Their view respecting the resurrection may be brief- ly stated in the language of one of the society's docu- ments: "The Society of Friends believes that there will be a resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked ; the one to eternal life and blessedness, and the other to everlasting miser}' and torment, agreea- bly to Matt. XXV, 31-40; John v, 25-30; 1 Cor. xv,. 12-58. That God will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained, even Christ Jesus the Lord, who will render unto every man according to his works ; to them who by patient continuing in well-do- iuLC during this life seek for glory and honor, immor- tality and eternal life ; but unto the contentious and disobedient, who obey not the truth, but obey unrii!;ht- eousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and an- guish upon every soul of man that sinneth, for God is no respecter of persons" (Thomas Evans).
Tliey have ever regarded war as inconsistent with Christianity. For this they refer to the teachings of Christ and his apostles, the example of the early Chris- tians, and to the witness for truth in their own con-
FRIENDS
ero
FRIENDS
sciences, tested and confirmed by the sacred writings. They find that all the enioticms which are exercised in wars and fightings are traced to evil lusts, and are in- consistent with that love wliich is tlie substance of the tirst, the second, and the new commandment, which '• worlioth no ill to his neighbor," and on which " hang all the law and the prophets."
They consider oaths to be inadmissible, as being positiveh' forbidden by our Lord in language not to be mistaken, and this testinionj' was made the occa- sion of inflicting severe penalties upon the first Friends. "When their persecutors failed to convict them upon false cliarges, it was customary to administer the test- ' oaths to them, on refusing to take which tliej' were thrown into prison. They decline to employ the complimentarj^ and false language of the world, and to apph' to the months and daj'S the names given in honor of pagan gods, preferring the numerical nomen- clature adopted in the Scriptures. In dress the}' aim at plainness and simplicity, avoiding the tyranny of an ever-changing fashion. As a natural result, a de- gree of uniformity of dress prevails among them, bear- ing much resemblance to tlie stj'le in vogue at the rise of the society. This approach to uniformity, which at first was unintentional, came to be cherished as a hedge of defence against worldly and ensnaring associations, and a means by which they recognised each other. Tlie principle at stake is not in the fashion of a garb, but in simplicity and the avoidance of changes of fash- ion. Were the customaiy patterns all abandoned to- daj', and the principle of simplicitj'' still consistently adhered to, the kaleidoscope of fashion would make frequent changes in the people around tliem, and Friends would soon be left as peculiar in their appear- ance as at present.
Whilst Friends, as good citizen?, have cheerfully p;iid all legal assessments for the support of public schools and of the poor, and have contributed abun- dantly to ths various charities and general claims of benevolence, they have always been characterized by tlieir scrupulous care in relieving their own poor, so that none of their members come upon the public for maintenance or for gratuitous education.
A dangerous tendencj' to " hold the truth in parts" led a portion of the socict}', in the earlj^ part of the present century, into the error of insistini? too singlj' upon the precious doctrine of Christ witliin the hope of glory, and of denying, or at best holding lightly, a belief in his true divinity whilst incarnate, and in the atoning, cleansing, saving efficacy of his blood whicli was shed for us. TIius Socinianism gained a footing in the societj', to the grief of those who held the an- cient faith, and in 1827 an extensive and much-to-be- regretted secession occurred, in which doctrinal and personal considerations were mingled; and, in the ex- citement of tiie division, it is believed that many failed to comprehend the true issues, and that not a few who were essentially one in faith were dissevered for life as regards church fellowship. Tims two entirely distinct societies now exist, eacli claiming exclusive right to the same name, and causing confusion among other jirofessors as to their identity. In this secession por- tions of six out of ten Yearly Meetings then existing joined with the body popularly designated by the name of their leader (tliougli they have never acknowl- edged the title). In Great Britain and Ireland, and in two of the American Yearly Jleetings then existing, no schism occurred.
Tliere are twelve independent Yearly Meetings of the li'eligious Society of Friends. The oldest of these is tliat of London, tlie records of which are preserved from the year 1G7".*. Tliis l)ody is regarded by the others with respectful affection as the motlier of Year- ly Meetings, and its General Epistle of Christian Coun- sel, which is issued annually,-is gladly received, repub- lished, and circulated liy nearlj' all the co-oi'dinate bodies. The number of members in England is 13,815,
whilst there is an attendance of its meetings by non- members of 3658. There are settlements of Friends in France, Germany, Norway, and in several parts of Australasia, which all make annual reports to London Yearl)' Meeting, and acknowledge subordination to it. Friends in England are a highlv influential l)odj' in proportion to their number. There is a Yearly Meet- ing in Ireland, one in Canada, and nine in the United States, viz., the Yearly INIeetings of New England, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Western Indiana, and Iowa. Tlie in- crease of membership in the Western States has been rapid of late years, and settlements of Friends are starting up in Kansas, Missouri, etc. Tlie member- ship of the society may be rated at 80,000.