ever went to heaven, or could have the full favor of God, until they could cease from that work, and bring it all to the light in the true spirit of it; which light, they affirmed, was God and Christ, who was in them now in his second appearing, and which he had promised by all his holy prophets, Jesus Christ, and his apostles, since the world began. They also taught, that as all the human family was dead in trespasses and sins, so Jesus Christ, being born of a woman, possessed all the natural corruptions that belonged to the human family, actual sin excepted – that he was prepared and strengthened, by the light and power of God, to bear his cross, and travel out of that corrupt nature; thereby setting us an example, that we should follow his steps; and as he had no wife, nor claimed any partial-relation, none could follow him in truth, who, did not forsake all such relation, with all that pertained to it – they must forsake the world, who were all the children of the Devil, by legitimate descent from our first parents, who, having been deceived by the Devil, and having partook of his nature, had transmitted it to all their posterity. Further, all who ever expected to be saved, must now with them (the Shakers) find a new relation to the church of God, where there was peace, where were all things right and equal, where no one called ought of the things he possessed his own, where all tears should be wiped from all faces, where was nothing to annoy in all God’s holy mountain, where the Lord God and the Lamb were the light of the place, &c.

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

375

We who heard these things were greatly distressed. For if the Shakers were right, and were the people they affirmed themselves to be, it followed of course; there was nothing of the religion of Jesus Christ amongst us; and if / they were wrong, they were greatly deceived themselves, and probably would deceive many. If they were hypocrites, they must be the worst people we had ever seen, making so high a profession of what they did not possess, in order to deceive; and dissolving, with those who joined them, all the relations of husband and wife, parents and children, friends &c. and transfering the right and possession of their property to the use and disposal of the church forever. They declared that they desired no man’s silver or gold; and that if any man, possessing property, should join them, he could keep that property as long as he pleased. But if he should travel in the gospel, until he should find it his duty and privilege to serve God with his substance, and enjoy equal privileges and blessings with the church, he could have liberty to do so; provided he had proved himself faithful, and tryed the gospel for himself. They farther declared, that all they desired, and all that God desired, was, that souls should live up to their faith, or act according to their present and best understanding of right – that none were required to do more. That if they had spoken, or should hereafter speak of things, which we could not clearly understand now, perhaps it would not be long before we should, if we would confess our sins, and take up our cross against the flesh.12 In doing this we should get another spirit, which would lead us into all truth – that spirit, which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God. They warned us, that if we did not take care and be honest with our own souls the Devil would cheat us out of the treasure, that God had sent to us by them – That this was the sound of the last trumpet, the last dispensation of God’s grace, that ever would be made known to the lost race of Adam; that this was the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men; and that Christ was in them judging the world. They boldly affirmed, that the way they had proposed, was the way of salvation, and that there never was, and never would be any other way. – That the soul, that sinned / in rejecting wilfully the present work, could find no more place for repentance, and for such there would be no more sacrifice for sin. Many of us, thinking that their visit to this country was important, whether they were right or wrong, would ask them such questions as the following: Question: Do you believe that any one on earth, at this time, has the same light and power, that Christ and his Apostles had in their day? Answers: If there is not, then neither Christ, nor his Gospel is on the earth; for he expressly said, “The works that I do, shall ye do also, and greater works than these shall ye do, because I go to the Father.” Ques. But was not this spoken of the twelve Apostles exclusively?

376

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Ans. Nay: “For these signs shall follow them that believe.” So that this promise is given to all that believe, or to the Church of Christ, wherever it may be. Ques. Can you do such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did? Ans. Of myself I can do nothing, as Christ said of himself; but the Father that is in me, he doeth the work. As Paul, I can do all things through Christ strengthening me. Ques. Can you raise the dead, heal the sick, drink deadly poison without injury, &c.? Ans. Christ told the unbelieving Jews, who sought after a sign, that no sign should be given them, but the sign of Jonas the Prophet. But for your satisfaction there were many miracles performed at the commencement of the Gospel in America, and if it was the mind of God to continue them, it would be so still; but he knows how best to carry on his own work. Had we the gift of God to do miracles before your eyes, you might say of us, as the Jews said of Christ, “He casteth out Devils by the Prince of Devils.” Ques. As you say, this is the day of judgment, and that Christ is now judging the world by you: Why is it / that we see none of the signs preceding that day – as the resurrection, the sun darkened, the moon turned into blood, &c.? Ans. Christ says, I am the resurrection and the life; whosoever has Christ in them, is in the resurrection. But after your bodies are dead and rotten or eaten by worms, after they are decomposed, and incorporated with their fellow matter, you have no reason to believe that God will reanimate them again. The Scripture properly understood, give us no such idea. What do you think God wants with your old, rotten body, defiled with sin, and corrupted by lust? A body that has been the habitation of the Devil and all uncleanness? If, said they, all the dead bodies from Adam to the present day, were raised up, there would not be the space of two feet of land for each to occupy. As to the signs of the sun turned into darkness and the moon into blood, &c., they considered them figurative expressions – the sun representing the sun of righteousness, which was darkened to the world by the teaching of Anti Christ or false church. By the moon, they understood the false Church in all its sects and parties which had the form of Godliness, but denied the power. Some of us apprehending that they perverted the Scriptures, wished to know in what light they viewed them. This is ascertained by a very few before they join them, and there are some in their society, who are yet ignorant of it. Shakers, who understand their own faith and principles care very little what estimate a man may put upon the scriptures, provided they can get him to believe that they have the spirit of inspiration. They think that the original scriptures were written by men of good intention; some of them under the influence of the Divine Spirit, and some not. But if they were at first written by the Divine influence, yet they have been translated by corrupt men, of views so foreign from truth, that

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

377

their true meaning is perverted so far that is impossible to ascertain clearly the truth contained in them. / The Preachers, Elders and Ministers frequently speaking in the style and language of the Scriptures, in order to reach the feelings and gain the confidence of their hearers; but among the more intelligent of the Shakers, the Bible has been often called a damned old book, and they care no more for it than an old almanac, which is out of date, and does not apply to the present year. Though they are so professedly pious that they cannot conscientiously take an oath upon the Bible; yet, in reality they only act thus, to induce the people of the world to believe that they have a great veneration for the Scriptures. In a short time after their coming to the west, a number of people of the various denominations joined them both in Kentucky & Ohio. For a year after their entrance into Kentucky, I attended to them; and having made myself acquainted with them and their doctrines, I concluded they must be true, and united myself with them, contrary to all the entreaties of my wife13 and friends. My confidence in them was so fixed, that it could not be shaken, until a long chain of circumstances conspired to loose it, and change my opinion respecting them. For the benefit of society I would willingly describe every exercise of my mind, and all the occurrences among these people while I was with them; but those things would require a book of larger size, than the one contemplated by me. I can only touch at the most important points, and such as are best calculated to the good of society. Having received their doctrines, and confessed to them my sins, I expected according to their teaching, to receive the spirit of Christ. As I viewed myself a poor carnally minded creature, – I was taught, that I was to be led no longer by carnal reason, but to follow the spirit – that I was a child of the Devil, and might now expect the spirit of Christ would lead me directly contrary to my reason and desires – and that what I once thought to be right, I might now generally conclude to be wrong; that / if any thing were to present itself to my mind, which seemed crossing, I might generally conclude it to be the operation of the divine spirit; and the more and contrary it might be, the greater evidence it would be of its being right, no matter how inconsistent and unreasonable it might appear to the carnal mind. The most conscientious of the Shaker proselytes were exposed to run into the greatest absurdities: For believing we had received the spirit of Christ, and that the suggestions of that spirit would lead us to cross all our carnal sense and reason; and believing that we should be sealed over to eternal perdition, if we did not obey that spirit, we did many things shameful in the extreme. For whatever struck the mind or sense, as debasing, crossing, or degrading to the pride of human nature, we were very apt to imagine that we had a gift of God to do that very thing; and that if we avoided doing it, the same condemnation and distress followed in our feelings, as if we had omitted a duty most sacred, and founded on truth and reason. Out of this fanatical delusion arose that spirit, which led

378

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

many of the young and inexperienced proselytes, (of which I was one) into the many scandalous and foolish words and actions, which for the first two or three years, so justly marked our character. I will take the liberty of naming a few of them, that my meaning may be understood. Some, when travelling, seeing a fence out of order must stop to rectify it. Others, if they saw sticks or brush in the road, concluded there was a gift of God for him to alight from his horse, and act his faith by throwing out of the road the sticks or stones until he felt justified to mount his horse again and pursue his journey. This he would do, though the people of the world were present, and calling him a damned fool all the time he was engaged at the work. – For he knew there was no harm in doing right; and so much more confident he was of its being right, because he was opposed by those who were full of lust and the Devil. / Sometimes a young Shaker, meeting an acquaintance would feel that he must talk to him, and tell him about his lusts and filthiness, and urge him to confess his sins. He would tell him the judgment and resurrection, were come, and that all who lived in the gratification of their lusts, were whores and whoremongers, whether married or not – that they must quit their filthiness, and confess all about it, with their lying, cheating, and stealing; that they must restore every thing they had wrongfully taken, or they would be damned henceforth and forever. These things would they speak with such apparent solemnity, that they appeared fully to believe and feel the importance of what they spoke. Sometimes they believed they had a gift to visit a family, and act in the same way. Sometimes we had little to say; but then we must do something that we believed we were directed or had a feeling of the spirit to do, such as dancing, walking backwards, or on all fours, or stripping off a part or all of our clothing, as a sign of the naked situation of those for whom we felt the gift. These and such like things, with the opposition generally felt to the faith of the Shakers, caused them to be very much persecuted; and had it not been for the friendly feelings of their relatives, and the popular sentiment, that all should have liberty of conscience, they would have been driven from the country. This flame of persecution only confirmed the young disciples in the rectitude of their faith, for which I believe many of us would have suffered at the stake. As we had lost the society and fellowship of all, but those of our own faith, we were suspicious of enemies and injuries from every quarter; nor did we wish to associate with those whom we esteemed the children of the Devil, unless we had some prospect of getting them into our faith. We considered that all titles and distinctions, given to men, only supported their pride; therefore we avoided them, and called every man by his proper name. When we were collected together for worship, we / first sung a hymn or song, then kneeled down together in mental prayer and thanksgiving. At length we were informed that dancing was the highest act of devotion, and that, which

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

379

was appointed for the worship of God in this his last dispensation. At this some of us were alarmed, but we must comply; and had to agree that nothing was in our way, but superstition, and the sanctimonious forms of Anti-Christ, which ought to be rejected as a system of formal hypocrisy. We were generally deceived about the intent of dancing, for we expected in this exercise to be filled with joy and transport; but found by experience, and from what we repeatedly heard, that it was designed to mortify the flesh, and keep down the lustful propensities of our nature. We were taught to hate the flesh, and to despise the relation of father, mother, wife, children, &c. with all our mind and spirit; – to have a degraded and abased feeling of ourselves, as a lump of lust, until we should travel into the nature of God. As we had now received the Gospel, and had many precious gifts, we must now learn from our teachers that the spirit of the Prophets was subject to the Prophets; that if we wished to travel safe in the Gospel, we must take the counsel of those who had gone before us, according to Paul’s doctrine, “Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ.” From this we learned that our fathers in the Gospel had not full confidence in all our gifts; but had suffered us to act upon the pivot, where they had once placed us, till we were prepared to take another position, which should better answer their purpose. This was not fully made known to us, till sad experience evinced what it was, with its effects and consequences. Yet I well recollect my thoughts and feelings about it at that time; for I viewed it pretty near in its extent, so far at least as I could, any thing I had not experienced. But having full confidence in their virtue and wisdom, and believing they were sent to us with that Gospel, which would lead us out of sin, and bring every thing / right, I surrendered every consideration to that confidence. And as I had already learned, that the ways of the spirit were contrary to the ways of common sense and reason; and as I was now cut off from all other society, I was fully prepared to swallow the corroding pills of implicit faith and obedience; especially as they were well tinctured with the perfumes of humility, forbearance, long suffering, &c. It appeared to us evidently that we were yet in a sinful state. They repeatedly told us that all the heavy crosses we had taken up would not save us, unless we followed Christ in his ambassadors, by obeying them as they did Christ. It became manifest that some, who had wives, had yielded to their former practice; and the fruit of their embraces plainly shewed, that through the spirit they had, with all their hard dancing, they had not yet mortified all the deeds of the body. These by honest confessions and promises of amendment in future, had another chance given them to set out for the kingdom The charity of God bore long towards those, who fell by this weakness, if they had a considerable family of children who might be gathered into the faith; or if they possessed a good estate, which might at some future day be dedicated to God.

380

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

A man I well knew, who had fallen so frequently in this way, and so frequently had confessed it, that he at length thought he felt a gift which might answer the purpose of mortifying this propensity. In a room where a number of us were assembled, both brothers and sisters, without giving any previous notice, he openly and clearly exposed a certain part, which he said was to him, as Alexander the coppersmith was to Paul, having done him much harm. While he exhibited he exclaimed, “This is my God.” No one in the room seemed at that time to doubt the fact, nor his honest intentions to mortify the flesh; but many afterwards doubted whether the purpose, contemplated in the exercise of this wonderful gift could be effected if a man were to give his body to be burnt for the sin of his soul / I will relate another case of a similar nature. A certain sister, in the same room, was esteemed unfaithful. A man present felt a gift to cast the Devil out of her. He spoke to her in a very plain and pathetic manner about lust, and its consequences; upon which she retreated and scuttled under a bed. But all her efforts to fly from the mighty power of God were in vain; for he, the brother was determined to follow her, and bring her out to the light. So great was his zeal, that, he would not desist, until he had exerted his power to pull her from under the bed. I might fill many pages with relations of conduct, shocking to modesty, and piety; as sisters turning heels over head, their mock preaching, their mock praying and singing, their sport and contempt of all religious sects, but I forbear. The Shakers may call on me to prove that such things, such madness and folly, ever existed among them. If they should, I say that Matthew Houston14 and his wife15 in their own house, together with others, were present, and saw as clearly as myself, these wonderful operations of the old ghost of darkness. Should they urge me to give the names of those thus exercised, they shall have them. But as personal slander and invective are not the design of this narrative, I forbear. But such like improprieties have been frequent among the Shakers, at different time and places. The Shaker ministers for two or three years from the commencement of their society, said but little about these things to their young proselytes. They taught them, they felt a gift, that they must go forth in the exercise it. When any would exclaim against these absurdities the ministers would either try to justify them on Scriptural grounds, or attribute them to the experience of the young proselyte. But what absurdities were we not prepared to do? Our reason was completely prostrate and, as before remarked, we were taught to consider every impression right, which was crossing, or opposed / to carnal reason; and that acting in opposition to our carnal reason and sense, was the way to receive light, and the spirit, which would lead us into all truth. Thus being cut loose from carnal reason, so called, we were left to act without reason in many respects. Instead of having the Devil cast out of us, we had our reason and common sense cast out by fanatical imaginations, which we never had, before we found the Shakers; and instead of sitting, clothed in our right mind like the man out of whom Jesus had cast the devils, we were more like

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

381

him, when possessed by devils, tearing off his clothes, and cutting himself with stones. At this time we were pests of civil society, and did many things, against which reason and decency will forever remonstrate. Two or three years after we had joined them, we were taught, that this was entirely a new dispensation – that the truth of God had been perverted by false teachers for more than twelve hundred years – and that according to prophecy and the promise of God, this last dispensation or revelation of Christ, was now more fully and effectually made known through a woman, named Ann Lee,16 than it had been by the man Christ Jesus. They farther taught us, that the spiritual work of God, and the creating of souls a new were as impossible to be accomplished without the revelation of God in a woman, as well as in a man, as it would have been for the first man Adam to have propagated his natural posterity without the correspondence of a woman; and that according to the same analogy, there never was any such thing as complete salvation, or of souls truly begotten, until there was a redeemed and spiritual mother, as well as a father, whom they now declared to be Jesus Christ and mother Ann, the bride and the Lamb’s wife. As Eve was the mother of all living in the old creation, and as no natural man could be brought into the world without the correspondence of a woman with a man; so no son or daughter could be born to God without the correspondent doctrine, testimony and faith of the first man and woman in the / new creation, they being the only true begotten, and express image of God, and having his nature. From this it was inferred and understood by the Shakers, that the male and female spirit were in the existence of the one God, when he said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They apprehended this expression to signify two, the male and the female in one God. As it required the male and female to constitute the man; and as the male and female were created in the image of God, they considered this to be the thing, in which the likeness existed. Farther; they taught us, that as God must be intelligent and wise, so in this the man resembled him; and that all the intelligent part of man was an emanation from God, and sprang out of his nature, and existence, it (the intelligent part of man) being in his existence male and female. Thus far the Shakers inclined to go with these doctrines. By this time we received all they taught for thus sayeth the Lord. This being our faith, we felt such condemnation for disobeying their instruction, that we had to confess to them transgression of this, as well as of other evil deeds, or feel miserable. We were exhorted to labor hard, both in the dance and in our daily, manual work, in order to get the victory over our proud natures, which hated obedience, and was not subject to the law of God, neither indeed could be – that we should crucify our natures daily, and take the counsel of God, and be faithful in all things, which were taught us. This doctrine, frequently inculcated, produced hot times with the indolent and lazy part of us. Some worked and danced

382

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

very hard, expecting to sweat the Devil out of them; while others went away, and walked no more with us. In the fall of 1807, it was ascertained to be the mind of the ministers, that we, who lived at a distance from their settlement on Shawney run,17 should sell our possessions, and purchase near them, except Matthew Houston’s family with a few others, who were to go to Warren County in Ohio,18 where was the beginning of their gospel / in the West, and where all the good elders and elder sisters lived. I sold my farm in Garrard, and moved to Mercer.19 James Gass20 and myself purchased a farm near the Shaker settlement, intending to live there and support our families, until we received farther instructions. This tract of land contained about 112 acres, for which we paid 500 dollars each. As my wife had not joined the Shakers, it was considered the best plan to have the land deeded to Gass alone, and that he give me a bond for my half of the land – that this being done privately, would prevent my wife, should she go away, from holding her dower. To this I consented, believing that it was best to leave no ground of entanglement whatever, seeing the land was eventually to be appropriated to the sacred purpose of the church; so the deed was made to Gass, and I took his bond for half the tract. On this part I built a house, in which I lived with my wife and two little sons, James and Robert. Poor boys! they have had to drink of the bitter cup of my misfortunes, as will hereafter be seen. My wife, unwilling to join the Shakers, and being very unhappy, wished to visit her father. Thinking it my duty to consult the elders respecting this matter, and they having lost all hope of her ever joining the society; one of them, John Meacham21 instructed me in the manner following: If she wishes to go to her father’s, go with her and take the youngest child. Tell her she need never come back with any expectation of living with you again, unless she confess her sins and join the Shakers. This instruction gave me unspeakable distress; but believing my salvation depended on obedience to these good men, I was obliged to comply. Never did a poor creature travel with a heavier heart than I did to my wife’s father’s, about thirty miles distant from the Shaker settlement. Never shall I forget the heart rending thoughts I had respecting my little infant, which I was carrying. Can I give it up? Shall I throw it away from a father’s care? Shall I cast it upon a wide, wicked / and unfriendly world? O that it were in a peaceful grave, that the impending storms might pass over it without injury! Eternal thanks to God! his kind providence protected my son, and kind friends have nursed and educated him. He is now grown to manhood; and I hope, feels the obligations he is under to God and his friends. In the evening we arrived at Mr. Brank’s, the distressed father of my wife. After frequent attempts, at length I summoned fortitude enough to communicate my dreadful instructions to my wife, at the hearing of which, her distress arose to such a height, that I apprehended entire derangement of mind must be the consequence. Fearing that I might be overcome by her grief and lamenta-

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

383

tions, I broke from her, turned my horse round, and rode off as quick as I could, with a burden as heavy as my nature could possibly sustain. I returned home; and in a few days was advised to bring my property into the joint stock with Elisha Thomas’22 family, and live with them. James Gass having a little before moved there, and having been appointed deacon for the family, he, with Elisha Thomas essayed to have my property valued, and took possession of it. I went to work with the men, but was so enfeebled and worn down by distress, that I was unable to do much. Still I hoped that God, who knew my honest intentions, would yet bring my wife to feel the necessity of obeying what I verily believed was the right way; and if she should not, I humbly hoped that my affections would cease to rest on her. But the manner in which I last parted with her, I could not reconcile with my feelings; especially when I considered, how dutiful and kind a wife she had ever been to me – how, ready always to administer comfort to me in sickness or in health, and to lighten my distresses, burdens and cares in the most affectionate and tender manner. / After she had been absent three weeks, I felt a strong desire to visit her, and persuade her to return. But I knew I should he much degraded in the mind and feeling of the society, if I did not go in union with the Elder, E. Thomas. To him I communicated my wish, and he conferred with Betsy Banta,23 the Elderess of the family. At length it was deemed proper for me to go. I accordingly went, and found her in great distress; and as soon as she had an opportunity, she let me know that she wished to return with me. She was so debilitated by distress that with much difficulty she travelled back to Mercer. She, having arrived there, and having found that the Shakers had possession of our property; and that if she stayed there, she must live in the large family of Elisha Thomas, confess her sins, and conform to the faith and economy of the Shakers, she despaired of ever being satisfied and therefore returned to her father’s. The manner of her going away renewed and increased my distress. At night, when all were asleep, she quietly rose, took her infant in her arms, and, by the aid of some neighbours, went to her father’s. In the morning she was missing, and we were apprehensive that she had terminated her earthly miseries by suicide. We were diligently engaged in searching for her till eight or nine o’clock, when we were informed where she had gone. This news partially relieved my mind, by removing my fears of her having destroyed herself. The Shakers fearing that these afflictive circumstances might cause me to forsake them, Elder David Darrow,24 who lived in Ohio, and who was respected as the chief ruler of all the Elders and people of the west, sent for me to come and see him. In a few days I started. Having been so long depressed with distress, I frequently slumbered on my horse while travelling on, and through fear of falling off would often alight and walk. Having arrived at the end of my journey, I

384

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

was very respectfully received and kindly treated; and after a few / days Elder David informed me, that he wished me to come to Ohio, with my elder son James, and live among them; and that I should no longer distress myself about Jane (my wife) and my younger son, implying that he wished me to come immediately, and not to go near her any more. I signified to him, that I knew not how to feel acquitted respecting her future means of support – that though she had done wrong in not obeying the gospel, yet she had been a dutiful, industrious wife – that if he felt willing I would give her half the property we possessed, when we lived together. Of this he said but little; but acknowledged it to be generous on my part. As I found him entirely opposed to my seeing her again, I asked him whether he would approve of my writing to her respecting the matter, when I had returned to Kentucky for my son and clothes? He, finding that I could not be satisfied till something was done for her, replied, that I might write to her concerning the matter. This I did on my return to Kentucky. I informed her of my removal to Ohio, and wished her to come to Mercer, and get half of all our property, except two horses which my son and myself were to ride to Ohio. We started to that state, having taken nothing with us but our clothes, and the two horses we rode. When we arrived there, we were put to live in a house, intended to be of the first order, when the church should all be gathered. Of this family Amos Valentine25 had the charge. After being there about two months I was advised to take a wagon, and a young man with me, and bring my moveable property to Ohio. We went to Kentucky, as advised; and there understood that neither my wife, nor any one for her, had been there or taken any of our property. By some means she had gotten her clothes and saddle. As it was the instruction of Elder David, and agreement / of both societies, I removed some of the property I once claimed, to the state of Ohio. After I had returned to Ohio, my property was again to be valued, and put to use in the family where I lived. As it was customary, it was valued by two of the society; the inventory I afterwards saw, and had no doubt but that it was valued low enough; but as this was a mere form, to enable them to settle with any, who might leave them, I said nothing about it. For three years the Shakers in the neighborhood had been destitute of a school. The parents began to feel uneasy about their children, now growing up without any literary instruction. They therefore concluded, by liberty of Elder David, to build a school house, and procure teachers as soon as possible. The house was built, and divided into two apartments, one for the male and the other for the female children. To Milinda Watts,26 a very intelligent woman, was committed the tuition of the females, and the charge of the male children was given to me. There was no such thing, at this time, as a general church interest. Every large family attended to its own interest exclusively; and each received their instructions

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

385

from the ministry. There were but two large families living near the school; the one conducted by A. Valentine, and the other by Houston.27 Malinda living in Houston’s and myself in Valentine’s family. These two superintendents, Valentine and Houston, thought, that the children of parents, not attached to these two families, should not be sent to school free from cost, but that they must pay for their tuition; and that when they needed relaxation from their books, they must work instead of play, and this work must be done upon the farms of the two large families. Before a child could be admitted as a scholar, he or she must confess all his or her sins to the teacher. And if the children should do any thing contrary to the order / of the school, or against the present faith, they must also confess it. All possible care must be taken to teach them and implant in them the principles of the faith, to hate every thing else, and every body, who did not live according to their faith – to labour to impress on their minds, that all was of the Devil, that was not of the Shakers. When the teachers had taught these things both by precept and example, and the children failed to comply with them, if more lenient measures would not answer the purpose of correction, the rod must be used, or the children compelled to labor, or jump up and down, till that disobedient spirit was mortified. We the teachers determined to do our duty; and the children, especially those, who were not old enough to see the foibles of their parents and others, conducted well for one year. During this time there was a family constituted of children, and a few sisters to cook and wash for then, together with Milinda and a female assistant, and myself with James Smith28 for my assistant. I was surprised to see the children so ready and pleased to leave their parents and to live with me, with so short an acquaintance. The parents generally expressed their satisfaction with the care and management of their children. Malcham Worley29 about once a week visited the school, and assisted me a few hours. He suggested the idea that children could be governed without correction entirely. I acknowledged it would be a very agreeable thing, and would make the trial. I tried the plan a while, but soon found it would not answer the purpose. I told him that I had no doubts, but that children, who had been blessed with wise and orderly parents, and who had been restrained from contracting vicious habits, could be governed without correction; but that those, who had not been taught to cultivate virtuous and holy principles from infancy, and who had not become blessed with the good example of their parents would / form such evil habits, that nothing but correction could check, so as to make them governable. I also told him that in future I should correct the children when they needed it – that his notions about government without correction had made some of the children refractory – that if he was not satisfied with my labor and care of them, he might himself come and live with them, teach them, and work with them, as

386

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

I had done; that then he would know, whether a great deal of preaching about mother Ann and Elder David, would restrain their vicious habits. Malcham was very much hurt with me, and, no doubt, endeavored to get Elder David to believe, that I abused the children. As he was the first man, who had confessed his sins in the western country, and who had a good tract of land and some children, to dedicate to God, it was highly necessary he should be treated with respect. Before these two years had elapsed, the work of the children became a considerable object, and more was required of them, than I was willing for them to do; because when oppressed by hard labor they could not improve in learning; nor could I render satisfaction to their parents who had committed them to my care. Amos Valentine, who was most urgent to have the children to do more work, stirred up John Houston30 against me, and they went to Elder David, and desired him to deal with me on this matter. Amos possessed a good estate in land, which had not yet been deeded to the church; it was therefore necessary that his prayers be heard. Elders David and Solomon King,31 Amos, and J. Houston, all came to see me respecting this matter. I told them I could not conscientiously comply with the request, without betraying my trust; and therefore wished Amos not to teaze me any longer about the matter – that if he or Elder David thought any other person could manage the children better, I was ready to give place – but, if I should be retained, I must be the judge / as to the length of time the children ought to work, and should act accordingly. The conference ended; but very hard and uncharitable feelings ensued between Amos and myself. In the fall of 1811, I was taken sick, and my illness continued so long, that there was no prospect of my rendering any service to the children longer; I was therefore removed to another family. I sent to Elder David, desiring that he would come and heal me. I received no answer to my prayer, from him; but recovered my health by the aid of a physician. The ensuing year, 1812 was the time, which had been fixed on for signing the church covenant,32 and constituting the church in order. When the covenant was read, I objected to sign it, till provision was made, out of my property, for my wife and son in Kentucky. Though I had learned by indirect insinuations, that the elders cared not, whether I ever gave her a cent; yet this appeared so glaringly unjust, that my mind revolted at the idea. The ministry consented, that I might go to Kentucky, and arrange this, and some other business, before I should sign the covenant. In the latter part of January, I went to Kentucky with Peter Pees,33 a man, who had been sent from the East with Elder David, to take the general oversight of all temporal matters, according to the counsel of Elder David. After we arrived at Shawnee run, now called Pleasant Hill,34 and rested a few days, I went to see my wife, in order to make some arrangements about the division of our property. We conversed on the subject. She observed she was too weak and tender to

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

387

travel to Ohio through the cold of winter; but it was probable she might come when the weather became moderate. She came; but some time after her appointment, and after I had signed the church covenant. I was still concerned to do her justice, and went to Elder David to be instructed how to act. He said, if she did not mention the matter, that I / should not. Thus the affair was passed over, and nothing done for her. I returned to Mercer, and received a sum of money, which James Gass had collected for me, while I was in Ohio. The deacon, Peter Pees requested me the loan of it, saying, he needed a considerable sum to adjust some matters, before he left Mercer. I immediately loaned him all I had, except a few dollars to bear my expenses home. While in Ohio, Pees had proposed to me, that if I would relinquish my claim on the land I had in Mercer for the benefit of the ministry in Mercer Kentucky, he would give me a deed for as much in Ohio, specifying to me the tract. To this proposition I consented, and gave up the bond I had on James Gass for the half of the tract we had jointly purchased in Mercer, for the specified tract in Ohio. At this time I considered the word of a true Shaker, unquestionable; and despised the idea of withholding any thing that might be useful to support, and forward the great interest of the church. Having again returned home, I was put to live in the first family; and the business assigned me was, to assist in the garden. The elders had removed from their former dwelling house into the second story of the meeting house. As their burden and care were thought, by themselves and other principal men, to be very great, a retired station, free from the bustles and toil of those, who were yet conflicting with the Devil and the flesh, was judged to be most suitable for them. And as they had suffered much in laying a foundation in the East, and had left it, and come to this new and uncultivated land; and as they had expended several hundred dollars in buying land in Ohio, and in travelling, all for our benefit; therefore they thought they were justly entitled to a situation, where they could have an opportunity of laboring for the gifts of God, whereby we might be protected, and might finally travel into the spirit they professed to have. / Before the elders removed to the meeting house, they lived on common, plain fare, and ate with some young men, and women, who had joined them in Ohio, and did not appear to desire any distinctions to be conferred on them. All these, who came from the East, showed great veneration and respect to Elder David, and Elderess Ruth Farrington,35 because, it was said, they possessed the best talents, and had travelled farthest in the gospel. This, no doubt, was partly the cause of their punctilious obedience to them. But the main cause of their obedience to them was to set to us in the West an example for our imitation; that eventually they might have power over our property positively, and of our persons and consciences indirectly. This we were unable to know till the event proved it.

388

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Those formerly called elders, were now called the ministry. Elder David and Elderess Ruth were called father and mother; and we, who had given up our interest and service to the support of their faith, and who had yielded to be wholly governed by their counsel, were called their spiritual sons and daughters. We obeyed them as simply as little children do their natural parent. After the principal part of the children had signed the church covenant and deeded their lands to certain trustees and their successors, who were nominated by the ministry. Father and mother thought it best; that some one should be provided to cook a morsel for them, and thus free the families from that burden – that they should have their own kitchen, cupboard and furniture, and by a gradual craft, their meat must be selected of the best and nicest parts. Bread, such as the children ate, was not fit for the ministry. Fruits, sweet meats, tea, coffee, dried fish, oysters, &c., were thought necessary for father, and mother, and the ministry. Good spirits and wine were privately procured for them by some in office; and who expected to continue in office by keeping their favor. The elders and elderesses in each family supported and / justified the ministry, and the ministry supported and justified them. By this method the people were duped into such subjection, that a private member durst not exercise his understanding, however good his intentions might be, without liberty from his elder; and frequently the elder must obtain liberty from father or some of his associates. By this means the ministry always knew the affairs of the society, and therefore how to keep the government of the people. Besides this, every family elder had to make known to the ministry the state, and every important transaction, of all the male members. So had the elder sisters of the female department. The deacons in each family too had to propose and make known all their plans of work to the elders and ministry, and act in conformity to their counsel. If they did not the ministry and elders would disaffect the private members with the deacons, by saying they, were not in obedience to the will of God in their temporal arrangements. Thus the deacons would lose the confidence of the people, nor could they progress in business till they had confessed their self will and disobedience to their elders. Then would the elders preach to the people to obey, and be subject to their deacons, as well as to their elders. When this economy had been exercised for two or three years after the signing of the church covenant, all of us felt so worn out with hard work and dancing, with hard feelings one towards another, that we were as miserable and as disappointed a people, as ever lived on earth. The hope that our good and wise elders and ministry would yet by divine direction, set us right, only supported us; this too encouraged us to endure hardness as good soldiers till we obtained the victory over our wicked nature, which, we were abundantly taught, was the cause of all our sufferings, and that spirit of the Devil in us must suffer, till it yielded up the Ghost. They said, it could be better for us to die, travelling out of this spirit, / than to be tormented with it here, and hereafter forever.

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

389

We were commanded not to speak of our difficulties, nor despondencies, nor even of our hard feelings, to one another; but to make all known to our elders, and they would regulate and reprove every one, as need might require. They, who had envy or bad feelings towards each other, were commanded to labor out of them, by working and dancing, and feeling vengeance against that evil spirit in themselves. Their doctrine was: If any did wrong, let them answer to God for themselves. This, when understood, is that they must give an account to the elders and ministry, and be reproved, neglected and discountenanced by them, and made to suffer in indirect ways; and then be told that it was their own wicked natures, and that they must labor out of it by being faithful with their hands to work, and zealous in the work of God, which was the dance. How many poor, honest hearted men and women, have been thus tortured, till they have become so weak in body, and so distressed in mind, that they were almost ready to put an end to their wretched existence. We believed that the Devil in us was the sole cause of this misery; not daring to think, much less to say, that these holy apostles were the authors of any part of our accumulated distresses. A great many of us were so punctiliously conscientious to mortify every thought or feeling of discontent at our treatment and situation, that we confessed to our elder and ministry, our most secret thoughts and feelings respecting them. Such were accounted very precious souls, and were highly esteemed by the ministry. But great care was taken to keep them in this humbled state till the ministry became wearied with their continual confessions, and had to resort to something new, which I will now state. They thus addressed us. – No doubt some of you think your sufferings very great; but they are light when / compared with the glory that shall be revealed in those, who “hold out faithful to the end.” Therefore, gird up the loins of your minds and hope to the end. We have borne your burdens and helped you for years. If you expect to be saved, you must wage war with the Devil for yourselves. There has been a great deal of talk among you about killing the Devil and crucifying the flesh, but the Devil is very tough, and not willing to die, therefore, you must cast him out and purge yourselves by confessing your faults one to another. At this time there was much secret envy and hatred among the Shakers, and very little comfort either in body or mind, for reasons already mentioned and also because their diet and clothing were very indifferent: Their clothing being far inferior to that worn by the ministry, Elders, and Preachers; and their drink being made of parched rye or crusts, as substitutes for coffee, and sage or some such herb, for tea, &c., which were sparingly sweetened, and some times not sweetened at all; a part of the sugar we had made having been sent to the ministry in Ky. The sugar was sparingly weighed out to the cooks by the deacon or deaconess; & these must inform the Elders and Ministry how they handled the good things of God; as flower, meal &c. Such deacons as were very sparing with

390

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

regard to the provisions of their families, and very bountiful in providing the best, for father, and mother, and the ministry, were accounted good and wise stewards. These had the privilege, and honor of washing the carriage of father and mother, and their company, when they rode out, of feeding their horses, and of taking care of their carriage and harness. It was now thought a distinguished favor to speak to father or mother, and to render any service to them or the ministry; because we, and all we had, were in their power, and every future comfort depended alone on their good pleasure, on certain occasions, before this time, some would get on their knees and kiss the feet of the ministry. / It may be inquired, why did so many continue with them, if these statements be correct? I answer: Many about this time did leave the society. But the ministry so artfully managed the matter, that they retained the more influential and intelligent, by putting them into office, or by holding out to them the prospect of it hereafter. This, together with some occasional indulgencies and preferences, inclined them to continue in the society. To these causes may be added, that deep grounded confidence in those people and their faith – those fixed notions of their minds, that none knew any thing truly of God, while in a carnal state; and could form no correct judgment of the gospel, till they had travelled out of the flesh – the awful apprehensions of the displeasure of God, the curse of the church, and the tortures of the damned forever. These notions, together with the horrid idea of going back into the world, despised – their families torn in pieces – destitute of the means of support – these considerations kept many in the society. These being our views, we recoiled at the very thought of leaving them, as a suggestion of the Devil to cheat us out of our souls. Like a man fighting with an enemy about to take his life, so did we exercise ourselves, leaping, stamping, with grimaces of mockery and indignant rejection. Thus we apprehended that we were fighting the devil; but we were often opposing the whispers of reason and common sense, when they were about to resume their seat in our breast. Sometimes when a Shaker was at his work, he would be attacked by these two mighty champions of the Devil, namely, reason and common sense. On such occasions he would exclaim in some hideous manner, or call upon God to damn such a spirit; he plyed his tool with redoubled activity, until he thought he had extricated himself from the grasp of the enemy. Having thus punished and sweat out the Devil, he would moderate his labor, and look as sober and meek as a lamb. / At the sight of a female, whose charms would affect them, some would say, “God damn the flesh,” and many such expressions were not unfrequent in their meetings. When a man and woman, not in office in the church, happened to meet, the orderly custom was to pass without speaking. For if they were seen talking alone, they were censurable; and the woman, that looked a man full in the face was in

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

391

danger of being censured as a base woman. But with all the watching, care and reproof of Ministers and Elders, frequently the attachment of individuals became so strong, that it was found necessary to remove the man or the woman to some distant family or society, in order to prevent evil consequences. Even Elders and Elderesses, for the same reason, sometimes have to be separated from each other, and removed to other families, and thus have lost their honorable stations. It was thought by the ministry to be very improper for men and women to salute each other, by shaking hands; or to eat together at the same table, or to have any intercourse, but what was necessary in their daily works or employments. After the order of the church was formed, their worship or dance, with those who were called church members, became more orderly and moderate. The dance was of two kinds, the step dance, and the step and shuffle. The first was then by way of contempt and decision called Bumbo, being more proper for the younger class, and such as were yet full of laziness and lust. But after the people of the church began to confess their sins, one to another, and to war against the devil, and if possible, to drive him out, their dances became more disorderly, and their exercises more extravagant than ever. They were now seen throwing their arms about, throwing themselves down, whirling round like a top, tossing one against another, stamping on each other’s feet, &c., till the meeting house floor, and many of their garments were marked / with blood. On such occasions for a while the ministry greatly encouraged them in this waring gift, and in their confessing their sins to one another, telling them they must appropriate more time to spiritual gifts, and not to be so worldly minded. As the people were once more inspired with hope, and encouragement, and as many hard feelings were removed from among them, their countenances became more serene and peaceful. A few individuals had at this time a very extraordinary exercise, said to be the gift of speaking in unknown tongues. This some considered the mighty power of God, and they were greatly confirmed; while others thought it to be the effect of an agitated spirit, or a fanatical imagination. Some professed to understand what the speaker said, while gabbling in this strange manner; others did not. I never knew whether one of those, who thus strangely spoke, understood themselves. Let this be as it may, the words of Paul seemed very appropriate, “though I have the tongue of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.” As many of us had been much relieved of hard feelings towards one another, and were comforted and encouraged, we were again exhorted by the ministry, to return into church order, to walk in obedience to the counsel of God, made known in the church, (which being understood, was the direction of the ministry,) and as a great deal depended on us, as it respected our salvation, and the salvation of the world, we must be zealous, industrious and saving; that we might be prepared to help other souls, who might yet be brought to believe the Gos-

392

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

pel. Some believed and expected, that as they had now received the faith, and were obedient, they should soon become eminent rulers in the kingdom of Jesus Christ and mother. This encouraged many to obedience and hard work again. As there had been much murmuring about our scanty and indifferent provisions / better food and raiment were now given, with a promise of still better, if we should be faithful in all things. About this time the Shakers had many songs very appropriate to their view of the Gospel, and of the second coming of Christ. These were sung with great zeal, in their meetings, and at other times, when they were visited by strangers. As a specimen I will give a few verses: 1. Shout aloud ye sons of Zion, Christ the Lord is come to reign, No more sorrow, no more sighing, No more sickness, death or pain. No more kindreds, tongues and nations, Dashing like the troubled sea; But the heirs of faith and patience, All in peace and harmony. 2. All, who look for Christ’s appearing, Here may see the living sign; By the virtue of Cross-bearing, How his faithful followers shine! Justified in their obedience, God bestows renewing grace; Here begins the upper regions, Here’s the high and holy place. 3. Every faithful overcomer, Who their daily cross have bore, Here enjoy perpetual summer, And their sun goes down no more. In this blessed new creation Souls are gathered into one, This is God’s true habitation, This is heaven on earth begun. 4. Ye, who for the truth have waited. Hear the voice of Zions king, / Come ye out, be separated, Touch no more the unclean thing; You shall be my sons and daughters, Numbered with the Heavenly train, And shall drink of living waters, Never more to thirst again: &c.

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

393

For the first six or seven years, there were very few deaths among the Shakers; but after that period sickness and death were frequent. Many of us, therefore, were stirred up to enquire, why it was there was no such thing as the gift of healing among us, if we had the true Apostolic religion, or faith? The question was more important, because we had been taught, that this was a greater dispensation, than the first coming of Christ. We had understood also, that these gifts of healing had been in the Church in the Eastern states; we, therefore, wished to know of the Ministry, and Elders, why these gifts were not amongst us. They did not reply in a very direct manner; but signified several things, that might be the cause, why we were destitute of this power; as our want of faith, and the great body of evil that was among us. They also said that the power of the Gospel, which they had brought us, performed greater miracles by raising dead souls, than to raise old, rotten bodies. This, for a while, silenced us; but as there were frequent instances of death, we were still dissatisfied; and many of us believed, that the ministry, who had travelled so far in the Gospel, and had gotten the victory over all evil, should be able to perform the same mighty works the Apostles did; especially, when they professed to have a superior stand in divine truth to the Apostles themselves. We also believed that we should have the same power, seeing we had forsaken all, and had subjected ourselves to as many external privations, as the Apostles had; and had been three times as long following Christ / in his second appearing, as they had in his first appearing. From these considerations, our confidence became so weakened, and our distresses and complaints so heavy and frequent, that the Elders and ministry, to escape censure themselves, and to roll the whole on the people, devised the following plan. – In the Church of Christ, said they, every member has his own peculiar talent; he has also a travel in the Gospel, according to his faithfulness, and the time and opportunity he has had to improve that talent and privilege, with which God has endowed them; therefore, all have not the same gifts nor office, but every member his own particular gift and office. In regard to us, the ministry, said they, we were sent to you to preach the Gospel, to teach and admonish you, and to reprove your vicious natures, which so often lead you astray. It is the privilege of God’s people to have all the gifts and graces of the spirit; therefore, you ought to labor for them, and have them among yourselves; for believers, who have had so long a privilege of the Gospel, as you have had, ought not to be destitute of these things. So as the ministry were sent only to teach, and reprove us, if the gift of healing were performed, it was left for some of us to do it; and we, as they taught us, were so weak in faith, and our natures so vicious, there appeared but a poor prospect for us to do these mighty works. Yet some were credulous and vain enough to attempt these things, and at length imagined that they had performed some cures; for a few sick persons, on whom these attempts were made, recovered from their illness. A great part of the society

394

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

had so little evidence that any thing of this nature had been effected, that they did not believe it; and they held those in contempt, who either professed to have done these works, or were credulous enough to believe they had such power. This made two parties in the Church. The professed workers of miracles thought that all those, who did not / unite with them, & admire them, were full of the devil & unbelief & that this great body of unbelief was the cause why they had not been more successful in their attempts to perform miracles. It was therefore thought best not to attempt any gift of healing, when such unbelievers were present; for it was their opinion, that Satan in one such unbelieving person, would shut out the blessing of God, as it is recorded, that Jesus did not many mighty works in a certain place, because of unbelief. The text does not read, that he could not do; but he did not do many mighty works there because of unbelief. Had it been a fact, that he could not do many mighty works, then it would follow that darkness can prevent light from shining, and the Devil must be stronger than God, and eventually must rule all things. Such absurdities can never be admitted by a man, possessing the exercise of reason and common sense, instead of groundless tradition and priestcraft. For my own part I never expected to leave the Shakers, my confidence in them being so deeply rooted, especially when I first joined them, that nothing but a long train of evidence could ever remove it. I should have rejoiced to see such power manifested, as was in the days of the Apostles; but this I could not see among the Shakers. To me it appeared evident, that the Apostles never attempted to excuse themselves from giving sufficient evidence of the authority of their mission, because of the unbelief of their opposers; nor that Jesus Christ ever put off any, that applied to him to be healed of any infirmity, by telling them that he felt no gift for them, or that there was so much unbelief among the people, nothing could be done for them. We had learned from Father, both by his precepts and example, that it was improper to mourn for the dead; that all such grief was fleshly. This notion became so implanted in the Shakers, that those, who were seen weeping, and snorting about, (as they called if,) on occasions / of sickness or death, were thought to be poor weak souls, full of affliction and lust. But when Elderess Tinsey Goodrich,36 one of the ministry, was taken with a cancer on her breast, and died, after having suffered long and severely, then they cared not how much sympathy we felt for her. And when mother was taken with the dropsy,37 then no matter how much care and attention were paid her – no matter how many tears were shed, and how great lamentation was made for her. It was not strange for Father to weep now. No expense was spared to procure any thing, that could afford her any relief. The first family, in which I lived at that time, at the request of Father, in our meeting labored, prayed, and tried to get a gift for Mother’s releasement, but nothing could be done.

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

395

One evening, the family were ardently engaged about this matter, and continued so long, that their natural strength being exhausted, the elder thought it best to dismiss the meeting. One man not feeling disposed to quit the matter thus, exclaimed, that he wished liberty of the elder to speak a little to the brothers and sisters before they retired to rest. His request being granted, he stated to the family a particular gift he felt at that time, which was this: That all the brethren and sisters, after retiring to their rooms, and before they went to bed, should open their windows towards heaven, and let their united cries go to God respecting this matter. But after all the physical means used, the care and attention bestowed, the tears of father, the prayers of the church, and all the gifts, they labored for to deliver mother, yet she must go to the house appointed for all living; and that lumps of earth, so much admired, and so reluctantly parted with, must mingle with the same earth, as those, who died with less suffering of body, their weak and unpleasant diet not being calculated to create lingering diseases, and their exercises being entirely sufficient to produce a good digestion of their food. These combined are good / preventatives of dropsical complaints, and other diseases, under which they labor, who live high, and exercise little. I have only touched on matters respecting the church, their discipline and economy, and mentioned a few instances and circumstances for this express purpose, that the reader may know what kind of people the Shakers are, and how we conducted and felt from time to time under different circumstances. It seems necessary now to give a short account about myself, and how I was employed since I left the school. Two summer seasons I was employed in gardening; one winter in cutting and heading nails; the next winter in the tailor’s shop, being too weak to engage in any business requiring strength. One year and a half of this time, Francis Bedell38 and myself had the care of a family. Within this period of two or three years, I was sent with John Wallace39 to Kenhawa,40 to remove a widow woman, her family and property to the church. I was sometimes sent out on proselyting expeditions with others. The ministry found it entirely unsuitable to keep those, who were occasionally dropping in, among those, who had been church members for some years; because those lately coming in witnessed so frequently the improprieties, which they did not expect to find, among those, who, they had before calculated, were almost perfect. The ministry feared that by this means, the confidence of the young converts would be weakened. Besides they deemed it impolitic to require them to make an entire dedication of their services and property, until a suitable time had elapsed; that if they should then draw back, it might appear evident they had had a sufficient time to prove things for themselves, and have no grounds to blame any one for their own act of dedicating their property, having had the experience of three or four years. It was, therefore, concluded that Matthew Houston and myself should take all that had joined for two or three years

396

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

past, and constitute a family half a mile from the / Village of the older class – that Malinda Watts, Mary Bedell,41 and Phebe Lockwood,42 should have charge of the female part of the family, and should go occasionally abroad with Matthew Houston and myself, where it was likely female proselytes could be gained. As the place of our residence was an old stand, formerly occupied by Shakers, the houses, fences, garden and farm, needed much repairing, I immediately after our removal to the place, with the young men, labored hard, and put every thing in good repair. I expected the confidence of my young brethren, by eating, working and in every respect faring as they did, unless when occasionally I was called to preach, or instruct those, who came to be instructed respecting our faith. These young men know, whether I spent my time idly in a room by myself, or was found very often with the elder sisters of our family in social chat, as Matthew Houston was. They know whether a separate nice meal was provided for me, as was for him; and whether I kept a watch for my own benefit, as he did, after I had given up two, with all my property; and they know, whether I kept, as he did, a chest with money, and a great many necessaries locked up, to answer my own private purposes. Not one of the family will charge me with these things. But it is well known they all apply to Matthew Houston, and after he had said, that he had given up his property to the use of the church. This could not have been without the knowledge and approbation of the ministry. They were informed of it by myself. They allowed no one, in my knowledge, to enjoy such privileges except themselves, and this lazy darling, who had helped them to deceive so many, and who would likely, after all, retract, if he was not nursed very tenderly. I very well knew that our young people, seeing these things, from time to time, would lose confidence, become offended and leave us, though they knew not half as much as I did. / The elder sisters of the family would direct their young female proselytes, how beautiful it was for them to get a good and nice meal, or bake some sweet cakes for their good elder brethren, and invite them in to supper, before the rest of the brethren came home from work. By this, they gave a hint how the elder sisters should be treated. The cooks too had an opportunity of gathering up the fragments, which were much more pleasant than the milk, from which the butter had been taken for the elders at their four o’clock supper. I was frequently solicited to unite in these proceedings; but I positively refused, and, at length, took an opportunity, when we were visited by the ministry, Matthew Houston, and our three elder sisters being present, to let them all know I had no faith in such a course. Because we had made a profession to the world entirely contrary to it; and we had told our young people, when they joined us, things perfectly different. As for our venerable fathers and mothers, who had left their living in the East, and come here, they might do as they pleased, (for I knew it was in their power, and I could avail nothing by expressing

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

397

any disapprobation of their conduct) but for us to act in this manner after the profession we had made, appeared to me very corrupt. I farther said, that I could never have confidence in any one, that does as Matthew Houston. That he ought to quit his partialities and work with his own hands, as the rest did – that he should sup rye coffee, and sage tea without sugar, and eat bean porridge, when we did, unless he be sick; and that he should give up his money and his watch, as we had done. This freedom from me bore hard on Matthew; yet it is evident to me that the ministry tolerated him in these indulgencies, though they reproved him a little in my presence, and let him go. After having lived in this family about eighteen months, in which time a number had joined us, I was again removed to the first family in the church. There I lived / about two years, in the last of which there was a great scarcity in consequence of drought. When the crop was gathered, the deacons, whose office it was to lay in, provide, and deal out to the people and stock, found that there would not be a sufficiency for their supply, and therefore concluded it best to purchase more. Father David thought that by care, and proper attention, they might do without purchasing. The deacons could not believe it, and were very obstinate. At length Father David gave his opinion to the whole church, in which the elders of families united, and taught the cooks to serve the tables sparingly, so that what they had might suffice. By this they expected to gain the confidence and favor of Elder David in a greater degree. With this many of the private members became so dissatisfied, that Father David had to recall the people together, and disannul the elders’ teaching. The winter now approaching, Father wished Cornelius Campbell43 and myself to provide shelter and mangers for the cattle, to take the charge of the principal barns, to thresh out the grain, and save every thing in the best manner we could. Also that we should cultivate a friendly intercourse with teamsters, and the stock-feeders, and encourage them to frugality and care. These things, said Father, I wish you to do, and I intend the deacons shall have no control over you. He did not wish to put the deacons out of office; for this he knew would be attended with bad consequences; but believing that Campbell and myself would be prompt to his instructions, he committed these things to us, and encouraged the people to unite with our proceedings. This put it out of the power of the deacons to do any thing against us, but to envy and hate us; for if they went too far in their opposition, they were in danger of being deposed altogether. With much labor we accomplished our charge, having the teams and stock brought through the winter in good order, and rendered an account of every bushel of grain / threshed out. Father David expressed his thankfulness to us for our labor and economy. From this the reader may learn whether or not I possessed the confidence of the ministry and people.

398

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

When the society of Shakers in the Wabash country44 were flying for their lives,45 with what property they could conveniently carry, apprehending danger both from Indians and White people, I was sent upwards of three hundred miles alone, to meet them at the Redbanks,46 with letters to their ministry. There a keel boat with thirty-five persons were committed to my care, to take to Cincinnati; among these many were sick. Much valuable property and money was also committed to me, with orders to use it at discretion on our passage to Cincinnati and Union Village47 in Ohio. Many of the people in the boat were so dissatisfied, that I feared they would leave us before we got home. These circumstances are related, and many others of similar nature might be related, to shew the confidence the ministry and people reposed in me. It was a saying among them, When John Woods undertakes a thing he will go through with it. After this Father David requested me again to take some charge of the youth, now under the care of Malcham Worley, Ebenezer Morrell,48 and Garret Peterson.49 At this I was much distressed, dreading to undertake so hard a task again, especially as M. Worley and myself could not see alike about the mode of educating and managing the youth. It had been frequently represented to me, that during my absence of five or six years from attention to the youth, they had become very orderly and virtuous; but I found the reverse of this when I went to live with them. Before this period another family of boys and girls from eighteen down to fourteen years of age, had been taken from the school, and put under the care of James Smith. These were often very troublesome, and were unwilling / to submit to the rigid government of the Shakers. Some began to think seriously of going off ; because they had to work so constantly and hard, and to dance to such a tiresome excess; and in many instances their food and clothing were very rough and indifferent. But their fears were excited by the terrors of hell and eternal banishment, if ever they forsook this people, who only had the way of God. They were threatened with the lash, if nothing else would do. That if they would not obey James Smith and their other teacher, and let them correct their disorders, their parents should take them, and govern them, or bind them out to some sharp man in the world, until they were twenty-one years old; That if they ran away from the society before they were of age, the wish of the ministry was, that they should have no part of their fathers estate. To this many of the parents verbally consented. Here let me make a short digression respecting inheritances among the Shakers. In most of their writings it is signified that all the legal heirs of any one that joins them, get their just legacy; yet the general intent is to disinherit all who will not stay with them; though in some instances they acted differently, as when the youth had a formidable connexion. In fact they cared not whether any got a cent of their father’s estate, only they feared the censure of fraud, and dreaded the insurrection of mobs. They expect that the young person, who lives with them

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

399

till the age of twenty-one, will give up his legacy as soon as it is given to them; for when his legacy is tendered, it is done sometimes by giving him a bond for so much, instead of paying him the money; sometimes by tendering him a parcel of inferior cattle to the amount, and in a few instances the money is tendered, in order to give evidence by the declaration of the legatee, if in any case they are charged with fraud, that the money was actually tendered to him, and that he afterwards had dedicated it to the use of the church himself. / Thus people are induced to believe this to be their uniform custom. I return from this digression to myself, and the school order, as it was called. When I went to the school, I found that Garret Peterson had been sent away to live in another family. He had previously spent his time with some of the largest boys at work, who had become very disorderly, and so refractory that one of them had raised his hoe to strike Garret. Frequently they would leave him and their work, and but little could he do with them. These were the boys I had to work with and govern; and M. Worley and the ministry did not wish any of them to be corrected, for fear they might go away, and excite mobs to come upon the society. They devised other methods of punishment, more unbecoming the Christian character, of less effect, and which terminated in trouble enough for me and themselves. Of these I shall speak as they occur. Ebenezer Morrell was to take charge of the smaller class of the school boys, of ten or eleven years old, to spend part of the time at work, and a part at their books. M. Worley taught the little girls a short time in each day, and the rest of the time they were engaged at work. A short time after my arrival at the school, Ebenezer and myself being alone, he thus addressed me: John, I have been praying for you to come here. I feel now like I shall have help, that will greatly relieve me, for I have suffered a hundred deaths in this place, in consequence of Malcham’s worrying me. I have tried to govern the children according to his method, by preaching to them about good Malcham, the ministry, Jesus Christ, and mother Ann, until they have become unaccountably troublesome and so wicked that I know not what to do with them. If the children were not obedient, industrious and orderly, the whole blame was laid to Garret and myself. Sometimes through necessity I corrected some of them, and frequently for this we were blamed, and told / that if we had the power of God, as we ought to have, there would be no occasion for the rod. As I am under obligations to speak the truth plainly, it is not with any pleasure that I disclose some things, which may appear vulgar and obscene. These creatures, said he, gratify the propensities of their nature, one with another, like the Sodomites, and in other ways shameful to speak of. Some of them have gone to sheep and cows. Their names he gave me, which are perfectly recollected. He farther said, I have watched them by day and by night; they are dissatisfied with their food and clothing, and it seems sometimes that they will rise in a mob, and go to the world.

400

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

Is not this the purport of what you said to me, Ebenezer? and this, after you, Malcham, and Garret, with the help of the ministry, had been teaching them the gospel five or six years? Ebenezer was well convinced by experience, as I had been before, that the Shaker’s children could not be kept in any tolerable bounds of good order without the fear and use of the rod; for the children had, by long observation, found that the Shakers were not correct in all their professions of piety, and that sometimes things were required of them, which their fathers, and the grown people did not always adhere to; and instead of being treated with justice and equality with regard to food and raiment, they were miserably neglected. Should strangers come to visit the school, every thing was put in such trim, that they would be ready to pronounce these the happiest children they ever saw. For instance; if one should come to see the Shakers, and say, I wish to see all your affairs, your order, your school, &c. Oh, yea, you can see all, and every thing you desire. Notice is immediately given to every family, and to the school, and every thing put in a plain for exhibition in an hour. The children must be in the last place visited, in order to give them time to quit their work, clean up, get a lesson, and write a neat copy; / to shew the world what nice little creatures they are, how they honor God, their elders, and the gospel. Then a nice dinner or supper would be provided for the poor little fellows; this would make them look very pleasantly. The spectator would then be invited to go into the kitchen, and see the children at dinner or supper: He would be ready to say, How many lies have I heard about the Shakers, and their manner of treating children! Should the spectator doubt, and should ask the children, if they were satisfied, and would rather live here than any where else? Oh? yea: for they well knew, if they answered otherwise, they must suffer for it in some way, and be accounted a nasty wordling, full of lust. Such is the policy of the Shakers. After the visitant is about to depart, he may say, I can find no fault in you; I wish my children were as yours. When he is gone, they have their own sport about him, hoping one day his estate and services will be rendered subservient to the church; or at least, that the reports circulated against them will be contradicted by him. I return to the conversation between Ebenezer and myself. I found him so much in earnest, and his observations so well accorded with my own understanding and experience, that I told him I was satisfied respecting the manner of governing youth, and that I entirely agreed with his views. Let us, said I, endeavor to impress the boys with the belief, that if they will not be subject to us, we will chastise them. Let us treat them kindly, encourage them when they do well, shame them for their folly, and keep them so well employed through the day, and have them labor in the dance so soundly before they go to bed, that they may sleep well at night; then they will let one another alone, and probably other enormities of which Ebenezer had spoken, might not occur. To these

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

401

propositions Ebenezer agreed. We fully expected that our proceedings according to these resolutions would soon be cancelled before the ministry. When / this event should take place, we resolved to give our views, and why we acted thus; that we knew no other way, better calculated to give satisfaction for the present. Although these were our resolutions, we were so apprehensive of the consequences that might ensue, that I desired Father David to let me leave the children, and live in another family. To this he would not consent. Ebenezer and myself then requested him to let Garret come back again, and take charge of the little boys; To this he consented. So Ebenezer and myself began once more to govern the larger boys as well as we could, but found them very refractory. They became jealous, that as the grown people ate by themselves, their fare was better than what they had, and truly their jealousies were not without foundation. They even affirmed that they had a mind to go into the kitchen with clubs, and beat the sisters for their unjust treatment. To satisfy their minds, I proposed to Ebenezer that we should all eat with them; he consented, but said he knew Malcham would be opposed to it. Well said I, let us do it, and let Malcham and the grown sisters eat together; and though he eats his partial suppers four times a week, and has better fare at other meals, yet we will excuse this to the boys, telling them that he is old and weakly. I asked Malcham how he would like such a gift ? He gave me to understand that he would not approve of it; so nothing could be done. I then spoke to the ministry about it, and informed them that something must be done to make the boys more comfortable in their diet and clothing, or we could never make them believe we were a righteous people, and many of them would shortly leave us; that all we had told them about the gospel, and all we could tell about the good elders and elderesses, and mother Ann, would avail nothing, unless there was an alteration in their food and raiment. To the propriety of these things the ministry consented, and Malcham had very reluctantly to yield. The ministry exerted themselves to remedy / the defect of clothing, but a considerable time elapsed before it was effected. After this the boys became better satisfied, and more pleasant, but still had great room to mend. Elder David therefore instructed us, if they should be obstinate, and not obey us, we should take them by the shoulders and shake them well, but not to whip them at any rate. We obeyed his instructions. At length they began to do tolerably well, and were under such a degree of government, and did so much business, that all were pretty well satisfied, except Malcham. Alas! for him. As he could not get the credit of it, he sought earnestly how he might betray Ebenezer and myself. Malcham, is this not true? Samuel Rollins,50 who was an elder in the first family in the church, passing by where we and the boys were at work, was highly pleased with our industry and economy, and said, I think these boys have to feel more than what Malcham could effect. We noticed his compliment, but said little. It was a precept and custom in the church, that if any person heard any such

402

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

disrespectful insinuation respecting an elder, he should make it known. We did not wish to add more trouble to Malcham, and therefore did not make it known, especially because we knew that Malcham did not esteem S. Rollins. Malcham, knew that the church generally was pleased with our management and economy; and he also well knew that while he controlled and directed Ebenezer and Garret in the government of the children, all the preaching to the boys about the good elders, and good Malcham, and mother Ann, could never satisfy them, while he fared sumptuously, and they lived on coarse food. Malcham had heretofore kept Ebenezer so duped, that although he said and did as stated before, yet Ebenezer was afraid of him. He had not power nor wisdom enough to destroy the confidence of Ebenezer in me, nor had he any formidable accusation against me. One morning before day he called Ebenezer into his room / and so alarmed him, that Ebenezer told him how he and I had talked and determined, and what Samuel Rollins had said. After Ebenezer was dismissed he came to me, and informed me what Malcham had done to him, and that he had told him our conversation. I asked him, why did you tell him? He replied, if I had not told him all about us, I do not know but he would have killed me. I knew that Malcham blamed me for the whole matter, and knowing that he had no just accusation against me, I determined when accosted by him, not to speak a word, lest he might excite me to speak something wrong. This is a part of the Shakers’ policy with one another, and with the world. When they cannot work upon them in any other way, they will insult them, and excite them to say something unbecoming, and then sentence condemnation on them for the impropriety they have caused them to commit. Thus they convict them of having a bad spirit, and that they can do nothing right, and so they are brought to confession and repentance, and to an acknowledgment of their requisitions. Being well acquainted with this policy, I was better prepared to meet it. In a few days, early in the morning Malcham sent for me. I went in and he asked me to sit down. After a while, he spoke in a very solemn and pathetic manner, as follows: I want you to confess your sins, and tell what you have spoken against the gift of God, which is placed for your protection. He had an allusion to himself as that gift. I remained silent. – He then fell on his knees, and ordered me to kneel also. I still sat in silence. He then prostrated himself on the floor, and began to pray to Jesus Christ, and mother Ann; and ordered me to prostrate myself on the floor with him, exclaiming at me for being so proud and stiff. I sat still, and said nothing, not believing it would benefit me to imitate him. After this I rose from my seat, and walked to the door, intending to return to the school house, about seventy steps off. He got before me as I went out, and exclaimed / so loud, that the poor weakly creature was heard to the distance of a quarter of a mile; You shan’t live with the children, repeating it several times. While he was thus storming, in a low voice I asked him, Where would you have me go? He

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

403

still exclaimed, You shan’t live among the children. I turned from him, and passed through the yard on the way to the meeting-house, in order to get the counsel of the ministry. The wife of Doctor Morrell51 met me, and requested me not to yield to Malcham, signifying her past and present disapprobation of his conduct. I made but little reply, but passed on, and met Father David, coming down to see what was the matter. I passed by him, and went to the meeting-house, where I found Elder Solomon King, his assocciate in the ministry, and informed him that I was out of a home, and did not wish to go to the world. I then related the circumstances of Malcham’s treatment to me. He desired me to return home, and continue my charge of the boys as before. I told him that I had always spoken respectfully of Malcham to the boys, that now they would reasonably conclude with the rest of the family, from hearing him speak to me in the manner he had, that I must be guilty of some very atrocious crime. I therefore wished to go some where else to live, believing these breaches could not be repaired, unless Malcham would acknowledge to all, who heard him, the impropriety of his conduct. At the solicitation of Elder Solomon, I returned to my charge. The ensuing evening Father David called Malcham, Ebenezer, and myself together. He signified to Malcham that he must confess to the family and the boys, and labor to restore any confidence, that he might have been the cause of removing, so as to give me satisfaction. When we were convened for meeting the same evening, he made a confession to the grown people, which was, doubtless, extremely mortifying to him. Having the good of the youth more in view, than my own honor, I felt disposed still to support their confidence / in Malcham, let their impressions with regard to me be what they might. I hoped before long to be released from any charge over them; and as Malcham must be an elder, and could not be received as well in any other family, I thought it best to release him from any degradation before the boys, for their future benefit, well knowing they could not be easily governed by one, in whom they had not confidence. Yet Malcham was not satisfied; his hand was stretched out still, if possible, to satisfy his subtle and malignant spirit upon me. He therefore used all measures in his power to insinuate in Ebenezer the danger of his being lost, if he persisted to adhere to my economy and sense of things. Sometimes he felt a gift to speak to the boys; and he addressed them with great solemnity about the duties of the gospel, in which address he would throw out indirect insinuations, yet understood by the boys, calculated to destroy their confidence in me. This he did in such a subtle manner, as to preclude all direct evidence against him, were he to be called to an account. These addresses had their influence on the boys; and thus was I requited for my endeavors to support their confidence in Malcham. All this did not suffice, still restless he marked my conduct with an evil eye, and signified to the ministry that I was cruel to the boys; when it was well known

404

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

by all that I had been the means of meliorating their condition with respect to clothing and diet. He also labored by indirect measures to destroy the confidence of the adults of the family in me. This could not be effected at that time, for they knew us both, and our habits of living. It was not easy for them to believe him a better man than the one, who lived in the habit of industry, and fared like the rest, when Malcham was so weakly that he was unable to cut the wood for his own fire, and yet could eat heartily of bacon, and of all the distinguished dainties, that God in the gospel had provided for the precious elders, like good old Malcham, who rendered a very / devout and pleasing service to himself once or twice a day, stretched at full length upon a long bench. At such seasons his devotions were not to be interrupted, unless something occurred, which admitted of no delay. As this kind of life was not calculated to digest strong and high seasoned food, it is no wonder that he was always weakly. Nor is there any doubt that in such devout exercise he felt more agreeable than he will, when these pages shall be read by men of reason and common sense. At length Malcham found out something, which he thought would ruin me. The reader will recollect that we were instructed by Elder David, to take the boys by the shoulders and shake them soundly, if they would not obey our orders. This Ebenezer and myself did, but believed the rod would answer a better purpose. The rod was forbidden, for fear the boys would go off, and tell the world the Shakers whipped them. A number of these boys were so big and strong, that they were unwilling to be shaken, and a few of them, on a certain occasion, resisted me, and made efforts of defence so formidable, that I was under the necessity of knocking them down, or choaking them, unless I retreated and left them victorious. I therefore judged it best to choke them a little, which was very disagreeable to me, and unpleasant to them; but it answered the purpose, for they now found I was not to be trifled with, nor suffer their resistance nor abuse. A parent, having heard of his son’s resistance, came to the school house, sent for some large switches, made the boy, then in his eighteenth year, pull off his shirt, and was about to whip his naked back. I wept and entreated the parent to forbear; he reluctantly yielded to my entreaties. This very boy that morning had torn my shirt almost in pieces, when I attempted to shake him, and had I not have choked him, he would probably have abused me worse. But he was not so much to be blamed, as that old envious Malcham, who had excited his prejudice against me, by / his sanctimonious addresses of devout slander and envy. These things being made known to the ministry, and they having heretofore failed in effecting a reconciliation between Malcham and myself, appointed a committee, namely, Samuel Rollins, Doctor Calvin Morrell, Richard M’Nemar, and, I think, Robert Baxter. These were to come to the school, and enquire into the causes of our difficulties. The causes the ministry well understood, but wished to keep out of the scrape. As soon as the committee were come, Richard

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

405

M’Nemar associated himself alone with Malcham, and from his whole course it was evident that he was determined to support Malcham, right or wrong. Calvin expressed his disapprobation of Richard’s private interview with Malcham, but to no effect. At length we all convened in Malcham’s school house, three of the principal sisters being also present. Richard assumed a kind of presidency of the committee, and wished to have the matter settled upon this ground; that as Malcham had the leading gift of the family, all of us, who were willing to unite with the gift of God, should be subject to him. This is Shakerism in the abstract; and if this ground could be maintained against the dictates of reason and common sense, entire subjection and bondage would be the situation of these people. But Calvin and Samuel, having some knowledge of the situation of Ebenezer and myself, reproved Richard, and said, that the committee had met to enquire into the state of things before they could approve or disapprove. They wished to know our difficulties. Calvin further observed that he expected dreadful consequences to result from our being convened together, probably, it might be the loss of some of our souls. Samuel was not quite so plain, but signified he was prompt for justice and a fair investigation, and would stand for the truth. Upon this Richard got down on his knees and asked forgiveness. Each of us then made our statements to the committee. Malcham’s whole aim / appeared to be, to bring every possible accusation against me, some of which I never can in truth acknowledge, while I retain my senses. The committee proceeded in the investigation several days. Sometimes, Richard would feel a gift to pull off his clothes; this I knew was designed to terrify me, but I had been exercised with such gifts myself, and could realize the nature of them. When he did thus, Malcham would say, put on thy clothes; the spirit of Richard was subject to Malcham; and by this was he restrained from stripping himself naked, as I understood he did at Beaver-creek,52 among the Shakers. The committee examined the boys apart from us with regard to their treatment from us. This I considered unfair, seeing their minds had been prejudiced against us by Malcham’s insinuations. Malcham also made some false statements to the committee. I then said, and yet, positively affirm, they were false. After three or four days inquiry, the committee closed their business, and signified they did not think any of us were perfect in our wisdom or conduct. They thought with Ebenezer and myself that the rod would have answered a better purpose, than the means we had been instructed to use, and we ought to have been tolerated in our course. That as some of the youth were under prejudices against us, we had better make some acknowledgments to them. This we did in the presence of the committee. I then desired to be released from the charge of the boys, and the tortures of Malcham; but they signified that the ministry had said, we could not be released, because there were none in the church that could be spared who could do as

406

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

well as the two already engaged. Calvin individually expressed himself thus, John Woods worth his weight in gold to the society. Did you not say so, Calvin? The committee exhorted us to live together as well as we could, and take care of the children / for in a few months they would be gathered into the order of grown families. This was afterwards done. After this I was again moved to the first family, where I attended to different kinds of business as circumstances directed. The youth being now gathered into the order of grown families, were still refractory and troublesome, and many were inclined to go off. They talked to one another about it, and excited one another by speaking of their hard treatment. The Shakers fearing the consequence, began to treat them better, and entreated them not to ruin their souls. They told them that if they should go away, after having lived in the Church so long, and after having enjoyed such great privileges, they never should be admitted there again; and that if ever they found their relation to believers, it must be in some order inferior to that now lived in. Many such awful things they said to excite their fears, and retain them in their society. About this time my son James went away, as did several others before and after. Many circumstances relative to his leaving the Shakers, were very unpleasant to me; a few of which I will mention. He, having lived with James Smith, and unwilling to bear any longer the treatment he received from him, determined to go off, unless he could change his home, and not be compelled to live with James Smith. He came to me and informed me that he wished no longer to live with James, but was afraid to tell me the reason; this I long after found out to be, that Smith had stripped and whipped him on the naked skin for what the boy tho’t not worthy of such treatment. Being small, and unable to redress himself, his resentment rose so high, that never after on any terms could he be reconciled to James. I, being at that time ignorant of the treatment he had received, tho’t my son must have been in fault, and therefore, treated him myself in a manner I shall forever regret. It being impossible / to reconcile him, he went off to his friends in Kentucky. A few weeks afterwards I went to Pleasant Hill, and there heard that he had arrived among his friends, and that they were greatly exasperated at the treatment he had received from James Smith. Finding that he had arrived safe among his relations, I returned home to Ohio much distressed, from the consideration of having lost my son; and what added to my grief was, that he had such just grounds for leaving the society, from the hard treatment he had received. Of this I had been ignorant until it was too late to remedy it. After I had first left Kentucky, I occasionally saw the ministry and people, who lived there. They signified to me that it would be a pleasing thing to them, if I could get a gift to come to Kentucky to live again. But this they durst not do in the hearing of the ministry and people in Ohio. As there were at Pleasant Hill a great many of my former acquaintances, and as the people there appeared to enjoy themselves in a more free and liberal manner; and as I had experienced

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

407

many difficulties among the Shakers in Ohio, I was induced to request Elder David to let me go and live again at Pleasant Hill. This by no means he would permit. About the same time I began again to realize the unrighteous treatment, exercised, not only to my wife and youngest son, but now also to my son James. I therefore stated to the two elders in the family in which I lived, that I wished a contribution of two hundred dollars made to each of my boys. This request was discountenanced. I urged that according to the stipulations of the Church covenant, and all the writings of the Shakers on that subject they were entitled to it; and that we, who did not thus perform to our wives & children, were liars against our profession. I further said, that something of this nature must be done, or it was impossible for me to have a good conscience, or ever open my mouth and testify that we were a people, / that adhered to truth and justice; therefore, I said, I was determined it should be done. They replied, it will cost you more than it is worth. One of them abused me with invective and scurrilous language. At this time, Samuel Trotter,53 one of the Shakers, being as I understood, very much dissatisfied in mind, was sent on a visit to Pleasant Hill; by whom, when returning home to Ohio again, James Gass wrote me a letter of friendship, and some accounts of my son James, as he afterwards informed me. After Trotter had returned, the Elders informed me that he had brought word that James Woods was well, and on his way returning back to Union Village – that he had stopped at Georgetown,54 and that they expected when he came on, he would remain with us. They requested me not to speak to Trotter on the subject, as it was a rule and order of the church not to carry news from one different family or society to another. Trotter and myself, had never changed words on the subject, & I was left to conjecture, after seeing Gass, whether he had lost the letter, or had given it to the Elder of his family, as was the orderly custom, and that the Elder, with others of the dignitaries had destroyed it. The latter was my impression. From these and many similar things, my confidence in a great part of the rulers of the church at Union Village was so wrecked, that I was determined to live with them no longer, and signified to them plainly this determination. To Pleasant Hill I was resolved to go, not doubting but that I should be gladly received there. I asked the Deacon for a horse and a few dollars to bear my expences. He refused to let me have them. I immediately went to my shop, put up my tools in good order, and while thus engaged, one of the Elders, who had just before abused me, asked me to go to the house, I went, and found two of the ministry and two Elders waiting to talk with me. They laboured to dissuade / me from my intention. I told them, my confidence in them was so weakened from such a multiplicity of absurdities, at I did not feel it worth while ever to try to forget them, and that it was out of my power to exercise confidence or fellowship, where there was so little evidence of virtue or propriety. Father David said, if I went his spirit

408

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

should not go with me; but if I would go, he rather wished me to go to South Union,55 in the Barren country of Kentucky. Through their solicitations and sentences of condemnation, I was prevailed upon to tarry a few days longer, but to avoid any further worrying I started to Pleasant Hill on foot, one hundred and forty miles distant, without their knowledge. A friend in the society, who wished to go there himself, but was prevented by the ministry, lent me a few shillings; and I having a pair of new shoes, sold them, and by this means bore my expences for seven days to Pleasant Hill. I did not make known my situation to any one till I communicated it to the ministry at Pleasant Hill. By them I was directed to live in the first family. They informed me that I should find friends there, but suggested their apprehensions that I intended to leave the Shakers entirely. I assured them I had no such intention; nor indeed had I at that time, which was August, 1821. I was forbidden to tell my difficulties to any one, except the Elders in the family where I lived, who must necessarily know them. The reason of this was, to prevent bad consequences; lest the common members should understand how matters were conducted at Union Village, where the people were said to have a greater travel in the Gospel than any other society in the western country, and where Father David lived, who was acknowledged Supreme Bishop of all the ministry and people west of the Allegheny mountains. Shortly after this the ministry at Pleasant Hill went on a visit to Union Village. By them I wrote a letter to the Elders, desiring them to send my clothes to me by / the ministry of Pleasant Hill, when they should return. This reasonable request was refused. They sent me word by the ministry of Pleasant Hill, that I must not stay there, but must go to South Union in the Barrens of Kentucky, where Benj. Youngs56 governed. As this was the mind of Elder David, none durst speak against it, neither the ministry nor common people of Pleasant Hill; nor durst they keep me there for fear of his displeasure. The common people began to know something of my situation, and some of them sympathized with me. If I obeyed Father David, I must go one hundred and thirty miles farther on foot, without my winter clothes, and winter fast approaching, & I must seek my union among those, who were principally strangers, to whom I dare not tell the causes of my coming. They no doubt would conclude, I was an unfaithful member, and was sent to live in some inferior order for some enormous offence. These are the bowels of compassion that move in Elder David, the father of the reputed church of Jesus Christ, and mother Ann in the west! These are the fruits of those, who are said to have charity out of a pure heart! And while the world curse the Shakers, they cry out, persecution, and claim this as an undeniable evidence of their being the only people of God on earth. One of the Elders at Pleasant Hill advised me to return to Union Village, and try to give them some satisfaction for coming away without their consent, suggesting to me, that they would then consent for me to return and live at Pleasant Hill. I agreed and

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

409

returned to Union Village. There the ministry and Elders required of me a confession for violating their orders in going to Pleasant Hill, which confession, they said, must be committed to writing. I complied. After keeping me for several days in suspense, and almost intolerable distress, my clothes and five dollars, with an inferior nag and saddle, were lent me which must be returned again. My destination was fixed with the society in the Wabash / country. I started immediately, and arrived at West Union57 in Indiana. There I was received by the ministry after they had read a letter from the ministry at Union Village borne by myself. At that place they had a distillery, and the ministry appointed me to attend to it, alleging that it would be improper for me to permit any of the members to come to the still-house, and have whiskey, as many of them were too fond of it, and would get drunk if they could get it. After distilling a while, I asked the ministry if I should fill a keg of good whiskey for them, and have it privately conveyed to their cellar. They assented, and furnished me with a ten gallon keg. I filled it, and took it with the help of another to their shop, where it was kindly received by Izachar Bates,58 and put away to mellow, till they had used what they had on hand. This good old Apostle then said to me, John, this will give you a good chunk of union. At this place I found a very discontented, murmuring people. Their food and raiment were far inferior to those of the ministry. As the country was agueish, the people were much affected with disease, and many died. The ministry would not admit that the situation of the country was the cause of so much sickness and death, but signified that diseases were sent upon them for their unfruitfulness and disobedience to their teaching. At length the ague attacked the ministry themselves, and brought some of them nigh to death. This tended greatly to destroy the confidence of the people in them but they must yield to the ministry, or leave the society; this some did. By these means the society became very weak, and few in number. After I had finished distilling, the whiskey was locked up, and put under the care of a fit person, who was to give it out in small quantities to the nurses or docteresses as necessity might require. But sparingly indeed was it given to the common peoples, while the Elders / and Elderesses can have it well sweetened, if they go to the nurse at a time when no other person is present. The elder brethren and sisters have such great burdens to bear, that they are frequently weak, and the nurse is instructed to pay particular attention to them, or they cannot last long. When the spring season commenced I was appointed to prune the orchard. This done, I was then appointed to attend to some business at the office; but some young men, were dissatified, wishing the appointment for themselves. The ministry then requested me to take charge of the temporal concerns of the family in which I lived. This I performed to their approbation. About this time the ministry from Ohio visited the ministry at West-Union. I renewed my suit to Elder David for permission to live at Pleasant Hill. He would not agree; nor were the ministry of West Union willing for me to leave them. The people in this

410

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

place were so frequently sick, that those in health were oppressed by attending on them night and day, and our business could not progress a right. Hence arose a great deal of peevishness, discontent, backbiting and slander. At last I was also taken with the prevailing sickness, and labored long under it, until my case appeared desperate. Elder Bates sent to a physician in Vincennes. He prescribed for me, and partially relieved me. The necessaries for the sick were very sparingly administered. Being destitute of sugar, I asked the Deacon, who was just going to Vincennes, to bring me a pound of sugar, and I would pay him as soon as I saw Elder Archibald,59 with whom I had deposited a little money. He was very reluctant to get it unless I sent with him the money. While I lived here three Shakers got hold of whiskey enough to give two of them a passage to the world, that is, they were made drunk. My sickness continued so long, that the ministry despairing of my recovery in that country, consented at length that I should go to Pleasant / Hill. Thither, with two other sick persons, I was carried in a wagon. We were there received kindly, and treated with friendly attention, and finally restored to health. The people at Pleasant Hill, I found, took the liberty of talking freely to one another respecting the improprieties and absurdities we saw in the church professing so high a calling. These things we carefully kept from the ears of the elders, well knowing that if they heard of our free conversation, we should be roughly handled. The people here were more sociable and accommodating, and less envious, than I had seen any where else among the Shakers, though even here were many instances of discord, and backbiting. While we were at labor in the fields or rooms together, many pretty direct hints were thrown out against the distinguished situation of the ministry and some of the elders, who were privately hated, and contemptuously spoken of by the common members. A train of circumstances and observations of this kind convinced me that all was not right at Pleasant Hill. I was frequently interrogated by the people respecting Union Village, whether such difficulties existed there, as did among them? I avoided giving direct replies, not wishing to make them more unhappy, by losing their confidence. An intelligent and zealous man in this society, who had been a great support of the Shakers’ interest, from their first introduction into Kentucky, became completely dissatisfied and offended at the excessive and growing distinctions of the ministry, and at their prompt requisition of obedience from the people to all their commands. Being disappointed and grieved he was heard by myself to speak thus: The ministry often talk to us about love and union; but they care nothing about our union: They only wish our obedience, and on this ground they will feel union with us: This union is the same as that of a master and slave. The ministry, said he, talk / of their great privations in leaving their comfortable homes and friends in the East, in order to propagate the gospel in the West; but I have experienced as great privations as they, and am as far advanced in years as they; and while we profess a joint interest, I know not upon what their distinc-

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

411

tions are founded, unless it be their craft, and this plainly shews their lack of true virtue. They talk about the meekness of Christ, and the righteous simplicity of Mother Ann; how she used to cook for, and wait upon those, who came to hear the gospel from her; and how, after they had eaten, she would sit down, and make her meal by picking the bones, and eating the remaining fragments. Not so with our ministry, there are none of these bone-pickers here.” There was a great deal of complaint among the aged and infirm, who once possessed good homes and lived well. Frequently they would thus speak: We have never grudged the ministry any comfort they enjoy; but when we wish to have a comfortable living, though inferior to theirs, they exclaim against us when met together in church meeting, about our extravagance and gluttony, that we want gun-powder tea at four dollars a pound in Commonwealth’s money; such things, they preach, cannot be supported in the church of Christ – But, say they, the best of every thing the ministry have and must have. For such things as these, some of the society were privately talked to, cautioned and reproved by the elders and ministry, and some had to make public confession of their unhallowed approaches to the ark, lest they be consumed of the Lord in his jealousy and fierce anger. When I reflect on these occurrences, the sentiment of one rushes into my mind; “I care not what a man says. Let him get power, and then you will know that every thing must be subservient to his interest or honor, and he is seldom found to support that person or thing, unless he anticipates, his purposes will be answered in this kind of change.” / About this time the ministry of Pleasant-Hill, finding that severe reproofs, and confessions of the most mortifying kind could not put a stop to their complaints, devised the following plan. – You, said they, have suffered a great deal, and some of you are much discouraged, we therefore feel a gift for you to labor for a gift of releasement and comfort. You may have liberty to commemorate and keep the birth day of Mother Ann,60 every one according to your own faith, beginning at two o’clock, P.M.61 You may exercise from that time, so long as the gift may continue, in such acts of devotion, praise, thanksgiving, and freedom of conversation, as may be felt from time to time. Accordingly a great part of the society rose at two o’clock. The windows were illuminated in a very splendid manner; some of the subordinate families marched to the centre family, singing appropriate songs. After a free conversation had passed among them, they all marched to the meeting house, and when they came near, the ministry threw up their windows in the second story of the meeting house, blessing and praising God. The people marched round the meeting house, preceded by the elders of families, singing and blowing the flame of enthusiasm, which was called freedom. A suitable number was left at home to prepare a good breakfast: when it was ready they all returned home and partook gladly of it.

412

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

After this, every one went where he pleased, and acted his own faith; free conversation between the different sexes ensued. This was so exceedingly pleasant that smiles of pleasure appeared in every face. Frequently all would assemble together in the meeting-room – there the sisters would pull some one of the brothers into a large circle of females, and then dance round him, and sleek his head with their hands, and cut so many monkey capers that the whole assembly would laugh immoderately. When this gift was finished, the brothers would / pull some one of the sisters into a large circle of the males, and dance round her, and confine her there till she should look pleasantly and dance with them, and signify her fellowship with all their antiques.62 After this alternate play, we would run round the room, two and two with great rapidity, while some were singing, and others vociferating from the windows, and calling in a hideous manner for others to come. The person, that could act the most strangely and extravagantly, was thought to be the highest up in the gift. Two ambassadors were despatched from each family to take love to Mother Lucy Smith63 and the ministry at the meeting house. In turn they sent their love to the people, and encouraged them to strive to improve in every good gift. We again went to the meeting house, and sung, danced, played, and cut rusties, such as had never before been witnessed among the Shakers. These exercises were carried on night and day for two or three days. The people became, at length, so extravagant, and there was so much social conversation between the boys and girls, that the ministry informed us our gift was out. They exhorted us to come into order, and to attend again to our several callings. The attempt was made; but the enthusiastic spirit had flamed so long and high, that the people re-assembled, and became, if possible, more extravagant, going in crouds from house to house, night and day, singing, dancing, and shouting. Some of the elders followed them with a watchful eye, lest they might indulge in greater liberties. The ministry came out to some of these meetings, and were taken up separately in chairs, and borne round the room, or from house to house, on the arms or shoulders of strong young men, while the enraptured assembly expressed their great venerations in words and acts, the very offspring of enthusiasm. On these occasions a small portion of sweetened spirits, or of domestic wine, was given to each one of the assembly, as an emblem of Mother’s / new wine of the kingdom, with which we professed to be intoxicated; for while we laughed, and hallowed, and tumbled down, and ran from place to place, we said of each other, he is drunk. This work was called afterwards, a revival among the people at Pleasant Hill; and other Shaker societies hearing of it, labored to have their souls quickened in the same manner. While this work was going on, some of the members had sufficient sagacity to see through it, but durst not say a word against it. In a short time, so many had their eyes open to see it, that they spoke contemptuously of the work, and made a mock of some of the songs, which they had a little before sung with so much faith and zeal.

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

413

One day in conversation with an old man, who had previously to joining the Shakers, possessed a good living. I said to him, which of us belonging to this church, would have ever given up our property, had we been apprized beforehand of the distinctions and absurdities, which really exist in the society? He said he would not. A Shaker parent gave me the following relation of his daughter: She was grown, and was much dissatisfied with many things she met with among the Shakers. They determined to break her selfish will, as they called it, and at length tried the virtue of willow rods on her naked. She had too much sense tamely to bear these things. The father proposed to take his wife and daughter to some retired part of the Shakers’ premises, and there to take care of his child, and thus prevent her from being abused, and engage her to continue with them. To this reasonable proposal the ministry nor elders would not consent, and the poor girl had to seek a home and rest in the world, or live in a very degraded station – This event almost broke the hearts of the parents; and what increased their distress, was, that they were censured and reproached for these tender feelings, as rising out of their affection and last. A man in good standing among them was so indignant at this circumstance, that he uttered / these words twice in my hearing – “If Jesus Christ was here in person, the Shakers would shoot him.” At Pleasant Hill they received a man, who had been somewhat deranged in mind. He was induced to join them from the hope of being relieved from his misfortune, and for a while was very happy among them. But as they had no gift to relieve him, he became so frantic and troublesome, that it became necessary to bind him with cords, and keep him a little distance from their dwelling, under the care of Anthony Dunlavy64 and myself. All means to restore him failing, the nurse or Docteress, who waited on him, suggested to us, that he must be bled, and the blood must be burnt, and while it was burning not one of us was to speak a word. At this Anthony smiled. I had no faith in it; but I urged it to be done, beleiving it to be the mind and wish of the ministry, by whose direction this Docteress acted. All was done according to the gift, but the man remained in the same state. Elder Samuel Turner,65 one of the ministry, visited us, and named another gift which was to put him through a wheel band. By this gift he observed, that A – W – had known a person in a similar situation relieved. In such superstition we had no faith; and in the evening, when A – W – visited us, I told him, we did not understand the technical exercises of this gift, and wished him to officiate. Perceiving our unbelief, he went away, and nothing more was done or said about it. The poor man was sent to the Hospital in Lexington.66 These gifts remind me of an event in Union Village. A young man had the charge of the Bees there. He had taken great care of them, but they did not prosper, nor afford much honey. While Elderess Tinsey was sick, and was expected to die in a few days, one of the ministry he said; told him, that as soon as he should

414

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

hear of Elderess Tinsey’s death, he should go and knock / with his knuckles on the Bee gum, and say, Elderess Tinsey is dead. Then his Bees would prosper. By this time I realized beyond all doubt, that what I had seen among the Shakers for so many years, did not agree with their high profession, first made, about justice, equality, the power of God, &c. I was therefore under the necessity of acknowledging my disappointment concerning them, and felt conscious, that I with them had signified to the world that we were in possession of what we did not possess. Persuaded of this I was wretched beyond description, and talked with several of the Elders about it. They, convinced of being unable to reconcile our course with our profession, said but little, and desired me not to speak of these things in the hearing of the young people. At length I wrote a remonstrance, and presented it to the ministry, by the hand of one of the Elders. The substance of which is as follows: – “As I am conscious that any thing, which may be dropped in the ensuing sentences, is not designed to give offence to any, I therefore, wish none to be offended. But I must confess I no longer feel that confidence I once had in the ministers of the faith, I have so zealously espoused, until my mind be relieved, by shewing me the consistency of professing a joint interest, with the supporting and living in the partial manner, too frequent among us. If Jesus Christ could take a simple and plain repast with his disciples; and if Ann could pick the bones after her disciples had eaten, how is it that their professed followers, who say they have the only way of God, can act so far differently, having the best of every thing picked for them? If such a course were justifiable, yet as it gives such great offence, I think, those, who had the entire good of souls at heart, and properly appreciated their worth, would not be an occasion of stumbling on account of these perishable things. I therefore wish the ministry, the Elders, or some one in the society, to afford / me some evidence of the propriety of such a course, that I may feel that fellowship, which arises from a confidence, properly founded.” To this remonstrance I received no reply. I now seriously considered what I had better do. I thus reasoned with myself: If I stay with the Shakers and forever be silent on my present views of them, I must die, and leave the world under the impression that I had lived and died in that confidence and faith I once had, and boldly declared to many. Should I do this, I evidently saw that I should seal a lie with my last breath, so far as my influence could have effect. From this my soul revolted. To me it seemed almost intolerable to quit the Shakers, after having lived with them so many years; to go again into the world; despised by them for my past improprieties: and to go destitute of the means of support; for I was fully convinced they would never let me have my property, nor pay me for my services, if they could avoid it. Determined hereafter to live and die with a good conscience; and wishing no one on earth to find out the Shakers at the same expence it cost me, (nor could I feel justified to let them try, as far as I could pre-

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

415

vent it,) I therefore left the Shakers, in the full expectation of meeting the frowns and contempt of all, who formerly knew me, and of suffering privations painful to nature. These were only the illusions of fancy, never realized by me; but the reverse have I experienced. I find my former friends sociable and kind, and to want I am a stranger. I view the many years I lived with the Shakers as time lost to me, my family, and to society; unless they may be profited by my misfortunes. Precious time, the season of youth, now lost, and which can never be redeemed by the labors of my age. I regret that I have been the means of leading any into this labyrinth of Shakerism. – But I cannot extricate them now. O, that I could! After I had left them, I in a short time returned for / my clothes, which I principally got. I also went to two of the societies where I had formerly lived, and where still was my property. I requested a settlement, which they refused. I then informed them I should seek my rights in a court of justice, and accordingly filed my bill in chancery, in the Mercer court. They then applied to me for a compromise, and offered a few hundred dollars and a horse, which the trustee, F— V—67 assured me was sound, except a defect in one eye. He afterwards sent me $500, with the same horse, which I soon found to be unsound. I took back the horse, but he refused to receive it. It remains for us now to settle the balance charged in my bill, which I think will be about three thousand, four or five hundred dollars. When this is done, I hope we shall be done with each other. Although I have signified before in this narrative, something of the discontent of many members of the Shaker society, I deem it necessary to make a few observations more respecting those honest, well-meaning persons, who have united themselves to the society, in the western country. Since the economy and proceedings of the ministry have turned out so differently from our first expectations, and we finding ourselves so much disappointed, and apprehending the most unpleasant consequences, in every respect, to result from leaving the society, some have flattered themselves that by and by, as this priesthood died off, others who should succeed them, having witnessed their improprieties so long, would exercise a different course, and at length all might be well. To speak my sentiments candidly respecting these delusive apprehensions, with which many have flattered themselves, I cannot exhibit my views more clearly, than to detail part of a conversation which once passed between me and one of the members. Having gone apart to ourselves in the woods, half a mile from the town, and talked about our disappointed and distressed / situation, for an hour or two, when we were returning home, I asked him what he intended to do, intimating that it was most likely I should leave the society. He said he was in hopes that things would be better with us when the old stock of the ministry had died off. Said I to him, all that we have as it respects our disposition or conduct, that causes us to differ from the rest of mankind, we have received from the ministry – and as they have no faith or confidence in keeping the people together any other way,

416

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

than by requiring of them implicit obedience, and absolutely closing them up to it, whether they may be conscious of it or not, they never will appoint a successor that they apprehend will exercise a different economy; and to further elucidate my views, said I, (as we were passing by a pasture where were a number of cattle,) you see those two animals, Muley and Potiphar – one has horns, and the other has none. You have often noticed the submissive, pliable conduct of Muley towards Potiphar; that he will yield to all his whims, and keep peace with him at any rate. Said I, do you not know the reason. He had to agree that it was because Potiphar had horns. Said I, are not their dispositions alike. He replied yea. Well said I, now you know how well your favourable apprehensions of another priesthood would be founded, and how much ground you have to expect reformation. Never try to “put a piece of new cloth on an old garment, lest the rent be made worse.” /

GENERAL REMARKS. As I have in the preceding narrative, endeavoured to shew the manner and means made use of by the Shakers, to obtain the confidence and fellowship of virtuous and well meaning people, and afterwards their devices to retain them, their property and services to the support of their institution, it may not be improper here to offer some general remarks. Now, as they profess to take Christ, in the person of Jesus and Mother Ann, for example and instruction, and expect final salvation by obedience to the ministry, who profess to be and are also acknowledged as the proper successors of this Divine parentage; in matters so highly interesting it may not be improper to enquire what the views of these Divine Apostles are, respecting their spiritual Father and Mother, and compare those professed views with the practice of their reputed children or successors, the ministry of the Shakers. They profess to believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect pattern of piety and virtue, equality and justice, and condemn all other sects who profess Christ, for not adhering to his divine example; implying by all their conversation that they themselves do. – And not only so; but they profess to believe, that by Mother Ann, the way of God was more fully made known, than it ever was by Jesus Christ, and that there was no such thing as full salvation, until the manifestation of God, through the woman, had made the beginning of the new creation complete: neither could there be any truly born unto eternal life, until there was a spiritual mother, as well as a spiritual father, any more than Adam could propagate his species without the correspondence of the female Eve. And as the inviolable laws of nature had so ordered and disposed the whole animal creation, to beget its own likeness, so this divine parentage were qualified by the junction or union of their wisdom, or, in language of / their own, “by the word of their power” to create souls anew, by begetting in them those divine

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked

417

principles which eventually might be nurtured into the full stature of a man in Christ. Thus the ministry infer that as he was, so are we in this world; or in other words we are the true offspring of our spiritual parents; and thereby cause people to believe, that they are qualified so to live, and to do the same works as their divine parents have done; professing to raise up children or successors, having the same power and virtue, and so calculate to new model the whole human family who will submit to their teaching – saying they are set to judge the world, to approve or condemn – what they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what they lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and that no blessing of God can come to the human family for salvation, but through their church, or those set apart therein to minister in holy things. Holy apostles indeed! who profess to be exalted on thrones of divine truth to give laws to the kingdom of heaven! ye workers of miracles! ye messengers of God! I know you are well qualified to rob the widow and the orphan; and where your divine authority is not adequate to your purposes amongst all the rest of the distinguished blessings which God has ordained and brought about, in the order of his providence, for the protection of your heaven born family, he has blessed you with the protection of good able lawyers, who will always be your patrons, so long as you can grease them sufficiently. Yes, I am well aware that these heavenly gifts can aid you much in thwarting the ends of human justice, where the righteous and equitable laws established and held sacred since the memory of man, would secure the rights of those who have unfortunately fallen a prey to your insatiable avarice. Close attention, strict adherence, and long experience, have convinced me, that these high toned professions of the Shakers are a mere farce. / Let Jesus Christ and Ann Lee have been what they may, the conduct of the ministry is very different, from what they say theirs was. They were meek, (say the Shakers,) and conformable to the circumstances of their disciples in all points. This ministry is not so; but distinguished and every understanding member in the society very well know. You also know ever since any virtuous, enterprising member in the society, has been fully acquainted with your deception and hypocricy, you have had to hear more or less about these things; and instead of redressing their grievances, you have often increased their sorrows and disappointments by indirectly toturing and trying to destroy, privately, their reputation among the rest of the members – thereby disqualifying them to have any peace in the society; and, in addition to this, you have threatened them with banishment, and in effect excluded them from the alone means of support they had on earth, after you had by subtility got possession of their estates, broken up their families, and almost worn them out by hard service, to build up your reputed church of Christ, which I do not hesitate to say is a grand imposition, a usurpation of the liberties of free men, a deprivation of the rights of property, and above all, by means of your cunning devices, the exclusion of the rights

418

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

of conscience, only in one respect, which is to support your internal pride and dogmatical authority. In the mean time the inconsistency of your conduct is so manifest, that no rational mind, unfettered by superstition, can rest satisfied under your control. But until a person has been worn down by such, and other sufferings, you say he cannot know any thing about God, – and when he comes fully to realize that such ways are the ways of God, he is then truly confirmed in the doctrine of original depravity, what you have so carefully taught and inculcated, that the nature of man is the nature of the Devil, which he got by the fall, and that that nature is enmity against / God. This the Shaker in his travail can fully realize, as it is impossible, but he must feel a great aversion to such a God!! So, as he has acknowledged the true God to be in the ministry, who are said to be the favored children of Jesus Christ and Mother Ann, he can feel the witness in himself that he has the nature of the Devil, according as they have previously taught him, inasmuch as he finds consistency, reason and even common sense, in many respects, crucified by this cross of Christ! Did I say Christ?! God forbid that I should thus dishonor the divine character, by believing that he could create man intelligent, that he made all things that are made, and that he suffered the Devil to ruin the top piece of creation, and thereby to disorganize all his benevolent and wise purposes. – And after God had by various devices, in different dispensations, travailed through this moral hell (for, say the Shakers mankind are Devils) of the sinner’s mind, which the Devil had infused into our nature by the transgression of our first parents, he should be so unable to discover to us his beauty and excellence, that we must remain irrational, or believe that such a God was less wise than the Devil. Don’t say this is hard; “for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,” ye despotic priests! ye sanctified inquisitors! truly ye have received your good things, while some, yea, many of us have received evil things; and while some are comforted once more with the exercise of our reason, think it not strange concerning this fiery trial, that must try you. For, although you had apprehended that you had crucified conscience, and put reason and common sense to death by your reputed cross of Christ, they have risen again, and appeared unto many; and any one who is so fortunate as to enjoy their protection once more, after having been thus seduced from their lovely paths, will be as impregnable by all the subtilities of priestcraft, as one that believes he has been possessed with a Devil by legitimate and entailed transgression, / and is blessed with a privilege to travel out of that nature by surrendering the protection of these two which may be termed the father and mother of all who devote themselves to propriety. I am now drawing near to a close, and as I have been so long inured to the habit of conferring distinctions on the Ministry, I will here insert a little Poem for their special perusal, that they may fully realize, I have not forgotten to keep up a custom so sacred to their feelings.

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked Now since you’ve read these pages through, Can you dare say they are not true; If aught is lacking, say forsooth, He has not told quite all the truth. Then no more send your missions out, All other sects to gibe and flout; Exclaim no more at lust and pride, While in your Zion they abide. Open no more your butter’d lips, Your vile deception to eclipse, Profess to be just what you are, For this request I think is fair. Now think no more you can deceive, For after all we can’t believe The human race should all be curs’d, Because Eve was beguil’d by lust. Now talk no more of Christ nor Ann, Nor tell us of their equal plan, While your distinctions plainly say You do not walk their lovely way. / The Saviour and this woman too, If what you say of them be true, Did never claim the highest seat, Nor have distinguish’d food to eat. No seam was found in his plain vest, He wore a mantle like the rest; And Ann you say would pick a bone, After her children all were done. Can you be their peculiar seed, Or are you not some other breed? Or have they sinn’d and by their fall, The Devil thus beguil’d you all? If this be so, you’re not to blame, They only ought to bear the shame; So rather than blame your God withal, Pray say no more about the fall. But if false views should you deceive, No blame on Adam or old Eve, And you’ll be guiltless of offence, When by experience you learn sense!

419

420

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

As for the wonderful doctrine of the fall of man, which the Shakers have used as their principal engine to dislodge conscientious innocent people, from the true exercise of conscience, founded upon rational principles, its inconsistency may be readily realized by any one who will follow its analogy upon any just parity of reasoning; nothing more nor less can be said of it than this – that God is the author of sin, or that the Devil is wiser than God. – This doctrine I can no where find taught by Jesus Christ, but while the Shakers apprehend that Jesus called the world of mankind a generation of vipers – he only alluded to a generation of hypocritical priests and religious / usurpers, who were laying heavy burthens on men, while they themselves, like our modern priests, would not move them with one of their fingers. That this was the true intent of John the Baptist, when he spoke of a generation of Vipers, see the connection; Mat. 3, & 7, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadusees come to his Baptism, he said unto them, O! generation of Vipers, &c.” He did not thus speak to the people in general – neither did Jesus Christ ever estimate the human family in this manner, – See Mat. 23, & 33 – again, see and learn from Mat. 23, & 14, “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye devour widow’s houses, and for a pretence, make long prayers; therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation.” When addressing the Scribes and Pharisees, true prototypes of the priests of the Shakers, in religious usurpation, he says, “Ye serpents, ye generation of Vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell.” So any impartial reader may easily see the perversions, to which the Shakers have subjected these and many such like passages of Scripture.

SILENT CORRECTIONS

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism The original errata listed at the end of this edition have been silently corrected and are not included below. p. 6, l. 18,

althoug] although

p. 9, l. 12,

naions] nations

p. 21, l. 12,

obious] obvious

Chapman, Brown and Dryer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers p. 98, l. 40,

filty] filthy

p. 99, l. 31,

brough] brought

p. 102, l. 26,

Capmamn] Chapman

p. 105, l. 35,

oss] loss

p. 116, l. 11,

punisement] punishment

p. 122, l. 38

well i,.] well in.

p. 139, l. 7,

containg] containing

p. 149, l. 34,

requring] requiring

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum p. 157, l. 1,

_____] [crawl]

p. 159, l. 13,

firs ] first

Doty, An Address p. 178, l. 39,

ackowledged] acknowledged

p. 182, l. 27,

offspring God] offspring of God

– 421 –

422

Writings of Shaker Apostates and Anti-Shakers, 1782–1850: Volume 2

p. 185, l. 30,

arbitary] arbitrary

p. 186, l. 20,

discoure] discourse

p. 197, l. 30,

you] your

Brown, A Countercheck p. 264, l. 3,

Gnotics] Gnostics

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft p. 334, l. 12,

Dunlay] Dunlavy

EDITORIAL NOTES

Clark, A Shock to Shakerism 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

other very devil: Clark gives here a condensed paraphrase from McNemar, Kentucky Revival, p. 51. Christs second appearing: The Shakers’ first large-scale publication explicating their theology, and placing it in a historical context. The first edition of The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing was published at Lebanon, Ohio, in 1808. It subsequently went through four editions. Alcoran: The Quran. idolatrous dance: The Shakers shook, or danced, as part of their worship. Shaker Mother: Mother Ann Lee (1736–84), founder of the Shakers, and eight followers arrived at New York City on 6 August 1774. Stanly the Black smith: Ann Lee’s husband Abraham Stanley (or Standley, or Standerin) was a blacksmith by trade. John Lee the black-smith: Ann Lee’s father. dress of a long bed-gown, and a most enormous cap: Shaker women dressed very modestly in high-waisted dresses and bonnets that projected beyond the sides of the face, with hair pulled tightly back underneath a cap. Col. Smith: Colonel James Smith, whose anti-Shaker works are reproduced in Volume 1 of this collection. blasphemious book: The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing (1808). French Prophets: The Camisards were Protestant rebels who waged a guerrilla war against the royal Catholic army in the Cevennes region of southern France from 1702 to 15. They were led by inspired prophets, some of whom traveled to England. The Shakers claimed them as an early influence (Youngs, Testimony, pp. 407–8). James and Jane Wardly: James and Jane Wardley founded the religious movement that became the Shakers in Manchester, England. poem at the latter end of the book: Entitled ‘A POEM, Containing a Short Abridgment of the Foregoing Testimony’. This was later published as ‘The Testimony of Eternal Truth’, the first hymn in the Shakers’ hymnal Millennial Praises (Hancock, MA: Printed by Josiah Tallcott, Junior, 1813), p. 1. Gavins Master Key to Popery: also cited by Daniel Rathbun in his Letter (reproduced in Volume 1, pp. 55–112), the popular anti-Catholic work by Antonio Gavin, The MasterKey to Popery, which was reprinted numerous times in England and America during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Hottentot: an archaic racial term for the Khoikhoi people of south-western Africa. – 423 –

424

Notes to pages 25–85

16. Dr. Whitby: Daniel Whitby (1638–1726) was a priest in the Church of England who embraced Arminian, or anti-Calvinist views. 17. Burgoin our enemies: a reference to the defeat of the British General John Burgoyne (1722–92) by colonial American forces at Saratoga, New York, in 1777. 18. stone prison in Manchester (England): Ann Lee was imprisoned in Manchester, England, see Youngs, Testimony, p. 24. 19. Niskeuna: this site eventually became the Shaker village of Watervliet, New York, which did not close until 1938. 20. Col. Smith’s pamphlet: Shakerism Detected by Colonel James Smith (reproduced in Volume 1, pp. 213–42). 21. Stephen Ruddle: a Baptist preacher and Shawnee interpreter who lived with them around 1807. 22. Richard M Nemar’s: Richard McNemar (1770–1839) was a Presbyterian minister and leader in the Kentucky Revival. He converted to Shakerism in 1805 and became its chief defender through his publications. 23. Kentucky Revival: The Kentucky Revival (Cincinnati, OH: From the Press of John W. Browne, 1807) was the first full-length work published by the Shakers. 24. lindsey woosley: Linsey-woolsey is a fabric made from a linen warp and woollen weft. 25. Noah Wheaton: (1744–1834) was a member of the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community. 26. New Lebanon: New Lebanon, New York, was the first Shaker community organized in 1788. The Ministry at New Lebanon had spiritual authority over all of the Shaker communities. 27. Mary Turner: (1731–1808) was a member of the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community. 28. And it is pretended … then what was intended: Clark comes very close to recapitulating a newspaper story published twenty-six years earlier, two years after Mother Ann Lee’s death. Here is the text as published in the New Hampshire Mercury and the General Advertiser (Portsmouth, NH), 1 February 1786, p. 3: ‘It is said, that just at the conclusion of the war, the late Elect Lady, so called, had congregated a large number of the Shaking-Quakers, at a town on Hudson’s-river, to display her power in raising the dead. – The supposed corpse was carried to a plain, and the important ceremony began, when a continental officer, who was stationed at a small distance, came up with a file of soldiers, intimating a design to fire a few braces of balls through the body, by which her authority might be more fully displayed. This being spoken in a loud voice, and the soldiers being ordered to make ready, so alarmed the subject to be acted upon, that he instantly kicked off the top of the coffin, and made a precipitate retreat, to the no small diversion of many unconcerned spectators’.

Chapman, Letter to Lucy Wright 1.

2. 3.

Lucy Goodrich: Lucy Wright (1760–1821) was the lead Eldress in the New Lebanon, New York, ministry from 1796 until her death. Chapman is here addressing her by her married name. your Village: the Shaker community of New Lebanon, New York. a woman was: a reference to Mother Ann Lee, Lucy Wright’s predecessor in the female leadership of the Shakers.

Notes to pages 87–101

425

Chapman, Brown and Dryer, An Account of the Conduct of the Shakers 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

Niskauna: spelled a variety of ways in early texts, this is Niskeyuna, the first Shaker settlement in America where Mother Ann Lee lived beginning in 1776. It eventually became the Shaker village of Watervliet, New York, which did not close until 1938. Lebanon: Lebanon, Ohio, four miles east of the Shaker community of Union Village. Mr. Chapman’s: James Chapman (1763–1852), Eunice Chapman’s husband who joined the Shakers in 1811 and lived with them until his death. Albany: Albany, New York, the state capital. Shaking Quakers: an alternative name used by non-Shakers for the Shakers. His daughter: Fanny, James’s daughter by his first wife Temperance. three small children: George, Susan and Julia. S. Y. Wells: Seth Youngs Wells (1767–1847) a former schoolteacher who joined the Watervliet, New York, Shaker community in 1798. Wells was involved in many Shaker publications, and personally oversaw the education system for children in the communities. Calvin Wells: (1772–1853) was the brother of Seth Youngs Wells, and a member of the New Lebanon and Watervliet, NY, Shaker communities. He served as an Elder at the South Family of Watervliet. Joseph Hodgson: (1780–1854) was a member of the Watervliet, NY, Shaker community until his death. Brown’s history of the Shakers: Shaker apostate Thomas Brown’s An Account of the People Called Shakers: their Faith, Doctrines, and Practice (Troy, NY: Printed by Parker and Bliss, 1812). Hannah Wells: (1776–1862) was the sister of Seth Youngs Wells, and an Eldress at the Watervliet, NY, Shaker community. Issachar Bates, jun.: (1790–1875) was the son of Issachar Bates the missionary to the west. He was an Elder at the Watervliet, NY, Shaker community. Fanny Waterman: (1777–1855) was a member of the New Lebanon and Watervliet, NY, Shaker communities. spiritual husbands each with his spiritual wife: ‘spiritual wifery’ was a charge commonly levelled against the Shakers by anti-Shaker writers and apostates. No evidence that such practices existed in Chapman’s time has ever come to light. Later in the nineteenth century minorities in a handful of Shaker communities attempted to introduce these practices, but did not succeed. Lavina Bates: (1760–1828) the wife of Issachar Bates Sr, lived at the Watervliet, NY, Shaker community. Hannah Train: either Hannah Train Sr (1755–1842) or Hannah Train Jr (1783–1864), both members of the Watervliet, NY, Shaker community. Issacher Bates: (1758–1837) was one of the three missionaries sent from New Lebanon, New York, on 1 January 1805, to open the Shaker gospel in Ohio and Kentucky. Bates was a key figure in the development of the Shaker communities in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. He returned to the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York in 1835. For Bates’s full story, see, C. Medlicott, Issachar Bates: A Shaker’s Journey (Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2013). put on a cap: Shaker women wore their hair pulled back tight under net caps, on top of which they wore a bonnet. members of the legislature: Asahel Paine, who represented Delaware County in the New York State Legislature.

426

Notes to pages 101–26

21. Patty Carter: (1787–1866) was a member of the New Lebanon and Watervliet, NY, Shaker communities. 22. Mr. Cantine: Moses Cantine was a member of the New York State Senate. 23. Several depositions here tho’t unnecessary, are omitted: Abram Van Vleet omitted some of the content from the Albany, 1818 printing of No. 2, Being an Additional Account of the Conduct of the Shakers, he indicated such omissions in his text. 24. Mr. Deric Veeder: Derrick Vedder joined the Watervliet, NY, Shaker community in 1804 and died there in 1819. 25. Christ in his Second Appearing: a reference to the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing. 26. pamphlet of 16 pages: To the Legislature of the State of New-York (1817). Signed: ‘In behalf of the Society, Peter Dodge, Seth Y. Wells, Joseph Hodgson, Watervliet, March 20th, 1817’. Intended as a protest and refutation of the ‘false and libellous statements and gross misrepresentations concerning the character and conduct’ of the Shakers in the statements of Eunice Chapman, actually only eight pages. 27. New-Enfield: the Shaker community of Enfield, New Hampshire. 28. Mary Dyer: (1780–1867) was an apostate from the Enfield, New Hampshire, Shaker community. She waged a life-long campaign to wrest her children from the Shakers. See the works Elizabeth De Wolfe for Dyer’s full story. 29. Mother Ann’s sayings: a reference to Bishop and Wells, Testimonies of the Life, Character, Revelations and Doctrines, of Our Ever Blessed Mother Ann Lee (1816). 30. numerous account: chapters 42 and 43 of Bishop and Wells, Testimonies, contain detailed accounts of the sad fates of Shakers who had apostatized, or those who had persecuted the Shakers. 31. Joseph Dyer: (1772–1858) the husband of Mary Marshall Dyer and a member of the Enfield, New Hampshire, Shaker community. 32. Peter Dodge: (1758–1836) was a Shaker trustee and member of the New Lebanon and Watervliet, New York, Shaker communities. 33. publicly written: To the Legislature of the State of New-York, (1817). 34. Benjamin Youngs: (1736–1818) was a clockmaker and member of the Watervliet, New York, Shaker community. 35. Lucy Wright: See note 1 to Chapman, Letter to Lucy Wright. 36. the Springs: Lebanon Springs, New York, a popular health resort about one mile from the Shaker village of New Lebanon. 37. Pittsfield: Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is eleven miles east of the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York; and five miles east of the Shaker community at Hancock, Massachusetts. Pittsfield was a hub of anti-Shaker activity in the early nineteenth century. 38. wrote a letter: Chapman’s letter is reprinted in this volume on p. 85. 39. Noah Wheaton: (1744–1834) was a member of the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community. 40. belonging to the Trinity: Shakers actually rejected the doctrine of the trinity and believed instead that God is dual, comprised of God the Father and Holy Mother Wisdom. Likewise, the Christ Spirit was manifested first in Jesus the Christ, and then in Mother Ann Lee. 41. church garret: the Ministry at Shaker communities, comprised of two Elders and two Eldresses, lived in apartments on the upper floors of the meetinghouse. 42. Ananias and Sapphira: early members of the Christian Church at Jerusalem who did not consecrate their all to the Church and lied to the apostles about it. They were both struck down, presumably by God, for their deception, see Acts 5.

Notes to pages 126–41

427

43. Everlasting Gospel: a reference to The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing. 44. five children: Caleb, Betsy, Orville, Jerrub and Joseph. 45. husband advertised me: See De Wolfe, Shaking the Faith, image following p. 114 for this advertisement. 46. Mr. John C. Irwin, Esq.: James Smith Sr’s stepson. He was very involved in Smith’s antiShaker campaign and is frequently mentioned in Smith’s Shakerism Detected. 47. Shaker town, on Turtle Creek: ‘Shakertown’ was a generic name used by non-Shakers west of the Appalachians to refer to the Shaker settlements. It refers here to Union Village, Ohio. 48. Col. James Smith: Colonel James Smith (1737–1813) wrote a number of articles and pamphlets against the Shakers. See his works reproduced in this collection. 49. the pamphlet: James Smith’s Shakerism Detected. 50. lengthy publication: Chapman is probably referring to McNemar’s ‘Shakerism Detected &c.’ Examined & Refuted, in Five Propositions. At ten pages it is hardly a lengthy publication. 51. Elder David: David Darrow (1750–1825) served as the Ministry Elder of Union Village, Ohio, from 1805 until his death. He was the lead spiritual authority over all of the Shaker communities west of the Appalachians. 52. JAMES BEDELL: at one time a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. He apostatized on 15 February 1813. 53. Francis Bedell: (1758–1837) one of the original settlers of Turtle Creek, Ohio. He converted to Shakerism in 1805. 54. Amos Valentine: (1766–1855) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 55. Pease: Peter Pease (1767–1827) joined the New Lebanon, NY, Shaker community in 1787. He was sent to Union Village, Ohio, in 1806 to be a trustee. He eventually returned to New Lebanon where he died. 56. Wallace: John Wallace (b. 1779) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805. He served as a trustee until 14 February 1818, when he apostatized. 57. Sharp: Nathan Sharp (b. 1786) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community around 1810. He served as a trustee until 9 September 1835, when he apostatized. 58. his wife: Susannah Davis, mother of John Davis. 59. William Davis: (1790–1868) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community with his parents in 1805. He remained until his death. 60. ruler of temporal affairs: William Davis became a trustee or deacon who managed business and land transactions. 61. January, 1812: the chronology here seems somewhat muddled. 62. Richard M’ Nemar: See note 22 to Clark, A Shock to Shakerism. 63. Samuel Sering: (1758–1823) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. He was the father of Elizabeth Sering. 64. Samuel Hollaway: (1765–1859) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 65. Jos. Patterson: Joseph Patterson (1767–1818) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 66. Elijah Davis: (1764–1841) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 67. Shaker society on the Wabash: the Shakers established a village on the Busseron Creek, a tributary of the Wabash River. The village was called Busro, or West Union.

428

Notes to pages 141–75

68. Sarah Sering: (1764–1842) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until her death. She was the mother of Elizabeth Sering. 69. John Davis: husband of Elizabeth Sering. 70. Lebanon: See note 2 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 71. Elizabeth Sering: wife of John Davis. 72. New-Lights: a name given to the revivalists in southern Ohio and Kentucky during the peak of the Kentucky Revival. 73. Samuel Rolands: Samuel Rollins (1780–1827) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 74. Beaver Creek: the settlement near Dayton, Ohio, that eventually became the Watervliet, Ohio, Shaker community. 75. John Woods: joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and was a schoolteacher. He apostatized on 11 August 1821, and published his own apostate narrative Shakerism Unmasked, which is reproduced in this volume, pp. 365–420. 76. John Carson: (1772–1832) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1806 and remained until he died. 77. William: William Boyd (b. 1776) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1815. He apostatized in 1828. 78. Weekly Recorder: a newspaper published in Chillicothe, Ohio. 79. Poem: This was later published as ‘The Testimony of Eternal Truth’, the first hymn in the Shakers’ hymnal Millennial Praises.

[Anon.], Indoctum Parliamentum. 1.

Tophet: Tophet was a location in Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom, where worshipers sacrificed children to the gods Moloch and Baal by burning them alive.

Doty, An Address 1.

Calvin Morrel: (1765–1833) a physician from New Jersey. He immigrated to the Turtle Creek settlement in Warren County, Ohio, and joined the Shakers in 1805, becoming a prominent member of the Union Village community. 2. Richard M’ Nemar: See note 22 to Clark, A Shock to Shakerism. 3. the Shaker village: Union Village, Ohio. 4. Middletown: Middletown, Ohio, about ten miles north-west of the Shaker community at Union Village, Ohio. 5. Shakertown: a generic name used by non-Shakers to refer to Shaker settlements. It refers here to Union Village, Ohio. 6. Huston: probably a young relative of Shaker leader Matthew Houston. 7. Molock: an ancient Ammonite God to whom worshippers sacrificed their own children. 8. Caleb Pegg: (1799–1839) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 9. The other side of the question: R. McNemar’s, The Other Side of the Question: in Three Parts … comprising a General Vindication of the Character of Mother and the Elders against the Atacks of Public Slander, the Edicts of a Prejudiced Party, and the Misguided Zeal of Lawless Mobs (Cincinnati, OH: Looker, Reynolds & Co., printers, 1819). 10. the late female goddess: Shaker founder Mother Ann Lee.

Notes to pages 175–90

429

11. Samuel Serring: (1758–1823) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 12. Ashbell Kitchell: (1786–1860) was a member of the Union Village, and North Union, Ohio, Shaker communities. 13. Nathan Sharp: Nathan Sharp (b. 1786) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community around 1810. He served as a trustee until 9 September 1835, when he apostatized. 14. John Thompson: He was a Presbyterian minister and member of the Springfield Presbytery. 15. John Mitchem: John Meacham (1770–1854) was one of the three missionaries sent from New Lebanon, New York, on 1 January 1805, to open the Shaker gospel in Ohio and Kentucky. He returned to the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York, in 1818. 16. Issachar Bates: See note 18 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 17. Benjamin S. Young: Benjamin Seth Youngs (1774–1855) was one of the three missionaries sent from New Lebanon, New York, on 1 January 1805, to open the Shaker gospel in Ohio and Kentucky. He served as Elder of the South Union, Kentucky, Shaker community until 1836, when he was recalled to the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York. 18. Rhoda: Rhoda Morrell (1767–1833), wife of Calvin Morrell, and a member at the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 19. three men: Shaker missionaries Benjamin Seth Youngs, Issachar Bates and John Meacham, who entered Kentucky and Ohio in March 1805. 20. three of the western states: the Shakers had communities in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana by 1820. 21. Peter Dodge: (1758–1836) was a Shaker trustee and member of the New Lebanon and Watervliet, New York, Shaker communities. 22. Seth Y. Wells: Seth Youngs Wells (1767–1847) a former schoolteacher who joined the Watervliet, New York, Shaker community in 1798. Wells was involved in many Shaker publications and personally oversaw the education system for children in the communities. 23. Joseph Hodson: Joseph Hodgson (1780–1854) was a member of the Watervliet, New York, Shaker community until his death. 24. Malinda Kitchell: (1781–1842) was a member of the Union Village and North Union Shaker communities. 25. Amos Valentine’s: (1766–1855) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 26. Abram Van Vleet: the anti-Shaker editor of the Western Star newspaper published in Lebanon, Ohio. 27. Eunice Chapman: (1778–1863) published the first apostate account written by a woman. She waged a battle to regain her children from the Watervliet, New York, Shaker community after her husband James joined the sect. See the Woo, Great Divorce, for the full story. 28. Mary Dyer: See note 28 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 29. their new book: The Other Side of the Question. 30. Rational Brethren of the West: a quasi-religious/scientific association of which Daniel Doty and William Ludlow were key members. 31. our publication: Belief of the Rational Brethren of the West (Cincinnati, OH: Printed for the Society, 1819).

430

Notes to pages 195–221

32. The Testimony: The Shakers’ first large-scale publication explicating their theology, and placing it in a historical context. The first edition of The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing was published at Lebanon, Ohio, in 1808. It subsequently went through four editions. 33. David Durrow: See note 51 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 34. filthy Pilgrims: a bizarre sect led by Canadian-born Isaac Bullard. They left Vermont in 1817 and journeyed on foot through New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, ultimately ending up on an island in the Mississippi River. They wore animal skins and did not bathe. They visited the Shakers at New Lebanon, New York, and Union Village, Ohio. Some former Pilgrims joined the Shakers.

[Anon.], A Brief Exposition of the Fanaticism, False Doctrines, and the Absurdities, of the People called Shakers 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

Ebenezer Bishop: (1768–1849) First Elder in the New Lebanon, New York, Ministry from 1821 until his death. Calvin Green: (1780–1869) a member of the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community. A major Shaker theologian and historian of the movement. Richard Bushnel: (1791–1873) Elder of the North Family (Gathering Order) at the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community beginning in 1832, and First Elder in the New Lebanon Ministry in 1858. [Ann Lee.]: Mother Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers. by intemperance: Mother Ann Lee and her brother William Lee were often accused of intemperance. Apostate Daniel Rathbun’s Letter contains more information on this topic than any other source; it is reproduced in Volume 1, pp. 55–112 of this collection. his history of the Shakers: Shaker apostate Thomas Brown’s 1812 book An Account of the People Called Shakers: Their Faith, Doctrines, and Practice. Eunice Chapman: See note 28 to Doty, An Address. Christ’s Second Appearing: The Shakers’ first large-scale publication explicating their theology, and placing it in a historical context. The first edition of the Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing was published at Lebanon, Ohio, in 1808. It subsequently went through four editions. 622 pages of small print: the 1810 edition of The Testimony. Margaret Fell: (1614–1702) one of the founders of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers. Phillis Wheatly: (1753–84) a former slave and the first African-American female poet. Jemima Wilkinson: Jemima Wilkinson (1752–1819) who preached as ‘Publick Universal Friend’ and established a community at Jerusalem (today’s Penn Yann), New York around 1790. Anne Lee of Toad Lane: Ann Lee grew up on Toad Lane in Manchester, England. lodolo: Shakers used vocables such as ‘lo de lo’ for singing certain songs in place of English words. your pamphlet printed in 2d mo. 20th, 1816: a reference to the Shakers pamphlet To the Respectable Legislature of the State of New-York (Albany, NY, 1816). The work is signed by five Shaker trustees and petitions for release from military service on conscientious grounds. It is actually dated 19 February 1816.

Notes to pages 233–37

431

Blackburn, A Brief Account of the Rise, Progress, Doctrines, and Practices of the People Usually Denominated Shakers 1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

16. 17.

18. 19.

Turtle Creek: the settlement in Warren County, Ohio, that became the Union Village Shaker community. Henry Miller: joined the Shakers at Eagle Creek, Ohio, in 1809. After West Union, Indiana, was dissolved Miller lived at Watervilet, Ohio, where he signed the covenant in 1833. a covenant or article: the first written covenants were instituted by Shaker communities during the 1790s. The covenant was a legal instrument designed to protect the Shaker Society from claims by withdrawing members. an unreserved account of my past life: each Shaker convert had to confess all of his past sins to an Elder before being accepted into the community. Saloma Douglass: (1798–1828) a member at the West Union, Indiana, and Watervliet, Ohio, Shaker communities. French Prophets: See note 11 to Clark, A Shock to Shakerism. James and Jane Wardly: James and Jane Wardley founded the religious movement that became the Shakers in Manchester, England. Ann Lee: Mother Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers. a blacksmith: according to Shaker sources Ann Lee’s husband Abraham Stanley (or Standley, or Standerin) found work as a blacksmith in New York City, but then got very sick. After Ann Lee nursed him back to health he did not continue in the faith and left her (Bishop and Wells, Testimonies, pp. 10–11). three or four: Ann Lee had four children, all of whom died in infancy, see Youngs, Testimony, p. 22. ship and its crew: see Youngs, Testimony, pp. 24–5, for an account of the voyage of the ship Mariah. society near Albany: spelled a variety of ways in early texts, this is Niskeyuna, the first Shaker settlement in America where Mother Ann Lee lived beginning in 1776. It eventually became the Shaker village of Watervliet, New York, which did not close until 1938. Jemima Wilkinson: See note 12 to [Anon.], A Brief Exposition. revival of religion: The Kentucky Revival, which began in 1798 in Logan County, Kentucky, and spread through central Kentucky climaxing in the Cane Ridge camp meetings in 1801. The Revival spawned the New Light and Schismatic movements that rejected Calvinist theology in favour of freewill salvation. John Dunlavy: (1769–1826) was a Presbyterian minister, member of the Springfield Prebystery with Richard McNemar (who was also his brother-in-law), and a member of the Shaker community at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. Richard McNamer: See note 22 to Clark, A Shock to Shakerism. Mathew Huston: Matthew Houston (1769–1853) was a Presbyterian minister at Paint Lick, Kentucky. He was an important preacher during the Kentucky Revival, and ultimately led his congregation into Shakerism. He lived at the Union Village, and North Union, Ohio, Shaker communities. Malcham Worley: Malcolm Worley (1762–1844) was the first convert to Shakerism in Ohio. He was a key member of the Union Village, Ohio, community. Robert Marshall: (1760–1832) was a Presbyterian minister and member of the Springfield Presbytery.

432

Notes to pages 237–40

20. David Purviance: (1766–1847) was a member of the Springfield Presbytery along with John Dunlavy and Richard McNemar (both of whom became Shakers). He went on to be a founding member of the Stone-Campbell Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). 21. Barton W. Stone: (1772–1844) was a member of the Springfield Presbytery along with John Dunlavy and Richard McNemar (both of whom became Shakers). He went on to be a founding member of the Stone-Campbell Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). 22. Arians: followers of early Christian presbyter Arius of Alexandria (ad 250–336) who believed that God created Jesus, and therefore the two were not consubstantial, but separate entities. 23. N. Lebanon: New Lebanon, New York, the centre of Shaker authority. 24. Lucy Goodrich: Lucy Wright; see note 1 to Chapman, Letter to Lucy Wright. Goodrich was her married name, which she ceased using after her conversion to Shakerism. 25. John Meacham: John Meacham (1770–1854) was one of the three missionaries sent from New Lebanon, New York, on 1 January 1805, to open the Shaker gospel in Ohio and Kentucky. He returned to the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York, in 1818. 26. Benjamin S. Youngs: See note 17 to Doty, An Address. 27. Issichar Bates: See note 18 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 28. fall of 1804: the Shaker missionaries actually entered Kentucky and Ohio in March 1805. 29. Union Village: located in Warren County, Ohio, the chief Shaker settlement west of the Appalachians. 30. Eagle-creek: a settlement along the Ohio River in south central Ohio. Shakers lived there from 1805 to 1811. 31. Logan county: in south central Kentucky, the location of the Jasper Springs settlement that became the South Union Shaker community. 32. Shawnee-ma: Shawnee Run settlement in Mercer County, that became the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community. 33. Jasper: Jasper Springs was the location of a group of Shaker converts that were gathered into the South Union, Kentucky, Shaker community. 34. Busroe-creek: the Shakers established a village on the Busseron Creek, a tributary of the Wabash River. The village was called Busro, or West Union, Indiana. 35. Water-Vliet: the settlement at Beaver Creek, near Dayton, that became the Watervliet, Ohio, Shaker community. 36. White water: the White Water, Ohio, Shaker community. 37. Lake waters: a Shaker community was formed near Cleveland, Ohio, not far from Lake Erie, beginning in 1822. It was called North Union, perhaps this is what Blackburn is alluding to. 38. Strait-creek: an early Shaker settlement, near Eagle Creek, in what was then Brown County, Ohio. 39. paled: fenced. 40. youth family: children and young people were gathered in separate families in Shaker communities. Deacons or Deaconesses had care of these ‘Childrens Orders’. 41. office: each Shaker community had a Trustees’ Office where all business and financial transactions were conducted. 42. David Darrow: See note 51 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 43. Rachel: Rachel Johnson (b. 1799) was sent from the eastern Shaker communities to Union Village, Ohio, in 1807. She was an Eldress, and ultimately returned to the east where she died.

Notes to pages 240–9

433

44. Solomon King: (1775–1858) was sent from the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community to Ohio with David Darrow in 1805. He was in the Union Village, Ohio, Ministry from 1812 to 1835. He was recalled to New Lebanon where he died. 45. Peter Peas: Peter Pease (1767–1827) joined the New Lebanon, New York, Shaker community in 1787. He was sent to Union Village, Ohio, in 1806 to be a trustee. He eventually returned to New Lebanon where he died. 46. Archibald Meacham: (1777–1845) was sent from the eastern Shaker communities to Union Village, Ohio, in 1807. He was an Elder, and also lived at West Union, Indiana, and White Water, Ohio. He ultimately returned to the east where he died. 47. Saloma: (1806–30) a member of the Union Village, Ohio, and West Union, Indiana, Shaker communities. 48. Patience Naylor: (1794–1861) a member of the Union Village, Ohio, and West Union, Indiana, Shaker communities. 49. Daniel Boyd: (1783–1845) a member of the Union Village, Ohio, and West Union, Indiana, Shaker communities. 50. George Ligeur: (1761–1850) was a member of the West Union, Indiana, and Union Village, Ohio, Shaker communities. 51. Jos. Johnson: Joseph Johnson (1776–1849) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 52. Andrew Martin: (b. 1800) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, and West Union, Indiana, Shaker communities. He apostatized in 1828. 53. door family: probably the Novitiate or Gathering Order, a place where someone could try Shaker life without signing the full Church covenant and consecrating their property. 54. Mary Hopkins: (1784–1855) a member at the West Union, Indiana, and Watervliet and White Water, Ohio, Shaker communities. 55. James Hopkins: (1775–1828) a member at the West Union, Indiana, and Watervliet, Ohio, Shaker communities. 56. manifesto: John Dunlavy’s 1818 theological treatise The Manifesto. 57. miminue: this is probably a garbling of the Hebrew word ‘Emmanuel’, meaning ‘God is with us’. 58. Dives: the rich man in the parable of Luke 16:9–31. 59. Elder Isichar: Issachar Bates; see note 18 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 60. James and Jane Worley: James and Jane Wardley. 61. Seth Y. Wells’s: Seth Youngs Wells (1767–1847) a former schoolteacher who joined the Watervliet, New York, Shaker community in 1798. Wells was involved in many Shaker publications, and personally oversaw the education system for children in the communities. Blackburn is probably referring to sections of C. Green and S. Y. Wells, A Summary View of the Millennial Church (Albany, NY: Printed by Packard & Van Benthuysen, 1823). 62. Bezalell’s ark: Bezaleel was chief architect of the tabernacle in Exodus 31:1–11. 63. probatumest: a ‘thing’ or ‘person approved’. 64. landly: the ‘n’ is likely an inverted ‘u’, which would make this ‘laudly’, which conforms to the Roman Catholic Liturgy of Hours office of Lauds, or dawn prayer, which was a three in the morning. 65. character Law: the Shakers used vocables, such as ‘lo de lo’, in place of words for singing certain songs.

434

Notes to pages 249–63

66. songs, or Anthems: Shakers had a number of different song forms. Anthems were throughcomposed works lacking a verse chorus structure, they could be quite lengthy and free in terms of rhythm and melody. 67. See Smith, on Shakerism: Colonel James Smith (1737–1813) wrote a number of articles and pamphlets against the Shakers. See his works reproduced in this collection. 68. Omini Vincet Amor: Latin, a rough rendering of ‘love conquers all’. 69. Georgius Wicelsus: George Wicel, an early follower of Martin Luther who later accused Luther’s father of being a murderer. 70. philter: a love potion. 71. evr vetret: read ‘inveterate’. 72. git drunt the peole: probably ‘get drunk, the people’, a rough transliteration of Miller’s barely literate letter into handset type. 73. Hotentot: an archaic racial term for the Khoikhoi people of southwestern Africa. 74. Winobago: a reference to the Winnebago Indians. 75. grable: probably ‘grapple’, meaning a struggle. 76. Eunice Chapman: See note 28 to Doty, An Address. 77. Mary Dyer: See note 28 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 78. Vanvleet: Abram Van Vleet. See note 27 to Doty, An Address. 79. Camron: Cameron, partner in Abram Van Vleet’s press.

Brown, A Countercheck 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing: The Shakers’ first large-scale publication explicating their theology, and placing it in a historical context. The first edition of The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing was published at Lebanon, Ohio, in 1808. It subsequently went through four editions. The French prophets: See note 11 to Clark, A Shock to Shakerism. Test: The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing. James and Jane Wardley: James and Jane Wardley founded the religious movement that became the Shakers in Manchester, England. Anne Lee: Mother Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers. Manchester: Manchester, England. Abraham Standley: according to Shaker sources Ann Lee’s husband Abraham Stanley (or Standley, or Standerin) found work as a blacksmith in New York City, but then got very sick. After Ann Lee nursed him back to health he did not continue in the faith and left her (Bishop and Wells, Testimonies, pp. 10–11). landing at New-York: the Shakers arrived in New York harbor aboard the ship Mariah on August 6, 1774. Niskeuna: spelled a variety of ways in early texts, this is Niskeyuna, the first Shaker settlement in America where Mother Ann Lee lived beginning in 1776. It eventually became the Shaker village of Watervliet, New York, which did not close until 1938. three Hebrew children: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, see Daniel 1:3. David Durrow: See note 51 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. Joseph Meacham: Joseph Meacham (1742–1796) succeeded James Whittaker as leader of the Shaker Church. He instituted communal living among the Shakers and also appointed Lucy Wright as his female counterpart in the Ministry, establishing a precedent for coequal male and female leadership. Benjamin S. Youngs: See note 17 to Doty, An Address.

Notes to pages 263–311

435

14. five hundred pages: the first edition of The Testimony, published in 1800, is actually 600 pages. 15. antient Gnostics: a broad term used to refer to a mystical community of early Christians who sought liberation from the evil material world through transformative gnosis or ‘knowledge’. 16. Water Vliet: the Shaker community of Watervliet, New York. 17. Rev. ii, 20: ‘Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols’. 18. Otaheiteans: native inhabitants of the Pacific island of Tahiti. 19. Socinians: Socinians rejected the trinity and original sin. They also believed that God was not omniscient because if he was then human free will was impossible. Therefore revivalists who believed in a person’s free will to come to Christ and be saved were often termed Socinians. 20. Arians: followers of early Christian presbyter Arius of Alexandria (ad 250–336) who believed that God created Jesus, and therefore the two were not consubstantial, but separate entities. 21. Mr. William Cowper: (1731–1800), an English poet and hymnodist. 22. Tophet: Tophet was a location in Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom where worshipers sacrificed children to the gods Moloch and Baal by burning them alive. 23. poetick Abridgement: Entitled ‘A POEM, Containing a Short Abridgment of the Foregoing Testimony’. This was later published as ‘The Testimony of Eternal Truth’, the first hymn in the Shakers’ hymnal Millennial Praises (Hancock, MA: Printed by Josiah Tallcott, Junior, 1813), p. 1.

Youmans, An Appeal to Scripture and Common Sense 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

‘The testimony of Christ’s second appearing’: The Shakers’ first large-scale publication explicating their theology, and placing it in a historical context. The first edition of The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing was published at Lebanon, Ohio, in 1808. It subsequently went through four editions. Anne Lee’s: Mother Ann Lee (1736–84) founder of the Shakers. Anne Standley’s: Youmans is derisively calling Ann Lee by her married name, Standley. Abraham Standley: according to Shaker sources Ann Lee’s husband, Abraham Stanley (or Standley, or Standerin) found work as a blacksmith in New York City, but then got very sick. After Ann Lee nursed him back to health he did not continue in the faith and left her (Bishop and Wells, Testimonies, pp. 10–11). Ib: ibid. Calvin Morral: See note 1 to Doty, An Address. other side of the question: See note 9 to Doty, An Address. Lodel! Lodel!: the Shakers used vocables, such as ‘lo de lo’, in place of words for singing certain songs. 600 pages: a reference to the 1808 edition of The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing.

436

Notes to pages 320–59

Whitbey, Beauties of Priestcraft 1.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

nor any thing of the kind: this is not strictly true. The Shakers did have a written covenant that was publicly published beginning in the late 1820s, they also issued numerous theological works. that female: Mother Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers. divided into classes, or orders: Shaker communities were divided into families that were grouped according to membership status. The Church Family, or First and Second Orders of the Church, were usually covenanted members who had consecrated their property. Gathering, Novitiate, or Young Believer’s Orders, were for prospective members who were trying Shaker life. Pleasant Hill, Kentucky: the Shaker community located in Mercer County, Kentucky. I had a brother: Richardson Whitbey eventually left the Shakers with his brother. He married Camilla Wright (sister of reformer France ‘Fanny’ Wright) and participated in the interracial community at Nashoba, Tennessee, see Stein, Letters from a Young Shaker (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1985), pp. 153–4. first and second orders: the Church Family was subdivided. young order: Whitbey joined the Gathering order, located at the North Lot, see T. D. Clark and F. G. Ham, Pleasant Hill and Its Shakers (Harrodsburg, KY: Pleasant Hill Press, 1996), p. 25. John Dunlavy: (1769–1826) was a Presbyterian minister, member of the Springfield Prebystery with Richard McNemar (who was also his brother-in-law), and a member of the Shaker community at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. Christ’s Second Appearing: The Shakers’ first large-scale publication explicating their theology, and placing it in a historical context. The first edition of The Testimony of Christ’s Second Appearing was published at Lebanon, Ohio, in 1808. It subsequently went through four editions. Elder Samuel: Samuel Turner (1775–1842) was sent from New Lebanon, New York, to Ohio in 1806, and became First Elder in the Ministry of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community in 1808. He was recalled to New Lebanon in 1836, where he died. two young men: the identity of these men has not been determined. Universalian: Universalist. return home to the church: Dunlavy and his associate were recalled to live in the Church Family at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. James Rankin: (1792–1884) was a member of the South Union and Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker communities. George Runion: George Runyon (1795–1884) was a member of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community. Robert Owen: (1771–1858) a Welsh industrialist and social reformer who founded communities at New Lanark, Scotland, and New Harmony, Indiana. new views of society: Owens’ landmark 1813 work, A New View of Society. pelf: from old French for pelfre, or ‘booty’. George: George Runyon. Elder Samuel: Samuel Turner. Rufus: Rufus Bryant (1796–1872) was a member of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Ministry from 1824–29. Richesson Whitbey: Richardson Whitbey eventually left the Shakers with his brother. He married Camilla Wright (sister of reformer France ‘Fanny’ Wright) and participated in the interracial community at Nashoba, Tennessee, see S. Stein, Letters from a Young Shaker, pp. 153–4.

Notes to pages 369–84

437

Woods, Shakerism Unmasked 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25.

revival of religion in Kentucky: the Kentucky Revival, which began in 1798 in Logan County, Kentucky, and spread through central Kentucky climaxing in the Cane Ridge camp meetings in 1801. The Revival spawned the New Light and Schismatic movements that rejected Calvinist theology in favour of freewill salvation. censured by their brethren: tried by the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky for holding heretical beliefs. Richard McNemar: See note 22 to Clark, A Shock to Shakerism. Robert Marshall: (1760–1832) was a Presbyterian minister and member of the Springfield Presbytery. John Dunlavy: (1769–1826) was a Presbyterian minister, member of the Springfield Prebystery with Richard McNemar (who was also his brother-in-law), and a member of the Shaker community at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. Barton W. Stone: (1772–1844) was a member of the Springfield Presbytery along with John Dunlavy and Richard McNemar (both of whom became Shakers). He went on to be a founding member of the Stone-Campbell Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). John Thompson: a Presbyterian minister and member of the Springfield Presbytery. jurisdiction of that body: the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky. February or March: the Shaker missionaries arrived in Kentucky and Ohio during March 1805. the Shakers: three missionaries, Benjamin Seth Youngs, Issachar Bates, and John Meacham. They left New Lebanon, New York, at 3 a.m., on 1 January 1805. Paint Lick: a settlement in central Kentucky where Matthew Houston served as Presbyterian minister. A group of Shakers lived here until 1808. cross against the flesh: to become celibate. my wife: Jane Woods (née Brank). Matthew Houston: Matthew Houston (1769–1853) was a Presbyterian minister at Paint Lick, Kentucky. He was an important preacher during the Kentucky Revival, and ultimately led his congregation into Shakerism. He lived at the Union Village, and North Union, Ohio, Shaker communities. his wife: Charity ‘Peggy’ Houston (1774–1862) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. Ann Lee: Shaker founder Mother Ann Lee. Shawney run: the settlement that became the Shaker village of Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. Warren County in Ohio: the settlement at Turtle Creek was the nucleus for the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. Mercer: county. James Gass: also later apostatized, leaving the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community and instituting a lawsuit against them. John Meacham: John Meacham (1770–1854) was one of the three missionaries sent from New Lebanon, New York, on 1 January 1805, to open the Shaker gospel in Ohio and Kentucky. He returned to the Shaker community at New Lebanon, New York, in 1818. Elisha Thomas: (c. 1760–1839) was a member of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community. Betsy Banta: (1800–42) was a member of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community. David Darrow: See note 51 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. Amos Valentine: (1766–1855) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community.

438

Notes to pages 384–403

26. Milinda Watts: Malinda Watts (1781–1868) lived at the Union Village, Watervliet, and North Union, Ohio, Shaker communities. 27. Houston: Matthew Houston. 28. James Smith: son of Colonel James Smith, an anti-Shaker writer whose works are included in this set. 29. Malcham Worley: Malcolm Worley (1762–1844) was the first convert to Shakerism in Ohio. He was a key member of the Union Village, Ohio, community. 30. John Houston: (1763–1838) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 31. Solomon King: See note 44 to Blackburn, A Brief Account. 32. church covenant: the first written covenants were instituted by Shaker communities during the 1790s. The covenant was a legal instrument designed to protect the Shaker Society from claims by withdrawing members. 33. Peter Pees: Peter Pease; see note 55 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. 34. Pleasant Hill: the Shaker community located in Mercer County, Kentucky. 35. Ruth Farrington: Ruth Farrington (1763–1821) was the first female Ministry Eldress at the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community, known as ‘Mother Ruth’. 36. Eldress Tinsey Goodrich: (1777–1819) one of the eastern Believers sent to Union Village, Ohio, in 1807. She was second Eldress in the Union Village Ministry. 37. dropsy: edema. 38. Francis Bedell: (1758–1837) one of the original settlers of Turtle Creek, Ohio. He converted to Shakerism in 1805. 39. John Wallace: John Wallace (b. 1779) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805. He served as a trustee until 14 February 1818, when he apostatized. 40. Kenhawa: the Kanawha River in today’s West Virginia. 41. Mary Bedell: Mary Beedle (1788–1859) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 42. Phebe Lockwood: (1787–1827) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 43. Cornelius Campbell: (1774–1829) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 44. Wabash country: the Shakers established a village on the Busseron Creek, a tributary of the Wabash River. The village was called Busro, or West Union, Indiana. 45. flying for their lives: the Shakers had to abandon the West Union, Indiana, community in March of 1811 as the military theater of the War of 1812 encroached on their community. 46. Redbanks: the settlement located on the Ohio River in modern-day Henderson, Kentucky. A group of about thirty Shakers lived there from 1807 to 1809. 47. Union Village: located in Warren County, Ohio, the chief Shaker settlement west of the Appalachians. 48. Ebenezer Morrell: (1787–1829) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. 49. Garret Peterson: (b. 1776) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. He either left or was removed from the community in 1839 due to dementia. 50. Samuel Rollins: Samuel Rollins (1780–1827) joined the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community in 1805 and remained until his death. 51. wife of Doctor Morrell: Rhoda Morrell (1767–1833), the wife of Calvin Morrell, and a member at the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. Calvin Morrell (1765–1833) was a physician from New Jersey. He immigrated to the Turtle Creek settlement in War-

Notes to pages 403–15

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65.

66. 67.

439

ren County, Ohio, and joined the Shakers in 1805, becoming a prominent member of the Union Village community. Beaver-creek: the settlement at Beaver Creek, near Dayton, that became the Watervliet, Ohio, Shaker community. Samuel Trotter: (b. 1782) was a member of the Union Village, Ohio, Shaker community. He apostatized on 15 June 1831. Georgetown: Kentucky. South Union: the Shaker community located in Logan County, Kentucky. Benj. Youngs: Benjamin Seth Youngs; see note 17 to Doty, An Address. West Union: the Shakers established a village on the Busseron Creek, a tributary of the Wabash River. The village was called Busro, or West Union, Indiana. Izachar Bates: See note 18 to Chapman, Brown and Dyer, An Account. Elder Archibald: Archibald Meacham (1777–1845) was sent from the eastern Shaker communities to Union Village, Ohio, in 1807. He was an Elder, and also lived at West Union, Indiana, and White Water, Ohio. He ultimately returned to the east where he died. birth day of Mother Ann: celebrated either 29 February (in a leap year), or 1 March. two o’clock, P.M.: this must be a.m..; the Shakers arose in the middle of the night. antiques: read ‘antics’. Mother Lucy Smith: (1766–1852) was sent from the New was sent from New Lebanon, New York, to Ohio in 1806, and became First Eldress of the Ministry of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community in 1808. Anthony Dunlavy: (1773–1856) was a member of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community. Elder Samuel Turner: Samuel Turner (1775–1842) was sent from New Lebanon, New York, to Ohio in 1806, and became First Elder in the Ministry of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community in 1808. He was recalled to New Lebanon in 1836, where he died. Lexington: Kentucky. F— V—: Francis Voris, a member of the Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, Shaker community. He later apostatized.