WILBURITE SEPARATIONS.

269

England Yearly Meeting was decided against them by the courts on every count.1

Although the actual results of the separation were small as to numbers, its effects were wide-reaching. Each of the two bodies addressed Epistles to the other Yearly Meetings, thus bringing up the question of recognition, and thus risking a split in every place. None of the Yearly Meetings formally recognized the Wilbur body, but all except those of Philadelphia and Ohio recognized the Orthodox. In these last two there was such a difference of opinion that they could come to no decision. The prevailing sentiment in Philadelphia was one of sympathy with the Wilburites, but they were so much in the wrong from a disciplinary point of view that their friends had not the strength to indorse their action. In Ohio the matter came up in some shape almost every year for nine years, the feeling growing more and more strong, till it ended in a separation in 1854, over a disagreement as to who should be clerk, the larger portion going with the Wilburites. It is curious that even after the separation the Wilbur body of Ohio did not recognize that of New England, although it has recently, a generation later, done so. In New York a small separation occurred in Dutchess County.

Two years before the Ohio separation a conference from all the Orthodox Yearly Meetings met in Baltimore, and adopted a Declaration of Faith, not as a creed, but as a vindication, in which the views set forth were greatly in accord with those supposed to be Wilburite. So far as differences of doctrine were concerned, it seems that there need not have been any separation. The Orthodox maintained that the action against Wilbur was disciplinary only, and not doctrinal. There was an almost essential difference, however, between the attitude of the two parties in 1 " Report of the Case of Earle," etc., S. C. Bancroft, Boston, 1855.

regard to Christian work: the Wilbur party being so afraid of what they called "creaturely activity," that they confined themselves almost wholly to their stated Meetings for Worship, held largely in silence, as their avenue for gospel service. The Orthodox party did this, but added to it other methods allowing for more definite and regular teaching. Both were active in philanthropic work.

The separation in Ohio produced another shock throughout the Society, and again put every Yearly Meeting in danger of a separation, for both meetings again addressed all the others, and each claimed recognition as the one true body. At the time, the two meetings were distinguished by the name of their respective clerks, the "Hoyle Meeting" being the Wilbur body, and the "Binns Meeting" the Orthodox. All the Yearly Meetings on both sides of the Atlantic recognized the "Binns body" except Philadelphia, which promptly recognized the "Hoyle Meeting." As a consequence, Indiana, North Carolina, and Baltimore withdrew from further correspondence with Philadelphia. In Baltimore a small separation took place.

The pressure in Philadelphia of the sympathizers with the Orthodox bodies was soon so great that that Yearly Meeting, to avoid a separation in its own limits, was forced to abandon its recognition by way of correspondence with the Hoyle body in Ohio, and it gradually retired into the isolated condition it has ever since occupied. It allows members of each body to sit in its meetings, and will receive certificates of membership from each, but will not receive ministers as ministers when they change their residence. It holds correspondence with no other Yearly Meeting, and while it allows ministers from either body to take part in its Meetings for Worship, it will neither read nor record their certificates, nor appoint special meetings for them. Lately the meeting has begun to show evidence of greater openness, and its ministers have traveled both

THE WILBURITES.

271

in America and in other parts of the world. They are counted, although many favor the Wilburite meetings, as belonging to the Orthodox section.

The future course of the Wilburite Friends may be treated of here. They are perhaps the nearest representatives in the present time of the Friends of the latter part of the last century, except that they are less outreaching than they, for that was a time when many ministers traveled abroad. This may be partly owing to their small numbers, and also partly to their attention in spiritual matters being turned so exclusively to the past.

The troubles resulting in the separation of 1827-28 had been violent but comparatively short; the new difficulties, from the very delicacy of the points involved, were much harder to deal with. Both parties suffered. The Orthodox party needed the balance and weight which the Wilbur element would have afforded, while the latter, without the aggressiveness of the former, gradually dwindled in numbers and influence, until lately, when there seems to be something of a new life among them. Their extreme attachment to the forms of a preceding age and the disposition to attach paramount importance to individual guidance, yet largely restricting this within lines determined by precedent, have had their inevitable result in further separation. They are in no sense a proselytizing body. They emphasize the weightier matters, and are very careful to maintain good works, though they do not much affect organized philanthropy. Their meetings are held with a great deal of silence, and in the older meetings Bible-schools are not encouraged. It is understood that these schools are held in some of the more recently formed meetings, for about 1877 a number of the Conservative members in the Orthodox Yearly Meetings of Western, Iowa, and Kansas, becoming 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. They now form a complete circle of Yearly Meetings of their own. Their main educational establishment is at Barnesville, O. It is difficult to gain accurate statistics as to the progress of their membership. Their numbers in New England are greatly reduced in size. Of recent years it is said that, especially in Ohio, where they have their greatest strength, there has been an increase, though they are now far smaller than the Orthodox body in that State.2

It remains to state that there is still another body of Friends, known to the census as "Primitive." These are really Wilburite, but more exclusive and entirely independent. They number less than three hundred, and have separated partly from the 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.

1 These new meetings with the older meetings make the body number 4329 members in the United States. Including Canada, they have six Yearly Meetings, viz.: New England, Ohio, Western (Indiana), Iowa, and Kansas. At first they did not officially recognize one another by correspondence, but lately they have established it.

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

CHAPTER VI..

PERIOD OF REORGANIZATION.—FURTHER PROGRESS.

As soon as the separation of 1827-28 was over both Orthodox and Hicksites began to strengthen the things that remained, and to go 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 Orthodox clerk at the time of the separation in Philadelphia, publicly stated that he believed patient labor and suffering would have been better than division.1 A careful study of the times can hardly fail to lead to the same conclusion. The Society, never very numerous, 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.2

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 maintain 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

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

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