industry speaks in unmistakable terms of the spiritual aggressiveness of the group that carried it through. But there is an underlying and all-pervading ethical issue, not at all foreign to historical Christianity, upon which no clear guidance is to be had from the generality of ministers. In order to make sure that I shall not be misunderstood when I state what this issue is, a paragraph must be devoted to certain distinctions. But, Condemnation of ministers based upon the assumption that they ought to be competent as technical economists, sociologists, or statesmen, is to be resisted and refused all standing. It is criticism of the first type mentioned at the beginning of this article, and it is erroneous because of a false standard arbitrarily assumed. Likewise, to demand of ministers such fabulous wisdom as to be able to tell just what to do in every troublesome situation is unjust for the same reason. though the Christian minister be not a social researcher or a social engineer, he is, by the nature of his office, a guide and inspirer of social ends and motives. Though he decline to judge whether the timbers of a certain bridge will bear a certain load, he must be ready to say whether the road that goes over this bridge runs east or north. And not only must he seek to be expert in discriminating motives and ultimate ends; he must also take account of the conditions that further or hinder these motives and ends. That is, he must be a critic of social organization and process, and particularly of the human product thereof. Though he is not required to be a church architect, he must be able to judge whether a given edifice is adapted to the needs that called it into being. To what extent does our social order aim to produce, and succeed in producing, the best sort of men and women, specifically men and women related to one another as members of a family of God? The major part-by far the major part of men's thoughts and purposes and labors arise within our economic order and refer to economic ends. This is life; this is where meaning must be found; this is precisely where ideals belong. The minister must understand it, judge it, and in view of its products suggest needed changes in aim and motive. It is his function to utter the divine will with respect to the fundamental ethics of our organized life, and not less to call, whenever necessary, for social repentance and regeneration. Is a system in which one works for wages and another for profits fundamentally Christian, anti-Christian, or neutral? Are its motives Christian? What is the effect upon character of the repeated exercise of its motives? What is the actual outcome as respects the relation of man to man? Here we are concerned with the meaning and value of life. Our question leads straight back to Jesus and straight forward to any vision that we dare indulge concerning the coming of the Kingdom of God. It is not answered by any position we may take upon such special problems as hours of labor or prevention of industrial accidents; much less can any talk of a fair wage so much as touch it. It is the great parting of the ways for the Christian ethics of society. The ministry must take upon this question an open stand that is definitely Christian or lose its soul. We have needed guidance on this point-O how sorely!— for years. Industrialism has developed its logic far faster than our ethical insight into the new conditions has grown. For many years, too, voices have been challenging us to face this issue, so that we can hardly plead that we have not had time to find an answer. "And while men slept, an enemy came and sowed tares." Opposing forces are gatheringenormous forces on both sides-to attempt the solution of this fundamental ethical problem by a clash of non-ethical weapons. And the Christian ministry is looking on! It is needless to pursue the theme farther. If the nature and the functions of the Christian religion are what I have assumed them to be, and if the facts are as I have alleged, then the answer to the question with which we started is before us. The conclusion, let it be noted, does not depend upon dissent from anything that ministers teach, or upon disapproval of anything that they do. Our question concerns their grasp of religious problems as religious, and their conception of their calling as they reveal it in their practice. What has been indicated is, in part, lack of point, and tendency to blur; in part, lack of religious perspective even where devotion is focalized; in part, failure to recognize vital religious issues when they arise. PRESENT TENDENCIES IN THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS IN AMERICA ALLEN C. THOMAS The Society of Friends, more generally known as Quakers,' is one of the few Protestant English-speaking religious organizations whose history goes back to the middle of the seventeenth century. Only the Episcopalians, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians antedate them. Though George Fox, the founder, had been preaching for some years, the year 1652 is commonly taken as the beginning of the organization, and the year 1656 marks their entrance into America. Neither Fox nor his immediate associates at first had any thought of setting up a new denomination. They believed their message was for all men. That it was incompatible with existing church polity and practice was forced upon them, and, almost in spite of themselves, a new religious body sprang up. Within the lifetime of Fox, and largely his own work, a democratic organization was instituted which, with but slight alteration in details, has lasted till the present day. During the more than two and one-half centuries of its existence the society has passed through several trying periods, the most serious of which was a separation in 1827-28, which for a time threatened to wreck it. The causes of this division were many, but the most obvious were matters of organization and of doctrine. Though the basis of the church polity is a pure democracy, a supplementary organization known as the Meeting of Ministers and Elders, in later times the Meeting on Ministry and Oversight, claimed and exercised far greater powers than had been customary As the Orthodox comprise about four-fifths of all calling themselves Friends, reference will be to them, unless otherwise stated. in earlier days. This body was subordinate to the Yearly Meeting, and at no time have its members been considered a separate class. The minister or elder in the conduct of church affairs in no respect differs from the other members. Notwithstanding this well-known fact, the elders in particular often made decisions which to many in the rank and file seemed arbitrary and intolerant. In addition, and in connection with this, doctrines claimed to be unscriptural and at variance with the accepted doctrines of the Society were set forth by certain ministers. The doctrines resembled those of the Unitarians, and in some instances were distinctly rationalistic. The result was a divided body, and weakness in the promulgation of those teachings held in common. Later a further but much smaller separation took place relating rather to matters of practice than of doctrine. Thus, at the middle of the nineteenth century, there were three bodies -Orthodox, Hicksite, and Conservative' each claiming the name of Friends or Quakers. The Orthodox in essentials agreed with the evangelical bodies; the Conservatives differed from the Orthodox chiefly in practice; and the Hicksites or Liberals, as they like to be called, laid no stress whatever on doctrine. The Orthodox in 1828 were somewhat larger in numbers than the Hicksites, and the Conservatives much smaller than either. For some years all bodies showed a steady decline in membership, the greatest being among the Hicksites, a decline which has continued to the present time. The Orthodox body, on the other hand, not only ceased to decline, but began to grow, in some years making large accessions to its numbers. With slight exception these three bodies had no official intercourse, and for many years there was much antagonistic feeling. But with the passing away of the leaders who had been active in the period of disruption, 2 1 Hicksite, so called from Elias Hicks, the most prominent leader among them; Conservative, long called Wilburite, after John Wilbur, a prominent leader. 2 In 1918 the official statistics were: Orthodox, 97,275; Hicksites, 18,218; Conservatives (partly estimated), 3,648. |