heard of the Scriptures,
or of Christ, might become truly a child of God, if he humbly and
sincerely followed the divine light within, given to every human soul,
according to the measure of its faithfulness.

Many of his brethren, whose views assimilated more with orthodox
opinions, accused him of having departed from the principles of early
Friends. But his predecessors had been guided only by the light within;
and he followed the same guide, without deciding beforehand precisely
how far it might lead him. This principle, if sincerely adopted and
consistently applied, would obviously lead to large and liberal results,
sufficient for the progressive growth of all coming ages. It was so
generally admitted to be the one definite bond of union among early
Friends, that the right of Elias Hicks to utter his own convictions,
whether they were in accordance with others or not, would probably never
have been questioned, if some influential members of the Society had not
assumed more power than was delegated to them; thereby constituting
themselves a kind of ecclesiastical tribunal. It is the nature of such
authority to seek enlargement of its boundaries, by encroaching more and
more on individual freedom.

The friends of Elias Hicks did not adopt his views or the views of any
other man as a standard of opinion. On the subject of the Trinity, for
instance, there were various shadings of opinion among them. The
probability seems to be that the influence of Unitarian sects, and of
Orthodox sects had, in the course of years, gradually glided in among
the Quakers, and more or less fashioned their theological opinions,
though themselves were unconscious of it; as we all are of the
surrounding air we are constantly inhaling.

But it was not the Unitarianism of Elias Hicks that his adherents fought
for, or considered it necessary to adopt. They simply contended for his
right to express his own convictions, and denied the authority of any
man, or body of men, to judge his preaching by the assumed standard of
any creed. Therefore, the real ground of the struggle seems to have been
resistance to ecclesiastical power; though theological opinions
unavoidably became intertwisted with it. It was a new form of the old
battle, perpetually renewed ever since the world began, between
authority and individual freedom.

The agitation, which had for some time been heaving under the surface,
is said to have been brought into open manifestation