HAVING given a short account of the entrance and progress of this new religion, according to the sense of those who have embraced it, I shall proceed to exhibit it in a more external point of view, in which I shall consider some of the errors with which it was branded, and the unreasonable treatment which it received on that account from some. Not that I wish to inspire the reader with the least degree of resentment against those who may have taken up the matter in a false light, and through a misguided zeal, acted an unreasonable and unlawful part in opposing it. Confident I am that if Shakerism was properly understood, there is no man in his senses could persecute it. Nor do I suppose that the religion of Christ, under any name, would ever have been persecuted by the men of this world, but through the instigation of a wrong-headed clergy. The government of Christ has nothing to do with the government of this world, and can therefore offer the citizens of this world no provocation. But thro' the false insinuations of those who have wished to incorporate the church with the world, and sit at the helm of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in conjunction; those who have marked and kept up the distinction, have been represented as the enemies of mankind, and treated as such. Now if it is true that none of the princes of this world knew Christ Jesus, otherwise they would not have crucified him, what conduct might be expected towards those who walk in his meek and lowly footsteps, from the enlightened sons of Columbia, provided their judgment was not warped and twisted by that wild and voracious beast, which long ago made war with the lamb, and overcame him. Herod and Pontius Pilate would never have molested the harmless Jesus, but for the false accusations of the priests and high pretenders to religion, instant with loud voices crying, "Away with him--He says he is the Son of God!--He makes himself equal with God! He said he would destroy our temple, and build it again in three days!--Away with [87] him! away with him!--If you let the deceiver go, you will not be a friend to Cæsar." It was not the peaceable citizens of the Roman government that characterized him a blasphemer, a malefactor, wine-drinker, and a whore-master, but those who professed to have all one father, even God. And it was the same characters that pursued the saints as "pestilent fellows, movers of sedition," enemies to the commonwealth, &c. wore out the patience of the civil magistrate with their clamors, and finally interested the secular arm to extirpate them from the earth. These things were written for our learning, that when we see any people persecuted for their religion, we may know it is not primarily by the commonwealth, but by the instigation of some ecclesiastical judge, and of course it is not really the religion itself that is persecuted, but something in the room of it, which the false judge has the assurance to palm upon the multitude while be demands their credit to his false coloring. That Shakerism has been grossly misrepresented in many instances, very few will pretend to doubt; and the source from whence these misrepresentations arose, must be peculiarly worthy of notice.

      It is easy to perceive that the spirit of the revival had a peculiar tendency to put down that ministerial authority by which creeds and parties were supported, and set the people at liberty, each to follow the dictates of his own conscience. Upon this principle, the jurisdiction of the Synod of Kentucky was renounced, and the Presbytery of Springfield resigned their supposed authority. But though Dagon fell before the ark, yet the Philistines set him again in his place. The generality of the members of Presbytery, notwithstanding their professed resignation, continued in the full possession of their reputed authority; and in that capacity stood ready to judge of any increasing light that might be manifested, whether they were able to comprehend it or not. Having shook off their former reins of government, and having attained but little mortification of that pride natural to man, and being carried along in a high gale of the spirit, they began to form great imaginations of an universal kingdom, in which they would fill the first rank. And as the ground work of this vast [88] kingdom, which must include the whole earth, they proposed to seize upon the sacred name, CHRISTIAN, exclusive of all other names; and so draw into union and one grand communion, all who wished to be called by that worthy name. The plan of this great kingdom was drawn up by Rice Haggard, and published in the year 1804; which proposed as the leading foundation principles, simply to worship one God--acknowledge one Saviour, Jesus Christ--have one confession of faith, and let that be the Bible--one form of discipline and government, and this to be the New-Testament--be members of one church, &c. (See Address to the different religious societies, on the sacred import of the Christian name, p. 21.) These high imaginations served for a season to amuse the people, but their eccentricity from the leading light of the revival, is easily perceived, by a little attention to the "Observations on Church Government." While the work of God continued in any degree of purity, it was not a sacred name the subjects of it were in quest of, nor was it the communion and fellowship of the millions who assumed the worthy name of Christ, that they sought: It was the power of God unto salvation, and that living spirit of Christ in the heart, by which they might grow into a holy temple in the Lord. But a scheme of human imagination, which proposed to organize all the denominations into one great body of Christ, was very suitable wherewith to confront a little testimony, which simply encouraged souls that were seeking salvation, to confess and forsake their sins and set out to follow Christ, in a life of new obedience. And therefore for the distorted features of Shakerism--the erroneous sentiments and wicked practices of those called Shakers, mankind in general are indebted to those, who by way of eminence are called Christians.

      In perusing an account of this distinguished profession in Browne's Western Calendar, written at Springfield, August 26, 1806; the following sentence particularly attracted my attention, viz.

"They are not so vain as to think that all their thoughts, words and actions have always been exactly right; and they will thank any, [89] who in the spirit of meekness, will point out to them wherein they may be wrong, that they may amend."

This concession and request from one of the first ministers in this new Christian society, in behalf of the people in general, altho' I conceive it furnishes me with no authority to accuse them with ought, yet in reason, it must prevent their taking offence, should they know that a number of their words and actions are recorded in a spirit of meekness, which are conceived to be essentially wrong.

      When the testimony was opened at Turtle-Creek, what was spoken by the Lebanon brethren themselves, could not reasonably be condemned by those who heard it. But others at a distance, tossing about with the wind of imagination, and conjecturing things that had no reality, imbibed a spirit of prejudice against this doctrine of the cross; and especially as it bore an unfavorable aspect toward the great body of Christ which they had in contemplation. And therefore, the first words which I conceive were not exactly right, came forward in a letter from Springfield, dated April 5, 1805, a few of which words were as follows.

"It matters not to me who they are, who are the devil's tools whether men or angels, good men or bad. In the strength of God I mean not to spare. I used lenity once to the devil, because he came in a good man, viz. Worley. But my God respects no man's person. I would they were even cut off who trouble you. I mean in the name and strength of God to lift his rod of almighty truth against the viper," &c.

Now admitting that these were the wickedest men on earth, I am far from thinking that such menacing words, from one unprovoked could be justified; and how much less when on the same sheet, this concession appears,

"I do not say that they are not good men, or that the body of their sect are not such; perhaps they have more light than any other sect; perhaps they have had more power."

Where then could be the propriety of crushing them, or cutting them off, even upon the generous Christian plan of a coalition of sects.

      In a foregoing letter it was complained that through faith in the testimony, the ordinances of Baptism, the [90] Lord's Supper, &c. were likely to be cast away. And in the epistle from which I have just been quoting, are the following words:

"These men have turned the gospel into a law of commandments contained in ordinances."--

Now from these two Christian ministers, who could learn the true account? Their words could not be both exactly right, for they stood in pointed contradiction. But further, considering that brother Thompson in the same letter acknowledged that he was far behind, not only in the light and liberty of the revival, but on every important subject, I conceive it was not exactly right for him to form such hasty resolutions to combat the testimony, even before he had properly heard it; and with that resolution, to come up to the camp meeting at Turtle-Creek, on the 27th of April, raise a sudden and passionate outcry against these peaceable men--assume the authority of leading the meeting--enter upon a public investigation of their doctrines, and in the close of it, pronounce with a loud voice, they are liars! they are liars! they are liars! According to the fable, "A liar is not to be believed even when he speaks the truth." Therefore although it was readily granted, that these men spoke the truth, yet there remained this pretext for not believing them, namely, that they were declared to be liars; and upon this principle it was, that they were debarred by many from speaking at all in public. A man may be under an error, or he may be mistaken, and yet merit some degree of respect from his fellow-creatures; but a wilful liar, a deliberate teller of lies, who can away with. Therefore under this opprobrious character, a bold Christian could cry to Issachar Bates, "Go to Hell," and while a wicked man followed John Meacham from place to place, spitting in his face, and crying aloud to make a great fire and burn these false prophets, some of the foremost who professed the worthy name, Christian, were at his back, laughing and encouraging him on. This and such like treatment, appeared so far from being exactly right among a people who aimed at monopolizing the name of Christ, that I am confident similar treatment from the wildest savages towards any men of civil deportment, must have merited severe reflection. [91]

      At a succeeding meeting at Salem, the 11th of May following, I have no doubt but brother Thompson may have justly reflected, that he was not exactly right in debarring from the privilege of speaking, one whom he had long acknowledged his equal, and his guide; excluding all who believed the testimony, from any further communion or fellowship with the Christians, and especially as it was in pointed contradiction to their general Christian plan. "Let none be excommunicated but for a breach of the divine law." (See Haggard's plan before mentioned.) Setting his own prejudiced spirit to speak in scriptures, as if it was the spirit of God. And thus asserting, that the Holy Ghost had made him overseer of the flock, and that these Shakers were false Christs, false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ, creeping into houses and leading captive silly women, dumb dogs, and every hateful name and character which the scripture could furnish. In consequence of which, they were railed upon by the Christians under these names wherever they went, and henceforward these members of "the great body of Christ," conceived they had good authority from the word of God, to impeach them with every thing that was erroneous, wicked and base, and not only palm upon them every filthy character named in the scriptures, but treat them as they supposed such characters deserved. Now if it was not exactly right to take the private interpretation of John Thompson on those occasions, and upon the strength of that, refuse any personal acquaintance with these men, it will follow that all the rough treatment they received in consequence, was exactly wrong. I further conclude it was exactly wrong for my kind brother Stone, after inviting me by letter to attend the general meeting at Concord the second Sabbath in August, to forbid me to speak on the occasion, or even to come to his house, and by a council of the Christian clergy, to impose upon brother Dunlavy, Benjamin Youngs and Malcham Worley, the injunction of total silence through the whole of the meeting, and (at the same time that many were soliciting us with tears to preach, and we thus pointedly [92] forbidden on pain of being prosecuted as disturbers of the meeting) to propagate among the people that we were the dumb dogs spoken of in scripture; (with which title we were often taunted.) On the last day of the meeting, six of the Christian brethren, viz. J. Thompson, R. Marshal, B. W. Stone, D. Purviance, J. Stockwell and A. Brannon, alternately delivered each his opinion of the Shakers in an address, in which some of them were named out, pronounced liars, defamed by many slanderous reports which they could have proved false, had they been allowed to speak. Now if such treatment was right, the spirit of the revival, which allowed every man liberty of conscience, must have been wrong. But as I conceive it to be right for every man to hear and believe whoever he pleases, the above conduct appears not only subversive of the liberty of conscience so warmly contended for a little while before by the same brethren, but of the very spirit of a free government. For be it observed, that in all those places the people were anxious to hear the Shakers, and considered themselves as much related to those who were forbidden to speak, as to them who forbade them; until by the din of false reports and misrepresentations of their faith and practice, they were frighted into a spirit of prejudice.

      Brother Stone, in the introduction to his Letters on Atonement, observes that the arguments used by his opponents, are

"bold unscriptural assertions--hard names--delusion--error--doctrines of devils-- Arminianism--Socinianism-- Deism, &c. Such arguments (say he) have no effect on a candid mind, but they powerfully influence dupes and bigots. The candid look for truth and plain unequivocal arguments."--

Who then could he suppose, would be influenced by the following statement in the postscript of his reply to Campbell's strictures?--

"You have heard no doubt before this time, of the lamentable departure of two of our preachers, and a few of their hearers from the true gospel, into wild enthusiasm, or Shakerism. They have made ship-wreck of faith, and turned aside to an old woman's fables, who broached them in New-England about twenty-five years ago. These wolves in sheep's clothing have smelt us from afar, and have [93] come to tear rend and devour," &c.

If bold unscriptural assertions--hard names, &c. are wrong, I presume brother Stone's postscript is not exactly right. What plain unequivocal argument was ever advanced to prove that the conduct of these men, in a single instance answered to such a bold assertion. When Benjamin Youngs was forbidden to speak at Concord, by R. Marshal and B. W. Stone, the only reply he made was, "I am sorry to see you abusing your own light."

      Now when to these innumerable hard speeches, are added, their inviting these strangers to their houses, stopping them at the door when they came, and forbidding them to enter, or at other times ordering them from their houses and laying them under the necessity of seeking their lodging among the weeds, and by such acts of inhumanity as a Deist would be ashamed of, encouraging a spirit of persecution; I think the Christians may well acknowledge, that all their thoughts, words and actions, have not always been exactly right. What but the example of this latest genus of christians, could have instigated any part of a free and friendly republic, to beset the houses of the Shakers in the night, assault their persons with clubs and stones, break their windows, and burn their place of worship, throw down their fences, and turn in beasts to destroy their grain, cut and tear to pieces their apple-trees, crop and disfigure their horses, beat and abuse some of their bodies, and by every kind of mockery, railing and cursing, pushing, collaring and threatening, disturb and molest them in their worship. Did the citizens of Ohio and Kentucky, know of a truth, that it was the meek and humble followers of Jesus Christ, that they were treating in this manner? Nay verily, but a people as they supposed of the most corrupt and mischievous principles. And as I apprehend the general statement which the Christians gave of their principles, was not exactly right, I shall mark out some of those mistakes. The first rough lineaments of Shakerism portrayed on the public mind, were, that it went to disannul and cast away the Bible--to set up the word of man in room of it--to deny Jesus Christ--the resurrection and final judgment--to throw away the gospel and seek salvation by the works of the [94] law, &c. That these Shakers were enemies to the revival and came to destroy it. That their scheme was to get people's land and property, by parting man and wife, ruining and breaking up families. That they actually forbade to marry, and commanded to abstain from meats, and therefore without hesitation, they were seducing spirits, and their doctrine that of devils. This general draught, laid a foundation for great improvement, both upon their principles and practice. And the Christian minister, who set the example of characterizing from his own private studies, without any personal acquaintance, had soon abundance of followers who felt entirely at liberty to publish any thing which a fruitful imagination was capable of composing, and from this source it was. that the public generally received their information. And according as the wind of fancy blew, so it was a fact, credible at least among the Christians, that the Shakers castrated all their males, and consequently exposed their necks to the gallows, or divested of all modesty, stripped and danced naked in their night meetings, blew out the candles and went into a promiscuous debauch.--And what was still more shocking, the fruits of their unlawful embraces, they concealed by the horrid crime of murder. In one instance, a prosecution was proposed against an individual, but the evidence, even for a suspicion, was so extremely vague, that the bill was handed back by the foreman of the grand jury, with a just reproof to the presenter.--Such reports and conjectures, (of which there was an infinite variety) were generally taken upon the authority that Mr. Such-a-one heard a man say, that he saw a woman, who had it from a very respectable man, who saw the person who saw it. But in some instances, persons said to be of great respectability, would affirm (whether they meant with their natural eyes or the eyes of imagination) that they themselves saw such things. For such liberty brother Thompson, no doubt, laid a foundation in the following sentence of his letter of April 5.

"I see the mark of the beast on that church as plain as I see this paper while I write, and I know that I see it by the light of God."

In the light of the same god, I doubt not but ten thousand beastly actions have [95] been seen among this people; not one of which, the Christians, and all the world to help them, are able to prove, after sending out spies and watching their houses by day and night.

      It has ever been foreign from the feelings of the Believers, to counter-plead such vague insinuations.--They believe that God has called them to another work, in the progress of which, the truth will shew itself without any strife of words. But as a number of things of considerable weight have been stated by way of objection, which have been maintained with some shew of argument, I shall briefly investigate some of those particulars, merely to shew the difference of sense and understanding on those subjects according to the evidence on both sides, And 1. The Christian minister, after forbidding the Shakers to speak or the people to hear them, roundly asserts--" These men say that we are in a new dispensation--That Christ is come the second time, and the resurrection and final judgment begun." The young believer would reply--"Very well: A new dispensation is what every enlightened soul has been looking for and the coming of Christ is that for which ten thousands have been praying; and he must now be somewhere on earth, as the scriptures are true. For the time is up, according to Daniel, John, and all the prophets, for the sanctuary to be cleansed, and the power of the holy people restored--the authority of antichrist taken away--and the saints to possess the kingdom. And what other resurrection is there to life, but to come out of that state of sin into which the first Adam fell, and come into Christ the second Adam who is the resurrection and the life? The matter we now animate and which is constantly upon the change, we are not to expect after its dissolution, to be again subtracted from the elements of this globe and re-possessed in its primitive form, at the expense of every other body with which it may have been incorporated. And what other final judgment are we to expect, but simply and honestly, in the presence of God, and Christ, and before the saints who are appointed to judge the world, confess all that we have ever done amiss--repair our wrongs--set out to forsake every evil, and [96] grow up into Christ, as the infant grows into a man? There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body; the former belongs to the fall, the latter to the resurrection. Therefore it is not old skulls and rotten flesh that are to be raised up in glory, but that spiritual body of which we are called to be members; which is already raised up by the power of God, and ascending into the heaven of heavens, far out of sight from this lost world.

      Obj. 2. "These men say that each one of them is a Christ, and we must throw away our Bibles, and follow them."

      Ans. This statement is not exactly right. They testify that there is but one Christ, whose footsteps they follow, and though they are by nature no better than other men, yet in following Christ they may be safely followed according to the scriptures.

      If three honest republicans, in order to reclaim a band of tories, should invite them to become their followers even as they followed Geo. Washington or Thomas Jefferson, would this furnish a sufficient reason for stating that each of these men professed to be a Thomas Jefferson? and therefore they must be liars, there being only one man in America of that name. Or if these tories had a copy of the United States' Laws, which they abused, would it be proper for them to say that the honest citizens wanted them to throw away their law book, because they would have them to live according to these laws? With no less impropriety were the Shakers charged with professing to be each a Christ, and requiring the Christians to throw away their Bibles.

      The subjects of the revival, had unanimously believed that Christ would make his abode and appear in man, and that it was their privilege to believe and follow the truth delivered by man, according to that measure in which it was opened and revealed. This was certainly the faith of brother Thompson himself, when in the spirit of the revival, as appears from the following expression, in a letter, dated April 22, 1803:

"The Lord may have made known to one, what another is ignorant of.--I bless God that he has made you capable to teach me in the things of God."

And even in his [97] letter of April 5, 1805, he has so much remaining candor as to say--

"God in mercy visited your soul with light while I remained in darkness--He sent you to this country with the light to sow it here, and made you the instrument of bringing the heavenly fire to Springfield, where my soul caught the flame of this revival. Ever since that time you are in my heart to live and die with you."

      Now if it was the faith and order of the revival, to follow the truth of God testified by man, it could not be exactly right for any to pretend that they were going on in the spirit of the revival, and at the same time laboring to destroy all confidence in every living teacher. Crying out-

"Don't believe man--don't follow him--you need not believe us, for we may and do err--you must just take the word of God and read that--There you have the truth, and you may believe and practice it, precisely as expressed in the words of scripture."

Yet the people were shut up to the necessity of believing some body, and rather than believe those who had been called liars by others, they gave credit to the opposite character, who asserted concerning themselves that they were not to be believed and in obedience to that faith, learned first to call the Bible by a name which it never gave itself; and according to that name, practise whatever was commanded or even permitted in scripture words; assured that God immediately spoke to them in that scripture, even though it might have been originally spoken by a Pharisee, Sadducee or devil.

      Altho' I have heard the abettors of the common christian cause, maintain that Gen. iii. 4. Ye shall not surely die--and Mat. iv. 6, 9. If thou be the Son of God--If thou wilt fall down and worship me, &c. were the words of God, and to be taken. without any explanation; yet I have supposed it was rather to avoid the force of truth, which they were unwilling to acknowledge. However in nothing short of this could the general principle find any consistent basis, and the implicit believer of bible words, must learn his duty from the following sentences as directly as any others. Rejoice O young man in thy youth, walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight [98] of thine eyes--Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms--Drink thou also and let thy foreskin be uncovered--Drink ye and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, &c.

      Obj. 3. "They say we must be saved by the works of the law--Their doctrine leads into bondage."

      Ans. They believe that outward circumcision, with every other Jewish ceremony, which the Apostles called works of the law, were abrogated by Christ, nor have they attempted to revive any of them. But Christ in disannulling these dead works, made no provision for bad works. The only alternative he left for any, was to follow him in the regeneration, or continue under the law and under its curse.^{1} This doctrine never proposed any thing but bondage to the Jew, who expected to be pardoned for Abraham's sake, and accepted on account of his clean outside. Now such an objection as made no distinction between good works--dead works--and bad works, came very improperly from those who contended so warmly for liberty to continue in sin, as well as in the use of those works, which they themselves acknowledge, were adopted in the room of circumcision and the passover.

      Obj. 4. "They forbid to marry, and attach criminality to that for which we have the express command of God."

      Ans. This I am bold to say every Believer in Kentucky and Ohio, have from the beginning contradicted. Forbidding any thing implies authority, and attaching criminality to any thing, belongs to a law. Now these men never proposed any other than the law of Moses, and every man's conscience as a criterion to distinguish between good and evil. Therefore what was thus already condemned, did not remain for them to criminate. And upon the generous principle, that every free agent ought to be allowed in matters of religion, to act according to is own faith, they have never to my knowledge, imposed any prohibition on an individual in relation to matrimony. It is true, that for the kingdom of heaven's sake they choose to be even as Christ, in that respect. But their receiving a particular saying of Christ, and living precisely up to it, claims no authority over [99] the children of this world; they have an indisputable right, according to their own laws, to marry; and every church may adopt such laws and forms of matrimony as they think proper and with any such laws or forms, the Shakers have never interfered.

      The Christians have labored hard to establish the above objection, and not without some plausible pretext. And had the witnesses against Christ no pretext for asserting--"We heard this fellow say, I will destroy the temple of God?" Did he not say--"Destroy this temple" and "I will"? And where was the great evil of transposing the words and putting "I will" before "destroy," when is was so essentially necessary to condemn the deceiver? But I suppose it would be granted, even by the false witness himself, that he was not exactly right. Again, according to their testimony, he was no friend to Cæsar. Why? Did he not pay his taxes? True, but he would not fight, he would rather turn the other cheek to the smiter; and spake of another kingdom. If then Christ was plausibly and unjustly accused with aiming to destroy the Jewish temple, and supplant the empire of Cæsar, so were the Shakers with the above.

      It was in fact the Christians who assumed the authority on the occasion, and set out to enforce a law given to man in a state of innocence, for the fulfillment of which he wholly unfitted himself by the fall.--Gen. i. 28. That law or command as it respected fallen man, the Shakers supposed the Son of God had disannulled, and from it the conceived they were redeemed by Christ, as well as from all outward ceremonies of atonement, that fallen man had ever lain under in consequence of his disobedience; and in claiming this right of redemption, they had enough to do to answer the objections of their accusers, without entering any accusation against others. And although in disannulling the commandment going before (by which sin took occasion to work in human nature all manner of concupiscence) they violated no existing law, either of God or man, (except what St. Paul calls a law in the members, a law of sin and death.--Rom. vii.) Yet upon the authority of these Christian ministers, they have been publicly [100] condemned as the blackest of criminals, and treated according to that character, as far as the wholesome laws of our state would dispense with. Then how far must it appear from being right, for those who claimed the sole power of judging, and whose judgment was not only sanctioned by the shouts of the multitude, but in many instances severely executed, to represent as their unjust accusers, those who were judged, condemned and punished according to their law.

      Obj. 5. "The testimony of these men go to part man and wife, and even encourage men to beat and abuse their wives, and turn them away."

      Ans. How can that be parted which is one? Did not God say, "they twain shall be one flesh?" These men have more understanding than to propose a separation of this kind. And therefore the testimony they bear, takes no cognizance of man and wife--It came from that world where they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels of God. The testimony cannot be chargeable with evils to which it may indirectly give occasion, any more than the proclamation of American Independence is chargeable with all the acts of outrage and cruelty, perpetrated by the British during the revolutionary war; and therefore that some of the Christian brethren, have taken occasion from the testimony to beat and abuse a sister, a wife, and drive her off, is matter of fact. But to charge any thing of the kind to the Shakers, is exactly wrong. For although according to St. Paul, there is neither male nor female among them, yet I am bold to say that since Adam fell, woman never was treated by man with tender kindness and respect, superior to what is commonly manifested among the Believers.

      Obj. 6. "They are a set of worldly-minded, cunning deceivers, whose religion is earthly, sensual and devilish."

      Ans. These are the words of brother Stone in his letter of July, 1806. And the proof of this objection was the fama clamosa.^{2} "The Shakers are come to take people's land--Every one that joins them must immediately give up his deed to the elders!" The Christians [101] were considered as very near to the Shakers in their doctrine and worship, is one reason why many things may have been imputed to the latter, which properly belonged to the former. Some Christian fathers, who had the general title of land vested in them, in which others had a lawful partnership, refused to give separate titles according to their promise, but dispossessed their former brethren by profession and nearest kindred in nature, from their valuable and lawful possessions, merely on account of their faith. Moreover, the Christian church at Paint-lick, refused to make a title to brother Houston for land which he had lawfully paid for, merely on account of his faith. But so foreign from this has been the conduct of the Shakers, that upon land which they purchased and paid for, mainly for the relief and benefit of others, not less than eight families are commodiously settled.

      This I mention distinct from the daily stream of beneficence that flows from their threshold, for which they receive nothing in return but love and thanks, much less the unlawful surrender of a deed. Who then is the worldly-minded, cunning deceiver?

      Obj. 7. "They prophesied that such as rejected the testimony would lose their former life and power:

"But (says Brother Stone in his letter of July) now the work of God goes on in spite of all the Calvinists, Shakers, and devils in hell.--Now we know your prophets are liars."

      Ans. The work of God never did go on in spite--but in love and kindness to all men, even the Calvinists not excepted. But while the Christians upon the slightest evidence of the Shakers being liars, can fall to shouting and praising their God, or at the sight of them, stop every medium of information with loud cries for deliverance, a work of some kind will no doubt go on in spite of every thing that claims any relation to the coming of Christ. But how long God may trouble these mighty waters, and what degree of power may operate round about in that preparatory work, has never been predicted.

      As I conceive much credit has been given to the boasted power among the Christians, upon the test of [102] the Shakers being liars, I shall mention one more particular upon which the testimony has been condemned as false.--Lastly,

      "These men have testified they would never die, and one of them from New-Lebanon has died already in despair, convinced of the delusion."

      Ans. They never asserted that they would live forever, in the earthly house of this tabernacle. But that every true follower of Christ, has passed from death unto everlasting life, is a truth.

      And even though brother Thompson had seen Prudence Farrington, dying at Turtle-Creek, under a deep conviction of the delusion, as plain as he once saw the mark of the beast on the Church to which she belongs, and should affirm that his vision was in the light of God, yet his vision I should pronounce false, and contradict his news of congratulation to his Christian brethren.--And moreover, I should think it proper for any person who had taken any part in spreading such a report, to "eat the dreadful words." So tenacious am I of reasonable evidence.

      I was among the last that conversed with sister Prudence before her departure from the body, and though I treasured up the most of her solemn words, and particularly the last, which were, "Strengthen the brethren," yet I shall only insert at this time a short extract of a poem composed on the occasion, to which I shall add, an extract of a letter to New-Lebanon, from which the contrast will appear.----

EXTRACTS.

"*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * "HER holy example's of infinite price; Bro't up in the gospel, a stranger to vice, Her cross from the first she did faithfully bear, And finished her course in her thirty-first year: Her heaven-born spirit, to angels akin, (Not stain'd with the flesh nor polluted with sin,) Has now got releas'd from the sorrows of earth, And shares the full joys of her heavenly birth."

      "Our precious sister, Prudence Farrington, has finished her course, and is buried under an oak in the [103] wilderness of Ohio. She deceased the eleventh inst. [April, 1807.] in the thirty-first year of her age. A loving sister--a blessed virgin--a holy woman--an heir of glory.

She liv'd without sin, and died without fear; She's not as she's been, and yet the is here"{3}--

I. B."

      In fine, there is nothing pertaining to the testimony, but has admitted of objection, false statement and vague report. But it has not been my design to notice any thing but what has been stated with some plausibility.

      Next to the new and old doctrine of the cross, the hue-and-cry was raised against the new and old manner of worship.

"What! go forth in the dance? Go voluntarily without being jerked? And say they are praising God in the dance! The dances too of them that make merry--of them that serve the devil! Take their dances to serve God! Christians, read your Bibles, and you will see that these fellows are not of God, for they keep not the Sabbath." "Think" (says brother Stone, in his letter of July) "Think seriously and soberly of the shocking conduct of your revelling mock-worship, and tremble."

Could he have forgotten, that a little while before, when censured by Dr. Tod, a brother professor, for the same shocking conduct, his reply was, "that he had to move heaven-ward with him hanging at his heels." Then think seriously and soberly--what is a Tod at the heels of a traveller, in comparison of a Stone--a great stone?

"O my Richard (adds Barton) shall I ever rejoice over you as a penitent prodigal?"

Now (replies Richard) if ever: I have just returned from feeding the swine, confessed my sins, been completely stripped and clad with a suit completely new. The door has been opened into my Father's house, and I have entered, to go out no more.---Now the family begins to be merry, and the elder son to wonder what it means--willing to get news from the meanest scullion. Don't you hear that it is MUSIC [104] and DANCING? And is not the Father entreating you to come in? Then--

[KRSO 87-105]