ing alarmed at the rapid spread of innovations which had come in with revival methods, such as singing, the introduction of "mourners' benches," "human leadership" in meetings, the preaching of instantaneous conversion and of instantaneous sanctification, etc., withdrew from the main body and formed separate Yearly Meetings. Their example for similar reasons was followed by their sympathizers in Canada.1 They now form a complete circle of Yearly Meetings of their own. Their main educational establishment is at Barnesville, Ohio. It is difficult to gain accurate statistics as to the progress of their membership. Their numbers in New England are greatly reduced in size. Even in Ohio, where they have their greatest strength, there has been a loss, and they are now far smaller than the Orthodox body in that State.

It remains to state that there is still another body of Friends, known to the census as "Primitive." These are really "Wilburite," but more ex

1 These new meetings with the older meetings made the body in 1890 number 4529 members in the United States. Including Canada, they have now seven Yearly Meetings, viz., New England, Ohio, Western (Indiana), Iowa, Kansas, and North Carolina (1904). At first they did not officially recognize one another by correspondence, but in time the practice of sending epistles was established. That these later formed Yearly Meetings are "Wilburite" is shown by the fact of the correspondence with the older "Wilburite " bodies, and that the document issued by Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 1849, in relation to the division in New England Yearly Meeting, was republished by the Kansas Separatists, in 1881, as a justification.

The Friends who left Indiana Yearly Meeting at the time of the separation in Ohio are members of Ohio Meeting.

clusive and entirely independent. They number about two hundred and have separated partly from Wilbur bodies and partly from Philadelphia Yearly Meeting on account of what they considered the inconsistent course pursued by these meetings in not going to the logical extent of their position. William Hodgson, the historian, whose work is frequently referred to in these pages, was a member of this branch. His "History" gives a full account of their rise and progress. The chief interest of these Friends is to "maintain the ancient testimonies of the Society" intact, with the idea of bearing witness to the spirituality of the gospel rather than of propagating it.

CHAPTER VI.

PERIOD OF REORGANIZATION--FURTHER

PROGRESS.

As soon as the separation of 1827-28 was over

to go

both Orthodox and "Hicksites" began to strengthen the things that remained, and

forward as best they could under the somewhat crippled conditions in which they found themselves. Many heartily regretted the separation. Nearly thirty years after, Samuel Bettle, who had been the clerk of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting at the time of the separation in that meeting, and who had sided with the Orthodox party, publicly stated that he believed patient labor and suffering would have been better than division. A careful study of the times can hardly fail to lead to the same conclusion. The Society, never very numer. ous, presented thereafter a broken front with diminished influence. That some members would have been lost in any case is probable, but the same Book of Discipline continued to be used by the "Hicksites," with the clauses making it a disownable offense to deny the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ."

1 Hodgson, vol. ii., pp. 219, 220.

2 A revision of the Discipline in their Baltimore Yearly Meeting has removed the clauses relating to disownment, and somewhat weakened the doctrinal statements.

The leaders who agreed with Hicks held views very different from the Orthodox; but many of those who followed them did so in order to main tain what they felt was right liberty. In the Yearly Meetings of New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, where their great strength lay, theirs was the popular party. This fact became their strength and their weakness, for while they gained numbers they also received the larger proportion of those who had no settled convictions, but who went with the current. Most of those who sided with the Orthodox did so from personal conviction, and therefore added strength to them. Many on both sides, however, adopted the course they took from social and family motives.

The "Hicksites."

As has been said, it would be most unjust to credit Hicks's doctrines to even a majority of those who are popularly called by his name. Their fundamental principle was that in matters of doctrine there should be the fullest liberty. They therefore freely accepted Hicks and indorsed him as a minister without thereby assuming to adopt his opinions. The first effect of the separation on them, however, at least in Philadelphia, seems to have been to cause a reaction in favor of more

1 The Orthodox claimed that by this action they virtually took the ground that belief as to the outward appearing and work of Jesus Christ is a matter of indifference, and thereby opened the door for and even invited unbelief.