Ah ne nee

Sienna es ere Se eee

 
bX.
5342

J&4s

 

 

 

 

CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

 

 

 

 

 
University Libra
BX8393 AS51845 os

Tin

924 029 471
HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION _

EPRI PW vRY |

 

ce

OF THB |

were ARR wo
bh
Rad R HU a

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH

esermenernemrminesicaiaern on

COMPREHENDING ALL THE
*

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE;
THE SOUTHERN ANNUAL CONFERENCES, AND
THE GENERAL CONVENTION;

WITH SUCH OTHER MATTEBS

AS ARE NECESSARY TO A RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE.

NASHVILLE:

COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY THE EDITORS AND PUBLISHERS OF THE SOUTH-WESTERN
CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
BY ORDER OF THE LOUISVILLE CONVENTON.

 

William Cameron, Printer.

1845.
Bo oF
BX

B3a3
A325
\Sas

Ab3qs7s

CoH. Hul|
PREFACE,

Tur Convention of Delegates from the Annual Conferences
in the slaveholding States, held in Louisville, Ky., in May,
1845, after having resolved to organize The Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, deemed it necessary to lay before
the public a historical statement of the events which led to
the formation of a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, and of the
organization of that connexion, in order to a better under-
standing of the action, principles and motives of Southern
Methodists in the premises, and to preserve for future time a
faithful record of those important facts which might now be
collected with facility, but which, if not embodied in a perma-
nent form, would be liable to be lost to posterity.

In accordance with this design, the undersigned were ap-
pointed a committee to compile and publish a History of the
Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, un-
der certain instructions given by the Convention. They have
accordingly endeavored in the best manner in their power,
under the circumstances, to fulfil the important trust confided
to them, and now present to the public the fruit of their labors.

It is matter of regret, that as all the members of the com-
mittee have been compelled, regularly and much the greater
portion of their time, to be employed in other duties which
could not be neglected, the work has been compiled at inter-
vals redeemed from other duties, and not as would have been
desirable, by giving to it undivided and continuous attention.
If, on this account, the work shall be found to possess defects
or blemishes, the committee console themselves with the some-
what confident hope, that every thing of real importance to
iv PREFACE.

the subject will.be found recorded, though in a form less per-
fect than was wished. Though the compilers are identified
with the Southern organization in fact, feeling and principle,
they have endeavored to state facts and arguments with fair-
ness and candor.

It may be proper to remark, that compliance with that part
of the committee’s instructions which required the publication
of all the speeches delivered in the General Conference and
in the Convention on the subject, was found impracticable.
A very large proportion of the speeches delivered in the Con-
vention, were not furnished to the committee, and it was not
deemed advisable to publish a part without the whole, nor to
publish those of the General Conference without those of: the
Convention; consequently allhave been omitted. Should it
be judged best, they may, at a future time, be embodied in a
separate volume.

Having acted with reference to the glory of God and the
good of his church in performing the work assigned them, the
committee now, in sending it abroad to the world, humbly

commend it to the Divine blessing.
J.B. McFerrin,

M. M. Henke,

A. L. P. Green,

F. E. Prrts,
December, 1845. Jonny W. Hanver.
INTRODUCTION.

Tue subject of slavery has been one of great perplexity in
the Methodist Church, from the time at which it first was made
a subject of Church legislation. And had the Church followed
the example of Christ and his Apostles in this respect, and left
the gospel, in the exercise of its inherent energies, to work
out its legitimate results on the civil relations and moral duties
of society, the effect would probably have been much more
beneficial on all the relations involved, than it has been by
ae an opposite course of policy. At an early period,

owever, in the history of American Methodism,—when there
were but twenty-four preachers who “ agreed to sit in Con-
ference on the original plan as Methodists.” and several years
before the organization of a Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States—it was deemed advisable by those preachers
to legislate on the subject of slavery, and it has been a fruitful
source of difficulty ever since. The first action of this kind,
of which we have any account, occured at a Conference held
in Baltimore, in April, 1780, “ where the Northern preachers
only attended.”—Lee’s Hist. of Meth., p.'70.

The following is their_enactment:—

“ Quest. Ought not this Conference to require those travel-
ing preachers who hold slaves, to give promises to set them free?

“Ans. Yes.

“ Quest. Does this Conference acknowledge that slavery is
contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to
society; contrary to the dictates of conscience and pure reli-
gion, and doing that which we would not others should do to
us and ours? Do we pass our disapprobation on all our friends
who keep slaves, and advise their freedom?”

Of this action, Mr. Lee, the early and faithful historian of
the Church, says:—“It is evident that the. preachers in this
case went too far in their censures; and their language in
their resolves was calculated to irritate the minds of our peo-
t

vi INTRODUCTION.

ple, and by no means calculated to convince them of their
errors.” E

_ The Conference having entered on this dangerous business,
could not well abandon it, though often compelled to change,
modify, repeal, suspend, and re-enact, from that time down to
the final consummation of the work in 1844. :

In one material point, this first action was more exception-
able than any which followed it, previous to the last: it re-
cognizes no exception under the requirement to manumit, in
favor of persons who are restrained by State laws from manu-
mitting their slaves.

In all other action, save that of 1844, this exception is fairly
recognized, as will be seen by reference to the various enact-
ments on this subject; and much as has been said, officially
and unofficially, of the stringency, the severity, the “injurious
and ruinous tendencies” of the enactments of 11784, ’96, 1800,
and others, none of them all brings the Church into such direct
and irreconcilable antagonism with the laws of the country
as the first and the /ast—those of 1780 and 1844.

In 1783, certain vague menaces (for lack of a better name)
were made against slaveholders, but they were against those
only “who held slaves contrary to the laws which authorize their

freedom.” In April, 1784, action was taken against those local

preachers “ who will not emancipate their slaves in the States
where the laws admit it,’ and at the same Conference, those
traveling preachers who “refuse to manumit their slaves where
the law permits.”

In December of the same year, by the Conference which
gave name and organization to the Church, were enacted

_ those ultra and severe rules which had to be suspended in six

months after their passage, and which have ever been con-
demned by the united voice of the world and the Church, as
impolitic andruinous. Yet these universally condemned rules
have this explanatory clause appended to them:—“ These
rules are to affect the members of our society no farther than
as they are consistent with the laws of the States in which they
reside.” And even in a State which permitted emancipation,
the same Conference enacted that the brethren should “have
two years from the notice given, to consider the expedience of
compliance or non-compliance with these rules.”

The rules of 1796 were to be enforced only “as the laws of
the States respectively, and the circumstances of the case will admit.”

Agreeably to the law of 1800, now in force, and applicable
to the cases of Mr. Harding and Bishop Andrew, traveling
preachers becoming the owners of slaves, are required to
“execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such
slaves, conformably to tle laws of the State in which they live.”
INTRODUCTION. Vil

In 1804, members were authorized to sell slaves in cases where
a committee might judge it to be an act of “mercy or humani-
” todoso. At the same time, persons residing in “North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee,” (States
understood as prohibiting emancipation,) were exempted from
the operation of the rules.
In 1808, the General Conference, finding the subject ut-
terly unmanageable, abolished all rules respecting slaveholding
among the membership of the Church, and authorized “each
Annual Conference to form its own regulations relative to buy-
ing and selling slaves.”
| In 1812, this last regulation was re-enacted, prefaced by an
explanatory clause, assigning as the reason of the rule, “that
the laws of some of the States do not admit emancipation, with-
out a special act of the legislature.”

.. The law of 1816 declares slaveholders ineligible to any offi-
cial station in the Church, where “ the laws of the State in which
they live will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave
to enjoy freedom.”

This necessary exception in favor of persons who are not
permitted, by the laws of the States in which they reside, to
emancipate their slaves, appears never to have been lost sight
of after the first random action on the subject, down to 1840.
In the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840, it was fully
recognized. The address of the latter Conference to the
British Wesleyan Conference, holds the following explicit
language on this subject:—“ It is impossible to frame a rule on
slavery, proper for all our people in all the States alike. But
our Church is extended through all the States, and as it would
be wrong and unscriptural to enact rules of discipline in oppo-
sition to the constitution and laws of the State on this subject, so’
also would it not be equitable or scriptural to confound the posi-
tions of our ministers and people, (so different as they are in
different States,) with respect to the moral question which
slavery involves. Under the administration of the venerable
Dr. Coke, this plain distinction was once overlooked, and it
was attempted to urge emancipation in all the States; but the
attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by
the Doctor himself.”

It was this keeping aloof from the stronger forms of direct
antagonism with civil authority and State lays, that enabled
the Church to maintain a footing in the South proper at all.
But while this was done, it- was no more than éarely done, and
such, therefore, was the position of the Church as to keep the
civil authortties feelingly alive to any, the least, encroach-
ment, or even approach to their ground. When, therefore,
the General Conference of 1844, required of two of her min-
viti INTRODUCTION,

isters the performance of that which the State laws forbade
and made penal, thus enjoining a violation of the civil laws
as a moral duty—or at least an ecclesiastical one, and bring-
ing the Church into conflict with the State, however strongly
the measure may have been demanded by the state of popular
sentiment and feeling in the North, the representatives of the
Church South felt that they were compelled to disavow the
whole proceeding, and disconnect themselves from it entirely,
or be themselves ejected from their fields of labor, and see
Methodism utterly rooted out and banished from the great
South. What they have done, they did under a solemn con-
viction of uncontrollable necessity and positive duty to God,
themselves, the Church, and the world. And that the true
character of their circumstances, their action, and their mo-
tives, might be known and read of all men, they have directed
the compilation of this brief History of the Organization of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION

OF THE

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.

‘

CHAPTER I.

From the meeting of the General Conference of 1844 to the conclu-
sion of the case of Mr. Harding.

A snort time previous to the meeting of the General Confer-
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1844, there seemed
to be a general expectation throughout most parts of the
Church, that the question which had caused so much difficulty
for a period of sixty years, would not be likely at that Confer-
ence to produce its ordinary amount of excitement and agita-
tion, and that the session would be one of unusual harmony,
especially in so far as the subject of Slavery and Abolition
were concerned. But about the time of the assembling of the
Conference, it became generally understood that in portions of
the North numerous petitions, of abolition character, had been

. gotten up, and would be laid before the General Conference,
bringing up the whole subject for some form of action. Atthe -
same time, it became known in the North, that the Rev. James
Osgood Andrew, one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, had become in some way connected with slavery; and
soon the expectation came to be general, that a trying conflict
awaited the Conference.

Accordingly, so soon as the organizing and introductory
business—which occupied the first two days—was despatched,
on the third day of the session, a petition from a Northern
Annual Conference, on the subject of slavery, was introduced,
which at once opened the controversy. For beside the exciting
character of the subject embraced in the. petition, it was
expressed in language which many members considered dis-
courteous, and even disrespectful to the General Conference;
and a leading member who afterwards voted with the majority
throughout, spoke of those expressions as “highly exceptiona-
ble.” After some debate, the petition was, however, referred
to a committee raised on that general subject.

1
2 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

“On the fifth day of the session, a resolution was offered,
instructing the slavery committee to report directly and explicitly
on the points referred to them in the petitions presented, and
as speedily as possible. Upon this resolution a spirited contro-
versy grew up, in which considerable feeling was manifested,
and in which six or seven members participated. On the follow-
ing day, the sixth of the session, the subject came up again Ina
new form, and under circumstances which evidently exerted a
capital influence in giving direction and character to the whole.
subsequent action of the General Conference on this subject.
Rev. Francis A. Harding had been suspended by the Baltimore
Conference, of which he was a member, for failing to manumit
certain slaves which had come into his possession by marriage;
and the case came up before the General Conference on appeal
’ from the decision of the Baltimore Conference. The official
record showed the following proceedings in the case on the

part of the Baltimore Conference, after its reference to a com-

mittee:—

“The committee reported, that Mr. Harding had become

possessed of five slaves: one named Harry, aged fifty-two; one

woman, named Maria, aged fifty; one man, named John, aged

twenty-two; a girl, named ——, aged thirteen; and ‘a child, .

aged two years; and recommended the following preamble.
‘and resolution for adoption:—

“Whereas the Baltimore Conference cannot, and will not,
tolerate slavery in any of its members,—

“Resolved, That brother Harding be required to execute a
deed of manumission, and have the same enrolled in the proper
court, and give to this Conference, during this present session,
a pledge that this shall be done during the present year.

“Brother Harding having stated the impossibility, with his
views, of his compliance with this resolution, Mr. Collins moved
for his suspension until he gave sufficient assurance of his com-
pliance.

“The matter was again referred to a committee of five, for
further investigation, who reported that they had entirely failed
to induce brother Harding to comply with the wishes of the
Conference. *

“Brothers Collins and Emory moved the following resolution,
which was adopted:—

“<«Resolved, That brother Harding be suspended until the
next Annual Conference, or until he assures the Episcopacy
that he has taken the necessary steps to secure the freedom of
his slaves.’ ”

This case derived much of its importance and influence from
the fact that it came from what is called a conservative Confer-
ence, and one which had previously acted with the South in
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 3

resisting the encroachments of abolitionism, The abolition
North constantly denounced slavery as necessarily and under
all circumstances a sin, and consistently and perseveringly
contended for its entire banishment from the Church, in all its
forms and relations. The South, though admitting slgvery to
be a great evil, as declared in the Discipline, maintained that
it was not necessarily sinful in all cases, and that it was impos-
sible for the Church to exist in the South in a state of entire
disconnection from this civil instigution of the country. The
middle, or conservative Conferences, though anti-slavery in
principle, had uniformly, for a long period, concurred with the
practical views of the South, and co-operated with them in
opposing Northern, encroachments upon this conservative
ground of the Discipline. In this case, the South regarded the _
Baltimore Conference, and those acting with it, as abandoning
the vital conservatism of the Discipline, and the only ground
upon which the Church in the South could possibly enjoy
security or even existence, and as yielding to abolitionism the
distinguishing principle by which it is characterized. “

Harding had married a lady who was the owner of five
slaves, and as he refused to manumit them, it was contended
that he had violated the law of the Discipline governing the
case, and he was punished accordingly. That law reads thus:
“When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave
or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial charactér
in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal
emancipation of said slaves, conformably to the laws of the
State in which he lives.”

The whole matter of course turned on the question, was it
“practicable” for Harding to execute such “a legal emancipa-
tion, conformably to the laws of the State in which, he lived’’?
He maintained that it was not practicable, and that to require
him to do what was legally impracticable, was a violation of
the law of the Discipline. His advocate, Dr. W. A. Smith, of
Virginia, defended him in this position on the two following
general grounds: first, that he was not the legal owner of the
slaves; and secondly, that if he were, the laws of Maryland did
not permit emancipation. In support of these grounds of
defence, the legal opinions of Mr. Justice Merrick, and of Judge
Key, were introduced and read, as follows:—

’ “At the request of Mr. Harding, I have to state, that under
the laws of Maryland, no slave can be emancipated, to'remain
in that State, nor unless provision be made by the person eman-
cipating him for his removal from the State, which removal
must take place, unless for good and sufficient reason, the com-
petent authorities grant permission to the manumitted slave to
remain. . ,
4 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

“There has lately (winter of 1843) been a statute enacted by
the State Legislature, securing to married females the property
(slaves of course included) which was theirs at the time of their
marriage, and protecting it from the power and liabilities of
their husbands. [Signed] Wn. D. Merrick.

“The Rev. Mr. Harding having married Miss Swan, who, at
the time of her marriage, was entitled to some slaves, | am
requested to say, Whether he can legally manumit them, or
not? By an act of Assembly, no person can manumit a slave
in Maryland: and by another act of our Assembly, a husband
has no other or further right to his wife’s slaves than their labor,
while he lives. He can neither sell nor liberate them. Nei-
ther can he and his wife, either jointly or separately, manumit
her slaves, by deed, or otherwise. A reference to the Acts of
Assembly of Maryland will show this. Epmunp Key.

“Prince George county, April 25, 1844.”

The different statutes of the State of Maryland to the same
effect, were also introduced and read. It was thus made to
appear quite evident that the Conference had required of Mr.
Harding, as necessary to maintain his ministerial standing, an
act which was prohibited by the law of the State, and with
regard to property which the law withheld from his legal own-
ership. The able representative of the Baltimore Conference
in the case, the Rev. John A. Collins, endeavored, however, to
counteract the whole force of this proof, by showing that
emancipation was practicable, by removing the liberated slave
beyond the limits of the State. Thisis most true, for no State
law can operate out of the limits of the State by which it was
enacted; but it is equally true of every State in the Union; and
thus by making emancipation practicable every where and by
every man, it renders the apparently important condition of
“practicability,” as found in the law of the Discipline, as singu-
larly absurd as it is inoperative and unmeaning.

With'regard to the impossibility of manumission by Harding,
on the ground that the law vested the property in his wife, and
gave him no legal control of the matter whatever, the advocate
of the Baltimore Conference took ground rather calculated to
excite unpleasant apprehensions, than to convince the opposite
party of the correctness of his doctrines. Some regarded him
as making the will of the Baltimore Conference superior to
the statutes of the State, and independent of the law of the
Discipline. The manner in which he arraigned and denounced
that law of Maryland, was thought to augur inauspiciously for
whatever called for any thing like respectful deference to the
civil regulations of the country. The following are some of
his remarks on that subject:-—
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 5

“The law of 1843 is a strange and singular law. Its funda-
mental feature is against the law of God, for that makes man
the head of his wife, and this law takes from him the position
assigned to him by the Supreme Being. And I am satisfied
that this law will work such evil, that as a matter of necessity
it will have to be repealed. I hope, therefore, that you will not
judge us by this law. We cannot answer for the tergiversa-
tion of the laws of Maryland, and cannot conform to all their
changes. As they have gone so far as to pass a law deposing
man from his rightful place in the domestic economy—a place
assigned to him from the beginning of time by positive divine
‘injunction, they may pass a law requiring him to obey his wite.

“He wished also to correct another wrong impression. It
was partially believéd that the Baltimore Conference in sus-
pending Mr. Harding had acted in ignorance of the law of
1843. He begged to correct this misconception. They had
before them the opinion of Justice Merrick with regard to this
very law. But he would say boldly that if the law had been
tenfold what it is, if it had actually, outright, and downright, without
any possibility of avoiding it, taken these slaves from Harding’s
control, the Conference would still-have acted just as they did; because
they did not intend to change their ground, and could not pretend ta
-alter their views with every shifting of the Legislature. Beside, the
Legislature did not compel Mr. Harding to become a slave-
holder.” 2

Very much to the same effect spoke another representative
of the Baltimore Conference on that occasion, the Rev. Mr.
Griffith. He remarked,—

“He [Mr. Harding] could disentangle himself in an hour if
he liked, the laws of Maryland, notwithstanding. «In point of
fact, the law against manumission was inoperative. It would
be indeed strange if a freeman had not the right to make that
disposal of his property which he might please to make.—
Maryland had never said that a slave might be taken up and
sold—she had never declared that slaves were property, and
then in the same breath, that men should not do what they
thought fit with their own property, and that she assumed the
right to do that which she forbade the owner doing. No, sir,
they know that a man has a right to set his slaves freé—they
know the illegality and imperfection of any act to the contrary—
and yet they éry to control it, and ward off the consequences by
this kind of —— he hardly knew how to designate such kind
of legislation.”

This avowed, and almost boasted disregard, if not contempt,
for the laws of the land, did not fail to produce alarm as. to the
security of personal character, and the stability of the. union
of the Church; especially when the whole was placed primarily

1*
6 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

on an unauthorized Annual Conference resolution, contra-
vening the provisions of the law of the Church, and was so
shaped and applied as to include, by implication, in its condem-
natory scope, hundreds perhaps: of ministers, who had felt
themselves protected alike by the law of God and the Church,
in the peculiar relations they were compelled to sustain. —

There were, to be sure, various minor points involved in the
case, which might have had an influenee on the decision; but
we have only to do with the great leading principles avowed
and advocated by the majority. The case, after having been
before the Conference five or six days, was finally disposed of,
on the 11th of May,—the General Conference refusing to
reverse the decision of the Baltimore Conference, by a vote of
117 to 56.

There were two things especially in this case which gave
painful concern to the Southern members, as indicating a
' prevailing tendency to a union of the Conservatives and Abo-
litionists against the South, and against the Discipline. The
first was, an openly avowed purpose, as we have seen, to dis-
regard the requirements of State laws where they came into
conflict with Annual Conference resolutions or plans of admin-
istering the Discipline, and that purpose carried fully into
practical effect, as in the present case. The second was a new
construction put on the slavery law of the Discipline, intended
to justify such conflict with statutory enactments, and resistance
of them.

There are two Church enactments, passed at different periods,
different in phraseology, but heretofore understood to be of
equivalent import; the one applying specifically to itinerant
preachers, the other generally to official members. The advocate
of the Baltimore Conference, and representative of conservative
Northern opinions, gave the following interpretation of these
Church statutes:—

' “Official Members. The rule on this point takes a stronger
tie, and is different in that respect to the rule affecting private
members.

““«'We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the
great evil of slavery: therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible
to any official station in our Church hereafter, where the laws
of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom”

“‘ Official members are required to emancipate. The private
member is not. He must manumit, but still the rule comes
down with comparatively less strictness, applying only in such
States as wil permit the slave to ‘enjoy his freedom?

“Traveling Preachers. Here the Discipline is still more
stringent. i
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 7

“¢When any traveling preacher becomes the owner of a
slave or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial
character in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable,
a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws
of the State in which he lives.’

“ Here nothing is said about the liberated slave being per-
mitted to enjoy freedom. The simple act of manumission is
treated of, and made compulsory on the traveling preacher. ‘If
it be practicable,’ he is to manumit. There is no other condi-
tion; the exception is narrowed down, and then the law is
binding, and compels him to manumit.”

It had been before contended, as we have seen, that legis-
lative enactments of a prohibitory character, did not render
manumission “impr&cticable;” and here we learn that wher-
ever it is practicable, (and that is every where, agreeably to
this doctrine,) the rule is compulsory on the traveling preacher,
whether the manumitted slave can enjoy freedom, or is subject
to re-enslavement.* This new construction, especially when
carried out by a large majority of the General Conference, the
Southern delegates regarded as a practical nullification of the
protective exceptions to the slavery law of the Church; and
they felt assured that upon these principles, no man who was
in any way connected with slavery, was secure in his ministe-
rial standing, no matter what legal encumbrances or disabilities
might be thrown about his circumstances. The force of this
reasoning, or rather construction, it is true, was attempted to
be met by Harding’s advocate, by bringing a declaratory reso-
lution of the General Conference of 1840 to bear on the case.
That resolution appeared to be full to the point, and quite
conclusivé. It reads thus:— .

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several Annual Confer-

 

* This doctrine or construction of law is certainly at variance with the received
opinions of the Church. The Bishops, in their address to the General Confer-
ence of 1840, hold this language on this point: “In all enactments of the Church
relating to slavery, a due and respectful regard has been had to the laws of the
States, never requiring emancipation in contravention of civil authority, or where
the laws of the States wouLD NoT ALLOW THE LIBERATED SLAVE TO ENJOY HIS FREEDOM.”
The answer of the same General Conference to the Address of the British Con-
ference, held similar language, and the same doctrine, in the following passage :
“While, therefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States
where the laws permit it, and allowed the freed man to enjoy freedom, we have
refrained, for conscience sake, from all intermeddling with the subject in those
otherStates where the laws make it criminal.” Agreeably to this doctrine of the
Bishops and of the General Conference, in all cases, where either emancipation
is impracticable, or the emancipated slave cannot enjoy freedom, the holder of
slaves is fully protected by the law of the Discipline. And this view of the law,
it is believed, was universal, up to the General Conference of 1844. Nay, more;
even in that Conference, the author of the resolution adopted against Bishop
Andrew, Mr. Finley, strongly contends for the same doctrine. He says, ‘ When
the master cannot set his slaves free, and that slave enjoy his freedom;—when it
is beyond the power of the master to free his slave, or that slave to enjoy his free-
dom, slavery is fixed on the absolute necessity of the case; and if there be any
such case, it could not and should not be calleda sin.”
8 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ences, in General Conference assembled, That under the
provisional exception of the general rule of the Church on the
subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere own-
ership of slave property, in States or Territories where the
laws do not admit of emancipation, end permit the liberated
slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election
or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known
in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot,
therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in
‘view of such election or ordination.” :

This, as it embraced “the various grades of office known in
‘the ministry,” it was insisted, covered the whole ground and
determined the proper course of action. But the opposing
advocate contended most earnestly that the resolution could
have no possible application to ‘the present case, as it was
-adopted exclusively with reference to the case of certain local
preachers resident in the Virginia portion of the Baltimore
Conference territory, from whom ordination had been withheld
on account of their connection with slavery, and upon whose
grievance, as laid before the General Conference of 1840, this
action was taken.

The proper adjustment of this question is certainly a very
important point in the general issue; for if this be indeed an
official decision of the General Conference, applicable to all
ministers, having the authority of a declaratory act of the body,
then it utterly defeats the position assumed in the case of
Harding. It is therefore material that the true design and

‘bearing of the resolution be compassed,’if possible. The
language could not well be broader or more comprehensive
than it is, had the object been to embrace the entire ministry,
traveling as well as local; and we must go beyond the resolu-
tion itself, which includes specifically “the various grades of
office known in the ministry,” to find a less inclusive import to
the language. As the history of the resolution, however, is
given in explanation of its true meaning, the fidelity of history
demands a still fuller account of the origin and object of this
enactment. The case of certain local preachers—known as
the Westmoreland case—was referred to a committee in the
General Conference of 1840, and at the same time the petitions,
&c., on the subject of slavery, were referred to a committee
on slavery of one member from each Conference. This latter
eommittee reported before the first named one, but did not
report on the various particular points presented in the papers
referred to them.* This was unsatisfactory to many, and a

*We have seen that to prevent the bringing in of a like indeterminate Teport
at the General Conference of 1844, a resolution was introduced presently after
the opening of the Session, instructing the Committee on Slavery to “report di-
‘rectly on the points, the alleged facts and arguments submitted, Sc,”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 9

remedy was sought to be applied, by requesting the special
committee on the Westmoreland case, to frame their report
with a view to that end. The account of this matter we give
in the language of one whose intimate connection with the
transaction enabled him to understand all its details more per-
fectly than any other individual. He says, “The committee
[Westmoreland committee] were respectfully requested by all
the Bishops in council, when it was ascertained that the general
committee did not intend to do so, to prepare a full and analytical
view of the whole law of the Church on slavery, particularly in
relation to the rights of the different grades of the ministry, as
affected by slaveholding, so that all discordant views and
discrepancies in administration might, if possible, be conclu-
sively adjusted and settled, by authority of the General Con-
ference; and the committee had this specific object in view in
making their elaborate report. The report was adopted with
great unanimity,—in fact, without a negative vote in the body.
This report was looked to as settling the difficulties it was
intended to remove, and was fully relied upon by the South,
as securing all they desired in the premises.” (Methodism and
Slavery, p.41.) This very explicit explanation leaves no room
for mistaking the origin and object of the report and resolution;
and certainly, so far as a declaratory act of the General
Conference can go, must be conclusive in the premises.

This declaratory law of the Church—for such it clearly is—
defining more fully than any other enactment, the exact rights
and responsibilities of ministers with regard to slavery, is
placed in a still clearer light, by a few brief extracts which
we take from the Report itself, and here insert:—

“As emancipation, under sueh circumstances, (that is, in
States where it is not practicable, so as to secure the enjoyment
of liberty to the freed slave,) is not a requirement of Discipline, it
cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office.” Again,
the Conference in the Report says, “an appeal to the policy
and practice of the Church, for fifty years past, ‘will show in-
contestibly, that whatever may have been the convictions of
the Church, with regard to this great evil, the nature and ten-
dency of the system of slavery, it has never insisted upon
emancipation, in contravention of civil authority, and it, there-
fore, appears to be a well settled and long established princi-
ple, in the polity of the Church, that no ecclesiastical disabili-
ties are intended to ensue; either to the ministers or members
of the Church, in those States where the civil authority forbids
emancipation.” The General Conference of 1840 declares
further, “that in the Discipline, we have two distinct classes
of legislative provision, in relation to slavery, the one applying
to owners of slaves, where emancipation is practicable, con-
10° HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

sistently with the safety arid ‘interest of masters and slaves,
and the other, where it is impracticable, without endangering,
such safety and these interests, on the part of both. In the
latter case no disability attaches on the ground of slavery, because
the disability attaching in other cases, is here removed by special
provision of law.” The same Report continues: “May not
the principles and causes, giving birth to great moral and po-
litical systems or institutions, be regarded as evil, even essen-
tially evil, in every primary aspect of the subject, without the
implication of moral obliquity, on the part of those involun-
tarily connected with such systems and institutions, and provi-
dentially involved in their operation and consequences? May
not a system of this kind, be jealously regarded, as in itself
more or less inconsistent with natural right and moral rectitude,
without the imputation of guilt, and derelict motive, in the
instance of those, who without any choice or purpose of their
own, are necessarily subjected to its influence and sway?”

And the concluding sentence which introduces the resolution
we have before inserted, réads thus: “While the general rule
on the subject of slavery, relating to those States whose laws
admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy
freedom, should be firmly and constantly enforced, the exception
to the general rule, applying to those States, where emanci-
pation as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognized
and protected, with equal firmness and impartiality.”

We have been the more careful to ascertain the true cha-
racter and bearings of this action of the General Conference
of 1840, not less with reference to the case hereafter to be
noticed, and the subject generally, than with regard to the
ease we have just been considering. And when it is under-
stood that the primary object of that action was to define with
exactness the rights and duties of ministers with regard to
slavery, and that the South relied on it as affording the surest
guaranty of protection in the enjoyment of Disciplinary rights,
agreeably to an interpretation always received by themselves
as the only practicable and consistent one, and in that act fully
accredited by the General Conference, it is not at all astonishing
that the total disregard of its authority in 1844, should have
caused the Southern Delegates to feel that their personal se-
curity was essentially weakened, and the strong supports of
the union greatly shaken. This declaratory interpretation of
the law gave them all necessary protection, but:if this were
repudiated, they had none whatever; for, to reject the inter-
pretation once officially given, was to deny them the right of
the same interpretation, previously exercised for themselves
without any authoritative declaration of the General Confer-
ence on the subject.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 11

CHAPTER II.

From the conclusion of the Harding Case to the close of the General
Conference of 1844, including the entire Proceedings in the Case
of Bishop Andrew. |

e

From the opening of the Session of General Conference, ru-
mors were abroad of an intention to proceed in some way
against Bishop Andrey, in consequence of his connection with
slavery: and it was readily foreseen that the decision in Hard-
ing’s case could hardly fail to exert an influence, both on the
question of commencing such action and on the final disposi-
tion of the case if taken up by the Conference. For there
were understood to be material points of resemblance between
the two cases, and if the statutes of Maryland could afford no
protection to a minister, it was difficult to see how the statutes
of Georgia could protect the standing of a Bishop, when ad-
judged by the same tribunal. Accordingly after the Harding
case was determined, those rumors became more rife, and as-
sumed a more confident tone. The South, on seeing the Con-
servatives and Abolitionists coalesce in this case, brought them-
selves to believe that the majority, and not the daw, exercised the
only protective or punitive power of the Church. The Aboli-
tion wing of the Conference felt both strengthened and embol-
dened by the new alliance; while the “middle men” found
themselves fully committed by their action in sustaining the
Baltimore Confegence, to carry out consistently the principles
involved in that case, in any other that might come before
them. The aged and wise-saw and felt the perilousness of the
position in which the Conference was placed: the North urged
them further as the only means of saving New England; the
South entreated them to stay their hand unless they wished to
consummate the ruin of the Southern Church, already but too
successfully begun. While the zealous of the party in the
ascendant—so decisively victorious in the recent contest—were
arranging plans for a new attack and rallying for a bolder
charge, some of the sage and devout lowers of peace and unity,
without distinction of party, gave themselves to counsel, to
prayer and serious inquiry, hoping to devise some means to
avert the threatening storm. In this commendable spirit two
eminent and amiable men, Dr. W. Capers of the South and
Dr. S. Olin of the North, came forward in the General Con-
12 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ference, on the 14th May, and offered jointly:the following re-
solution:— ;

“In view of the distracting agitation which has so long pre-
vailed on the subject of slavery and abolition, and especially
the difficulties under which we labor in the present General
Conference, on account of the relative position of our brethren
North and South on this perplexing question; therefore,

“Resolved, That acommittee of three from the North and
three from the South, be appointed to confer with the Bishops,
and report within two days as to the possibility of adopting
some plan, and what, for the permanent pacification of the
Church.”

Immediately on the offering of this resolution, the middle-
men or Conservatives claimed to be recognized as a distinct
division or class in the Church and Conference, by demanding
a representation in the proposed committee. But as only two
points were named in the resolution, and two opposing prin-
ciples, and not three, were involved in the previous debates
and action of the Conference—the right to hold slaves accord-:
ing to the provisions of the Discipline, and the right of enforo-
ing abolition, as in the case of Harding, the claim was seen to
be groundless; and accordingly the committee was taken from
the South and from the whole North—Dr. Capers, of S. C., Dr.
Winans, of Mi., and Mr. Early, of Va., representing the former,
and Dr. Olin and Mr. Crandle, of New England, and Mr.
Hamline, of Ohio, the latter.

The discussion had pending this resolution, is very important
as showing the true state of things to have been, at that time,
very different from that in which they are commonly repre-
sented. The popular presentation of the matter is, that all
the difficulty, and finally the division, had sole reference to the
case of Bishop Andrew, and but for him there had been no
serious controversy in the General Conference. .The remarks
made on that occasion show, that in the opinion of the promi-
nent speakers, the Rubicon was passed before the case of Bishop
Andrew was taken up at all. We shall, therefore, make a
few quotations from those speeches, as being calculated to re-
flect important light on this part of our history. We quote
the following remarks from the speech of Dr. Olin:—

__ He said “he had feared for these two or three days that,
though possibly they might escape the disasters that threatened
them, it was not probable. He had seen the cloud gathering,
so dark that it seemed to him there was ho hope left for them
unless God should give them hope. It might be from his rela-
tion to both extremities that, inferior as might be his means of
forming conclusions on other topics, he had some advantages
on this.. And from an intimate acquaintance with the feelings
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 13

of his brethren in the work he saw little ground of encourage-
ment tohope. It appears to me (he continued) that we stand
committed on this question by our principles and views of pol-
icy, and neither of us dare move a step from our position. Let
us keep away from the controversy until brethren from oppo-
site sides have come together. I confess I turn away from it
with sorrow, and a deep feeling of apprehension that the diffi-
culties that are upon us now threaten to be unmanageable. |
feel it in my heart, and never felt on any subject as I do on this.
I may take it for granted that we speak as opponents here. I
have had no part in this controversy. It has pleased God that I
should be far away, or laid upon a bed of sickness. Ihave my
opinions and attachments, but I am committed by no act of
mine to either side; and I will take it on me to say freely that
Ido not see how Northern men can yield their ground, or
Southern men give up theirs. Ido indeed believe, that if our
affairs remain in their present position, and this General Con-
ference do not speak out clearly and distinctly on the subject,
however unpalatable it may be, they could not go home under
this distracting question without a certainty of breaking up
their Conferences. Ihave been to eight or ten of the Northern
Conferences, and spoken freely with men of every class, and
firmly believe, that, with the fewest exceptions, they are
influenced by the most ardent and the strongest desire to main-
tain the Discipline of our Church. Will the Southern men
believe me in this—when I say I am sincere, and well informed
on the subject? The men who stand here as Abolitionists are
as ardently attached to Methodist Episcopacy as you all. |
believe itin my heart. Your Northern brethren, who seem to
you to be arrayed in a hostile attitude, have suffered a great
deal before they have taken their position, and they come up
here distressed beyond measure, and disposed, if they believed
they could, without destruction and ruin to the Church, to make
concession. It may be that both parties will consent to come
together and talk over the matter fairly, and unbosom them-
selves, and speak all that isin their hearts; and as lovers of
Christ keep out passion and prejudice, and with much prayer
call down the Holy Spirit upon their deliberations, and feeling
the dire necessity that oppresses both parties, they will at least
endeavor to adopt some plan of pacification, that if they go
away it may not be without hope of meeting again as brethren.
I look to this measure with desire rather than with hope. With
regard to our Southern brethren, and I hold that on this ques-
tion at least, I may speak with some confidence—that if they
concede what the Northern brethren wish—if they concede
that holding slaves is incompatible with holding their ministry
—they may as well go to the Rocky Mountains as to their own

2
14 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

sunny plains. The people would not bear it. They feel shut
up to their principles on this point. They love the cause, and
would serve God in their work. I believe there is not aman
among them, that would not make every sacrifice, and even
die, if thereby they could heal this division. If their difficul-
ties were unmanageable, let their spirit be right. If we must
part, let us meet and pour out our tears together; and let us
not give up until we have tried. I came into this Conference.
yesterday morning to offer another resolution. It was that we
should suspend, now that the Sabbath had intervened, and
shed its calmness and quiet over our agitated spirits, that we
should suspend our duties for one day, and devote it to fasting
and prayer, that God might help them, if he would, that, if
they had not union, they might have peace. This resolution
partakes of the same spirit. I cannot speak on this subject
without deep emotion. If we push our principles so far as to
break up the connection, this may be the last time we may
meet. Ifearit! Ifearit! Isee no way of escape.”

Dr. Durbin said: “He could never forget the scene before
him this morning. Dr. Olin had said that he scarcely indulged
the hope, though he felt a strong desire, that the measure pro-
posed would be successful. For himself, he thought he could
discern light, notwithstanding the darkness that hung around
the question; and he felt not only a desire, but a strong hope,
that we should yet be delivered from the dangers which im-
pended over our heads. Yes, he clung to the hope of the con-
tinued unity of the Church. Abraham, in great difficulties,
believed in hope against hope, and yet most gloriously realized
his hope, and became the father of many nations. He said,
he saw ground for this hope in the tenderness of spirit which
had been manifested so generally since the introduction of
the resolution; and he felt now, as he had felt since his arrival
in the city, the most confident assurance that brethren of all
parties would sacrifice every thing, but their ulterior principles,
for the continued unity of the Church.”

Mr. Crandle, of New England, said: “He was as much for
conciliation as any man, and did not wish to disturb the good
feeling that at present existed in the Conference. But there
was adark shade of difference between the brethren of the
two extremes. He supposed he should be taken as one stand-
ing on the extreme. As such they were standing on a vol-
cano, which might, at any moment, destroy them. But
what was the pretext for this reform movement? Why,
there was slavery in the Church, and the Church tolerated it.
And they must meet it. But had the North shown any dispo-
sition for division? Not atall. He did not know a man in the
North that desired division. He hoped that before they took
any action in the matter they would understand it.”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 15

Mr. Early, of Virginia, remarked “on the spirit pervading
the Conference, and the spirit that he trusted would pervade
the committee—the spirit of prayer, love, and forbearance. He
would assure the Conference that the South were prepared to
make any concessions in the same spirit that they could, with-
out affecting their essential principles.” s

Dr. Smith, of Virginia, said: “The South does not desire
disunion. Come when it may it shall be forced upon us.”

_ These brief quotations indicate with sufficient clearness, the

extremely critical posture of affairs at that time; and they also
serve as an index to the fears, convictions, and spirit of the
parties. And they show us that the South entertained the most
determined aversion to separation.

Nearly the last hope ef continued union now hung suspended
on the doubtful result of the committee’s deliberations; and
their report was awaited with painful solicitade. On the 16th,
the time their report was expected, Bishop Soule asked in their
behalf for longer time; and on the 18th, he reported that the
committee “had been unable to agree upon any plan of com-
promise to reconcile the views of the Northern and Southern
Conferences.”

The failure of the attempt at compromise, was, of course,
the signal for pushing the measuresso energetically commenced
to the ulterior point. Accordingly on the 20th, Mr. Collins, of
Baltimore, the active advocate in opposition to Harding, offered
the following preamble and resolution, which were adopted:—

“ Whereas, it is currently reported and generally understood,
that one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church has
become connected with slavery; and whereas, it is due to the
General Conference to have a proper understanding of the
matter: therefore,

“ Resolved, That the Committee on the Episcopacy be instruct-
ed to ascertain the facts in the case, and report the result of
their investigation to this body to-morrow morning.”

In obedience to the instruction given in this resolution, on
the 21st Dr. Paine, chairman of the Committee on Episcopacy,
., submitted to the Conference the following report:—

“The Committee on Episcopacy, to whom was referred a
resolution, submitted yesterday, instructing them to inquire
whether any one of the Superintendents is connected with
slavery, presented their report on the subject.

“The committee had ascertained, previous to the reference
of the resolution, that Bishop Andrew is connected with slave-
ry, and had obtained an interview with him on the subject;
and having requested him to state the whole facts in the pre-
mises, they presented a written communication from him in
relation to this matter, and asked leave to offer it as his state-
ment and explanation of the case.
16 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

“*To the Committee on Episcopacy: : ;

“Dear Brethren—In reply to your inquiry, I submit the fol-
lowing statement of all the facts bearing on my connection
with slavery. Several years since an old lady, of Augusta,
Georgia, bequeathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust, that I
should take care of her until she should be 19 years of age;
that with her consent, should then send her to Liberia; and that
in case of her refusal, I should keep her, and make her as free
as the laws of the State of Georgia would permit. When the
time arrived, she refused to go to Liberia, and of her own
choice remains legally my slave, although I derive no pecuniary
advantage from her, she continuing to live in her own house
on my lot; and has been and still is at perfect liberty to go to
afree State at her pleasure; but the laws of the State will
not permit her emancipation, nor admit such deed of emanci-
pation to record, and she refuses to leave the State. In her
case, therefore, I have beén made a slaveholder legally, but
not with my own consent.

“<Ondly. About five years since the mother of my former
wife left to her daughter, not to me, a negro boy; and as my
wife died without a will more than two years since, by the
laws of the State he becomes legally my property. In this
case, as in the former, emancipation is impracticable in the.
State; but he shall be at liberty to leave the State whenever
I shall be satisfied that he is prepared to provide for himself,
or I can have sufficient security that he will be protected and
provided for in the place to which he may go.

“<8rdly. In the month of January last I married my present
wife, she being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from
her former husband’s estate, and belonging to her. Shortly
after my marriage, being unwilling to become their owner,
regarding them as strictly hers, and the law not permitting
their emancipation, I secured them to her by a deed of trust.

“Jt will be obvious to you, from the above statement of
facts, that I have neither bought nor sold a slave; that in the
only circumstances in which I am legally a slaveholder, eman-
cipation is impracticable. As to the servants owned by my
wife, I have no legal responsibility in the premises, nor could
my wife emancipate them did she desire todoso. Ihave thus
plainly stated all the facts in the case, and submit the state-
ment for the consideration of the General Conference.

Yours respectfully, (Signed) Jamus O. Anprew.’

“All which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed) Roserr Pame,
Chairman of Committee on Episcopacy.”

Mr. Collins, who had taken the lead in this as in the former

prosecution, moved that the report be laid on the table, and
METHODIST. EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 17

made the special order for the next day; assigning as his rea-
son for this motion, that there was to be a meeting of the
Northern Delegates that afternoon, to concert, as was distinctly
understood, plans of action in the prosecution. This announce-
ment was immediately followed by a call for a meeting of the
Southern Delegates on the same afternoon. It was thus clearly

‘seen that the parties were organizing and arranging their plans

and forces—the one for attack, the other for defence, in the
approaching contest.

At this stage of the business, a note was received from Dr.
Bond—not a member of the Conference—followed by a verbal
statement from him, the purport of which was, that a report
was abroad, that the Northern members had formed a plan for
forcing the South into secession, and that he had been given as
authority. He denied" all knowledge of such a plan, and did
not believe any thing of the kind existed. Dr. Bangs said that
he too had heard a report, that the purpose had been avowed
to adopt measures that would compel Bishop Andrew to resign,
and the South to secede, and then seize on the Church property.
He could not believe it.

Dr. Smith said, “The point at issue was this. It had been
stated over and over again, in terms that led to the conviction
that it was the purpose of many in the Conference to pursue
measures which must necessarily result in a division, and that,
in declaring their adhesion to these measures, he would say
they had used language that justly entitled them to a dis-
claimer.”

On the next day, (the 22d of May,) Mr. Griffith, the co-adjutor
of Mr. Collins in the former case, and the member who spoke
so contemptuously of the laws of Maryland, called up the
report in the case of Bishop Andrew, and offered the following
preamble and resolution: a:

“Whereas, the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has become connected with
slavery, as communicated in his statement in reply to the inquiry
of the Committee on Episcopacy, which reply is embodied in
their report of yesterday; and whereas, it has been, from the
origin of said Church, a settled policy and invariable usage to
elect no person to the office of Bishop, who was embarrassed
with this ‘great evil” as under such circumstances it would be
impossible for a Bishop to exercise the functions and perform
the duties assigned to a general superintendent with acceptance
in that large portion of his charge in which slavery does not exist;
and whereas, Bishop Andrew himself was nominated by our
brethren of the slaveholding States, and elected by the General
Conference of 1832, as a candidate who, though living amidst
a slaveholding population, was nevertheless free from all

Q*
18 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

personal connection with slavery; and whereas, this is of all
periods in our history as a Church, the one least favorable to
such an innovation upon the practice and usage of Methodism,
as to confide a part of the itinerant general superintendency to
a slaveholder; therefore, f

“Resolved, That the Rev. James O. Andrew be and he is
hereby affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the-
Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” _ A

Mr. Griffith made a speech in support of his resolution, in
which are found some doctrines not commonly heard on the
floor of the General Conference, and certainly until then never
recognized as orthodox. A Bishop he declared to be simply
an officer of the General Conference—not of the Church at
large—and his election was not for life or good behavior, but
during the pleasure of the General Conference. The following
are a few of his remarks on that occasion:—

“A Bishop among usis therefore only an officer of the General
Conference, created for special purposes, and for no other than the
purposes specified. If we look at the origin of its introduction,
we shall clearly perceive this to be the case. The venerable
John Wesley who was never able to disabuse his own gigantic
mind of his educational prejudices, perhaps to the day of his
death, thought to serve the American Churches with a high
officer in virtue of his own appointment. What said the ven-
erable Asbury—that man of God to whom Methodism on this
continent, is more deeply indebted than to any other man who
has ever lived, or perhaps ever will live? He declined to
receive that oflice. by the appointment of John Wesley. He
refused to accept it unless the General Conference, then in
session in the city of Baltimore, in 1784—the Christmas Con-
ference—should elect him. It is matter of history which no
man cah callin question. He was elected by the General
Conference, and constituted the highest officer—the executive
officer of the General Conference.”
_ Again, he said, “ They never intended, we say, to constitute
him [the Bishop] an officer for life; but they reserved to them-
selves as Annual Conferences power even to change every
feature of the system of government—to change every thing
pertaining to the character of the Church, save the doctrines.
That alone is absolutely prohibited. What are we here con-
sulting about? What are we here proposing to accomplish and
effect? Isit, sir, to try a Bishop on an impeachment for immoral
conduct? No,sir. We are here concerned exclusively with an
officer of the General Conference, and the question comes up
whether this General Conference, to whom the Annual Confer-
ences have given full power, not only to perpetuate their own ex-
istence, but to make all rules and regulations for the government
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 19

of the Church, and to supervise and carry on the great object
of the General Association for spreading Scriptural truth and
holiness through these lands; whether the General Conference,
constituted under such circumstances, has power to regulate
her own officer's—that’s the question; and whether, when once
she selects an officer, no change in his condition, no change in
his situation, no embarrassment with which he may choose to
involve himself, can be touched. No, sir; they have full
authority to regulate their own officers, to provide for any
exigency which may operate as a barrier in the way of the
accomplishment of the objects and purposes for which the
officers were chosen.”’*

Mr. Griffith chiefly asserted the right of the General Confer-
ence to depose a Bishop by this indirect proceeding, upon the
ground that he was their officer, the creature of their power,
created to do and suffer their will. After Bishop Soule had
delivered a very impressive address, admonishing the Confer-
ence to moderation and gentleness, Mr. Sandford spoke in sup
port of the resolution, advocating it on the ground of expediency
alone, and basing that expediency alone on the consequences
which he said must result from a failure to deal with Bishop
Andrew for his connection with slavery. “In the majority
of the Conferences that compose this vast body,” said he, “if
something be not done to remove the evil connected with the
superintendency of Bishop Andrew out of the way, we cannot ,
possibly avoid convulsions, and the loss of very large numbers of
our members, and give opportunity to our enemies to exert a
destructive influence within the ranks of our own community.
This is clear and certain, and does not admit of a single doubt.”

 

© Novel as were Mr. Griffith’s doctrines to most of his hearers—and unfortunately
infectious‘as novel with the majority—they were not new to himself. More than
twenty years before that pened. he had resolutely arrayed himself, with what
was then called the Radical Party, in opposition to the power of the Bishops as exer-
cised according to the avelpune in the appointment of presiding elders. And
in a pamphlet published a im (and three others) against Bishops McKendree
and Soyle on this subject, he uses nearly the same language quoted from his
speech, in adverting to the same circumstance with reference to Bishop Asbury.

e there says, “A scrupulous and precise adherence to the minutiz of the present
mode of appointing presiding elders, is so far from being essential to Methodism,
that in its firet and purest days, there were no presiding elders, and to this day
there are none in our sister connection in Europe: and we bélieve it isa fact, that
Mr. Asbury himself, when appointed by Mr. Wesley a general superintendent, or
a general presiding elder, refused to serve in that office until he was elected by the
free suffrages of his brethren in Conference.” In his distrust and suspicion of
the Episcopacy, Mr. Griffith’s mind seems to have undergone little change, or
none, since he wrote, in July, 1824, to warn the church against Episcopal preyo-
gative, as exercised by Bishop McKendree. He then said, “Remember the tena-
‘cious grasp with which power is held, when once acquired. Its march is ever
onward, and its tremendous tendency is to: accumulation.” But on another
point he seems to have varied a little since 1824. He then said that a man was
not a Bishop whohad been elected to the episcopal office by the General Confer-
ence, because he was not ordained, but now tells us that episcopal authority is * not
atall” derived from episcopal ordination.
20 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Dr. Winans replied, showing that Bishop Andrew was pro-
tected by the law of the Church in what he had done,—that he
was a slaveholder involuntarily, &c. The doctrine of expedi-
ency he strongly opposed, by showing what he said must be its
practical results. On this subject he said:— _ ;

« But, sir, the main point relied upon in this matter is, the
expediency of the course contemplated. Expediency! Such
a state of thingshas been gotten up in the North and in the
West as renders it necessary for Bishop Andrew to retire
from the office of the superintendency, if we would preserve
the union of the Church. Sir, I will meet this by another
argument on expediency. By the vote contemplated by this
body, and solicited by this resolution, you will render it expedi.
ent; nay, more, you render it indispensable; nay, more, you
render it uncontrollably necessary that a large portion of the
Church—and permit me to add, a portion always conformed
in their views and practices to the Discipline of the Church—I
say that by this vote you renderit indispensably, aye, uncon-
trollably necessary, that that portion of the Church should
I dread to pronounce the word, but you understand
me. Yes, sir, you create an uncontrollable necessity that there
should be a disconnection of that large portion of the Church
from your body. Itis not because there are prejudices waked
up by unceasing agitation year after year, in opposition to the
spirit and language of the Discipline; but it arises out of the
established laws of society, from a state of things that is under
the control of political and civil government, which no minister
of the gospel can control or influence in the smallest degree.
If you pass this action in the mildest form in which you ean
approach the Bishop, you will throw every minister in the
South hors du combat; you will cut us off from all connection with
masters and servants, and will leave us no option—God is my
witness that I speak with all sincerity of purpose toward you—
but to be disconnected with your body. If such necessity exists
on your part to drive this man from his office, we re-assert that
this must be the result of your action in the matter. We have
no will, no choice in this thing. It comes upon us as destiny;
it comes with overwhelming force, and all we can do is to
submit to it. Let this then pass before you, and then give such
weight as you think fitting to the argument for expediency
embraced in the preamble to this resolution, and let that deter-
mine your vote in this matter. There may come a time when
your hearts will bleed at the recollection of having cut off from
your body—for we will never go voluntarily—as firm, and good
friends, and as honest in our attachment to Discipline, as any
other portion of the Church.”

Here we cannot fail to remark, that at the very commence-

 
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 21

ment of this debate it was assumed by Northern speakers that
unless the Conference proceeded against Bishop Andrew, vast
numbers, and whole Conferences would abandon the Church
in the North, and by Southern speakers as positively assumed,
that if they did so proceed, the South would be inevitably com-
pelled to separate.

Mr. Bowen, of Oneida Conference, followed, strongly vindi-
cating goes as a proper rule of action in the case, even
though the Bishop’s connection might be throughout entirely
involuntary. He alluded to division and secession, which he
deprecated, but still thought it a less evil than schism, or division
and contention in the Church.

Dr. Pierce, of Georgia, spoke with great energy against the
doctrine of expediency, as productive of endless mischiefs, and
if practiced on in this case, of great injury, if not ruin to the
South. With the majority it was highly expedient to do what
it was ruinous on the part of the minority to suffer. He closed
his remarks by saying:—

“Finally, I say, pass this resolution, and the whole of the
Southern States are hurled into confusion at once, and the
brother that would lie down to be trampled upon by such an
act of this body, would be regarded as unworthy the office he
held, and unworthy to preach the gospel of Jesus. Iam against
the resolution, and am glad to make it known that I am against
it on principles pure as those that kindle the glory of high
heaven—not because I am a pro-slavery man, but because God
did not call me to legislate on these matters.”

Mr. J.C. Berryman spoke to the effect that he should vote with
his eye on the Discipline, and go only asfarashehadlaw. The

reamble and resolution he thought not authorized by the
Ticciptine, and should therefore oppose their passage.

Mr. Coleman said, “Southern brethren knew little of the
labors of the Northern men to secure their comfort and safety.
Give them a slaveholding Bishop, and they make the whole
North an arena of gunpowder, and the Bishop a fire-brand in
the midst.”

Dr. Smith questioned the fact of Northern men laboring for
the good of the South, as stated by Mr. Coleman, against abo-
litionism.

Mr. Stringfield opposed the resolution on two grounds; first,
because it asked the Bishop to degrade himself, whereas, if he
had offended they ought to define the crime and inflict the
penalty. Here they proposed to award that the Bishop ought
to be deposed, and then make him inflict the penalty by
resigning. Secondly, since expediency was the order of the
day, he opposed the measure on the ground of expediency. It
was highly inexpedient for him to resign; for if they shuffled
‘
22° HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

him out they must put some one in his place; that one of course
would not be from the South, and the Northerner they might
put into the place made vacant by ejecting Bishop Andrew,
would be as unacceptable at the South, as Bishop Andrew could
be at the North. : :

Mr. Crowder, of Virginia, again met the expediency doctrine,
and labored to show that this expediency did not concern Chris-
tian character, or obedience to the requirements of the Discip-
line; for in these the Bishop was blameless, by the showing of
those who advocated the resolution; but it was a state, a temper
of the public mind in the North, superinduced by the spirit of
abolitionism, which must needs condemn a man who is justified,
by the law of our common Christianity and the law of the
Discipline.

Mr. Spencer, of Pittsburgh Conference, addressed the Confer-
ence. The most remarkable points in his speech are these.
He contended that to punish Bishop Andrew for an act not
against law at the time it occurred, was not in the nature of
ex post facto action, because the proceeding was a present action
to counteract the effects of past conduct not covered by the
law. [Upon this construction it is difficult to conceive of the
possibility of ex post facto action under any circumstances.]
Another of his points is the doctrine of expediency again,
which he states in the following strong terms:—

“ But, sir, much is said of expediency. Well, let us look at
expediency. It is alleged that it would be a dreadful thing to
pass the resolution before us, as a matter of expediency. This
is a grave subject. But is not expediency at the foundation of
many grave and important subjects? Mr. President, how did
you and your colleagues get into the episcopal office? Expe-
diency put you there, expediency keeps you there, and when
expediency requires it you shall be removed from your seats—
yes, every one of you. Expediency is the foundation of our
episcopacy. Nay more, it is the very basis of Methodism.”

He remarks further, that if Bishop Andrew’s “ministerial
and moral character were as immaculate as an angel in heaven, as
a slaveholder he is utterly unqualified to discharge the functions
of the episcopal office in the greater part of our work; and
ought therefore to resign or be deposed.”

On the 23rd, Dr. Bangs took the floor. He insisted that

‘slavery in the episcopacy was contrary to Methodist usage, as
stated in the preamble, because no Bishop of the Church had
heretofore heldslaves. He also admitted that Bishop Andrew’s
connection with slavery was “against his will,” in the first and
second instances named by the Bishop in his communication
to the Committee on the Episcopacy, and intimated that for
these he ought not to be censured; “But,” said Dr. B., “will
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 23

any one avow that he was not a free agent when he connected
himself with this lady? No one will avow that. He there-
fore acted imprudently.”’*

After some personal conversation of an explanatory charac-
ter, in which Dr. Bangs, Dr. Capers, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Pick-
ering were concerned, the following was offered as a substitute
for the preamble and resolution before the Conference:—

“Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing
any thing calculated to destroy our intinerant general super-
intendency; and whereas Bishop Andrew has become con-
nected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act
having drawn after it circumstances which in the estimation
of the General Conference will greatly embarrass the exercise
of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in
some places entirely prevent it; therefore,

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference
that he desist from the exercise of this office so long as this
impediment remains. [Signed] J.B. Fintey,

J. M. Trimsue.”

Mr. Finley very briefly stated his reasons for offering the
substitute. He thought it would meet the case better than the
original resolution; it would not depose Bishop Andrew, but
leave him still a Bishop, with only a wish, of Conference
expressed that he should cease to exercise the functions of his
office while the present incumbrance remained. He did not
wish Bishop Andrew to resign, &c.

Dr. Olin, of New York Conference, spoke in favor of the sub-
stitute as preferable to the original resolution. He said “he
could not affirm directly, or by implication, that the Discipline
is averse to the election of aslaveholder to the office of Bishop,”
and he thought this idea was conveyed in the preamble, when
it was affirmed that the holding of slaves by a Bishop, is con-
trary to the settled “policy and usage” of the Church. Usage
conveyed in some sense the idea of common law, but we had
no law against a Bishop holding slaves. The mere fact that
non-slaveholding candidates had received a majority of votes,
did not amount to usage in any binding or authoritative sense.
The office of President of the United States had been filled
forty-three years by slaveholders, and but twelve by Northern

 

* Dr. Bangs was not alone in fixing Bishop Andrew’s offence in the matter of
hismarriage. Mr. Spencer, from whose speech we have just quoted, alluded to the
subject in no very liberal spirit, or dignified language, inquiring in a vein of
scorching irony, whether it was to be supposed that the Bishop had fallen so
desperately in love that he was obliged to marry—whether a Bishop “old enough
to be a grandfather had fallen into a chicken fit,” &c. It is evident, if he mar-
ried at all, he must either be governed in a selection by his own judgment and
affections, or he must submit his judgment, taste, and attachments to the control
of his Northern brethren, and like an Eastern monarch, wed by proxy, and fram
motives of interest and popularity.
24 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

statesmen, but this would not authorize the assertion that “ the
settled policy and usage of the government was to elect slave-
holding Presidents.” To give some idea of the general charac-
ter of Dr. Olin’s remarks, we insert the following extracts from
his speech, though not in exact consecutive order:-—

“| believe we are all prepared to recognize the right of
Southern brethren to hold slaves under the provisions of the
Discipline. We shall acknowledge and guaranty the entire
of the privileges and immunities of all parties in the Church.
There declare, that if a remedy should be proposed that would
trench on the constitutional claims of Southern ministers, I
would not, to save the Church from any possible calamity,

‘violate this great charter of our rights. Iam glad of the op-
portunity of saying, that no man, who is a Methodist, and de-
serves a place among us, can callin question here any rights
secured by our charter. I do not say that he may not bea
very honest, or a very pious man, who doubts the compatibility
of slaveholding on the conditions of the Discipline, with the
ministerial office; but in this he is not a Methodist. He may
be a very good man, but a very bad Methodist; and if such a man
doubts if the Church will reform, or is too impatient of delay,
let him, as I would in his place, do as our friends in New Eng-
land did last year, go to some other Church, or set up one for
himself.

“Not only is holding slaves, on the conditions and under the
restrictions of the Discipline, no disqualification for the minis-
terial office; but I will go a little farther, and say, that slave-
holding is not constitutionally a forfeiture of a man’s right, if
he may be said to have one, to the office of a Bishop. The
Church, spread out through all the land, will always determine
for itself what are disqualifications and what are not, and it
has a perfect right to determine whether slaveholding, or abo-
litionism, or any other fact, shall be taken into consideration in
its elections.

“These are my principles. I have never doubted with re-
gard to them. I will add, that I can never give a vote which
does violence to my sentiments in regard to the religious aspect:
of the subject. I here declare, that, if I ever saw the graces
of the Christian ministry displayed, or its virtues developed, it
shas been among slaveholders. I wish here to divest myself of
what, to some, may seem an advantage that does not belong
tome. I would not conceal—I avow that I was a slaveholder,
and a minister at the South, and I never dreamed that my
right to the ministry was questionable, or that in the sight of
God I was less fitted to preach the gospel on that account.
And if the state of my health had not driven me away from
that region, I should probably have been a slaveholder to this
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 25

day. In this day of reform, and manifold suggestions, I go
further, and say, that, if by a vote of this General Conference,
you might call in question the right of our Southern brethren
to the ministry; and make their claim to the sacred office de-
pendent on their giving immediate freedon to their slaves, I do
not think that that would be a blessing to the slaves, or to the
Church. Ido not believe the slave fares worse for having a
christian master, and I think the preachers may have more of
public confidence on our present plan. I know these opinions
may by some be regarded as unsound, and I make them not
because they have any special value or novelty, but because I
profess to speak my sentiments freely.

“With regard to the particular case before us, I feel con-
strained to make one dr two remarks. If ever there was a
man worthy to fill the episeopal office by his disinterestedness,
his love of the Church, his ardent, melting sympathy for all the
interests of humanity, but above all, for his uncompromising
and unreserved advocacy of the interest of the slave—if these
are qualifications for the office of a Bishop, then James O.
Andrew is pre-eminently fitted to hold that office. Iknowhim
well. He was the friend of my youth, and although by his
experience and his position fitted to be a father, yet he made
me a brother, and no man has more fully shared my sympathies,
or more intimately known my heart for these twenty years.
His house has been my home, on his bed have I lain in sick-
ness, and he, with his sainted wife now in heaven, has been
my comforter and nurse. No question under heaven could
have presented itself so painfully, oppressive to my feelings as
the one now before us. If I had a hundred votes, and Bishop
Andrew were not pregsed by the difficulties which now rest
upon him, without any wrong intention on his part Iam sure,
he is the man to whom I would give them all. I know no man
who has been so bold an advocate for the interest of the slaves,
and when I have been constraihed to refrain from saying what
perhaps I should have said, I have heard him at camp meetings
and on other public occasions call fearlessly on masters to see
to the spiritual and temporal interests of their slaves, as a high
christian duty. Excepting one honored brother, whose name
will hereafter be recorded as one of the greatest benefactors
of the African race, I know of no man who has done so much
for the slave as Bishop Andrew.”

“T know the difficulties of the South. I know the excite-
iment that is likely to prevail among the people there. Yet
allowing’ our worst fears all to be realized, the South will have
this advantage over us—the Southern Conferences are likely
in any event to harmonize among themselves—they will form
acompact body. In our Northern Conferences this will be

3
26 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

impossible in the present state of things. They cannot bring
their whole people to act together on one common ground; sta~
tions and circuits will be so weakened and broken as in many
instances to be unable to sustain their ministry. I speak on
this point in accordance with the conviction of my own judg-
ment, after having travelled three thousand miles through the
New England and New York Conferences, that if some action
is not had on this subject calculated to hold out hope—to im-
part a measure of satisfaction to the people—there will be
distractions and divisions ruinous to souls, and fatal to the
permanent interests of the Church.

“I feel, sir, that if this great difficulty shall result in separa-
tion from our Southern brethren, we lose not our right hand
merely, but our very hearts’ blood. Over such an event I]
should not cease to pour out my prayers and tears as over a
grievous and unmitigated calamity. It was in that part of our
Zion that God for Christ’s sake converted my soul. There I
first entered on the christian ministry. From thence come the
beloved, honored brethren, who now surround me, with whom
and among whom I have labored, and suffered, and rejoiced,
and seen the doings of the right hand of the Son of God. If
the day shall come when we must be separated by lines of de-
markation, I shall yet think often of those beyond with the
kindest, warmest feelings of an honest christian heart. But,
sir, 1 will yet trust that we may put far off this evil day. If
we can pass such a measure as will shield our principles. from
all infringement—if we can send forth such a measure as will
neither injure nor justly offend the South—as shall neither
censure nor dishonor Bishop Andrew, and yet shall meet the
pressing wants of the Church, and above all, if Almighty God
shall be pleased to help by pouring out his Spirit upon us, we
may yet avoid the rock on which we now seem but too likely
to split.”

Mr. Drake, of Mississippi, opposed the substitute. He
thought in spirit and principle, it was no better than the ori-
ginal. A Bishop, he said, holds his office for life or good be-
havior, and he believed this was the universal understanding.
“Now to say that we can deprive a Bishop of his office, and.
yet not censure him—that we can depose, and yet leave his
episcopal robe unstained—is, to my mind, absurd in the ex-
treme.” “According to their own showing, they cannot punish
Bishop Andrew without committing an extra-judicial act. Nor
can this course be pursued, and the union of the Church be
preserved.” He said the South did not expect to become se-
ceders, but to abide by the Discipline, and even a majority of
the members had no right to drive them from it. If this conces-
sion were made to the North it would not satisfy them. He
vecsescsoes

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 27

had enquired of them and the response was, that with this they
would be satisfied ar present. Probably at next General Con-
ference it would be necessary to pursue a similar course with
Presiding Elders. He concluded by suggesting the following
as better suiting the case, and without any violation of the
Discipline: \

“Whereas, there have been found difficulties of a serious
nature in the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church ex-
ercising a general superintendency; therefore,

“Resolved, That the General Conference recommend the
episcopacy’to assign to each Superintendent his sphere of labor
for the next four years.”

This proposition, not being in order, was offered as a sug-
gestion, and no action was had on it.

Mr. Slicer, of Baltimore, said he belonged to the class called
Conservatives, and would go for the substitute. It would not
quite suit the extremes North or South, but he thought it would
suit the case and the great body of the Church between New
England and Virginia, and West to the Mississippi. He thought
the elected delegates in the General Conference had a right to
have a slaveholding Bishop, if they chose to elect one, but did
not think that they would have one until they did so choose to
elect him. “Bishop Andrew had not infracted the Discipline,
but he had offended against the great law of expediency.”

Mr. Crandle, of New England, did not quite approve either
resolution, but thought there was a disposition to meet the
South on some middle ground. He had intended to vote for
the substitute until he heard the speech of the brother from
Mississippi, (Mr. Drake.) He took exception to a remark of
Dr. Olin—that the constitution granted Southern ministers the
right of holding slaves, without prejudice to their official stand-
ing. He admitted that the statute law of the Church allowed
this right, but not the constitution. (Dr. Olin explained that
this was in substance his meaning.)

Mr. Cass, of New Hampshire, said: “Mr. President, if I un-
derstand the subject now under consideration, it is this:—Is it
expedient for this Conference to suspend Bishop Andrew from
his office on account of his being a slaveholder, until such time
as he shall be free from this embarrassment? The reason as-
signed why such action should be had is, that a large majority
of the Church are opposed to having aslaveholder for a Bishop.
Now, sir, Ihold if they are wrong, and the Bishop is right, no
action should be had against him in the premises. This, then,
is the question to be settled. Dr. Olin has said that the Bishop
has done no wrong; but, with all due deference, I must beg
leave to dissent from his opinion in this matter.

“Sir, is there no moral wrong in being aslaveholder? A
28 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

portion of the North believe slaveholding to be a moral wrong.
We have nothing to do with slavery in the abstract: but we
believe that slavery, as it exists in these United States, and in
the Methodist Episcopal Church, is morally wrong.

“But, leaving this out of the question for the present, is there
no wrong in Bishop Andrew becoming a slaveholder, and
thereby disturbing the peace of the Church; and also bringing
this dark cloud over us, and this trouble upon us, which has
pained our hearts and detained us here for days? when he has
brought this evil into existence by his voluntary act, with his
eyes open? Sir, I think there must be a wrong in this.

“Dr. Olin has said, that the resolution now before us should
be so modified as that Bishop Andrew will not be censured.
Sir, I hold there should be no privileged order in the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church: if he has done wrong, he ought.to be
censured. As much as I respect the office of Bishop, and the
men who fill it, they are amenable to justice if they do wrong
as much as I amin my humble relation in the Church; and
with as much greater responsibility as their station is above

,mine. They are the very-last men who should not be cen-
sured, if in the wrong. Mark this, sir, whenever there is a
privileged order in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the glory
will have departed. Let this not be—no, never. ‘

“Dr. Olin says, that slaveholding does not disqualify any
man for the ministry, provided he live in a slaveholding State;
and that the constitution of the Methodist Church sustains him
in his position, and those who differ from him in opinion are
bad Methodists; and if they persist in these courses, they ought
to follow the example of those who have seceded from the
Methodist Episcopal Church. Sir, by this one stroke he has
severed four Conferences from the Methodist Episcopal Church.
I do not, however, think he intended to doit. But it was done
with his zeal to hold on to the South, which, by the way, he
appears to have some sympathy, if not partiality for, as he
has been a slaveholder, and never thought it was any thing
against his ministerial character.

“The South say, if Bishop Andrew is suspended, the line of
division will be drawn between the North and South, and that
when they say this they speak the mind of the whole South.
Sir, how do they know this fact? Have they taken a vote in
all their Annual Conferences? or, have they had a convention
to deliberate on this matter?

“They calculate to claim that they are the Church and the
North will be the seceders. This is not the first time we have
heard of nullification, or that which is equivalent, (in the
Church and State,) from the South; but the world stands yet,
and I believe it will not be moved from its foundations if the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 29

resolution before us should pass. These threats have their
meaning, which is perfectly understood by the North.”

May 24th. Mr. G. F. Pierce, of Georgia, spoke against the
resolution, in an animated speech of some length, from which
we make the following extract:— _

“Sir, there has been, in every speech which has been made
on the other side of the question, a false issue attempted.
Whatever may be affirmed of expediency, and the disqualifica-
tion of Bishop Andrew for the office of general superintendent,
in view of circumstances over which it is declared brethren
have no control, it is not to be forgotten or disguised that this
is not an abstract, but a practical question, that it involves the
constitutional rights and equality of privileges belonging to
Southern ministers. It_is a practical question, too, which
cannot be set off from its connection with the past, and its
bearings on the future. It is part and parcel of a system,
slowly developed it may be, yet obvious in. its designs and
unwearied in its operation, to deprive Southern ministers of
their rights, and to disfranchise the whole Southern Church.
You cannot take the question out of its relations. It cannot
be made to stand as brethren have tried to make it stand,
isolated and alone. If there had been no memorials on your
table, praying for the establishment of a law of proscription—it
there had not been declared over and over again a settled
purpose, if not in unequivocal terms, yet in unequivocal acts,
to work out the destruction of this evil, and free the episcopacy
and the Church itself from this evil, the question before us
would be different in its aspects, andthe action of the South
in regard to it might be modified accordingly. I beg this Con-
ference to consider this question in the light of its connection
with the previous action in the case of the appeal from the
Baltimore Conference. Sir, the preposterous doctrine was
asserted in that Conference that its purposes and usages are
paramount to the law of the land, and the doctrine of that
Conference has been affirmed here. Sir, the action of this
Conference on the subject has brought the whole Methodist
Episcopal Church into a position of antagonism to the laws of
the land. I consider such action not only an outrage on the
common justice of the case, but decidedly revolutionary in its
movements, and destined to affect, unless repealed, the char-
acter of the Conference and all the ramifications of the Church.
What is the position? The ground was taken then and here
—the Church, the Bible, the Discipline, and the laws of the
land to the contrary notwithstanding—that we have a right to
make a man’s membership depend upon the condition of his
doing a thing which, as a citizen of the State, he has no power
or right to do. The act which is proposed in the resolution is

3*,
30 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

part and parcel with the same affair. When Bishop Andrew
has been invited to resign or desist’ from the exercise of his
episcopal functions, or is impeached or deposed, it ought to be,
and can be considered as neither more nor less than collateral
in its designs and effects with the action of the Conference in
the case to which I have referred. oes

“This is a practical question, make what disclaimers you
please, or any amount of them. The common sense of the
country will consider it as an infraction of the constitutional,
or, if you please, the disciplinary rights of the Southern brethren,
however it may be considered by those in the so-styled more
favored and less encumbered portions of the Union.

“ But, sir, I will present one view of this question which has
not been touched upon. Set off the South, and what is the
consequence? Do you get rid of embarrassment, discord,
division, strife? No, sir; you multiply divisions. There will
be secessions in the Northern Conferences, even if Bisho
Andrew is deposed or resigns. Prominent men will abandon
your Church. I venture to predict that whenever the day of
division comes—and come I believe it will from the present
aspect of the case—that in ten years from this day, and perhaps
less, there will not be one shred of the distinctive peculiarities
of Methodism left within the Conferences that depart from us.
The venerable man who now presides over the Northern Con-
ferences may live out his time as a Bishop, but he will never
have a successor. Episcopacy will be given up, the presiding
eldership will be given up, the itinerancy will come to an end,
and Congregationalism will be the order of the day. The
people will choose their own pastors, and preachers will be
standing about the ecclesiastical market-places, and when men
shall ask, ‘Why stand ye here all the day idle?’ the answer
will be, ‘Because no man hath hired us.’ [An involuntary
burst of applause was here interrupted by the chair, who said,
That is wholly inadmissible. ]

“We have unity and peace, and seek it because of its effects
on the connection, and I believe, to-day, that if the New England
Conferences were to secede, the rest of us would have peace.
There would be religion enough left among us to live together
as a band of Christian brothers.

“Sir, I object to the substitute for another reason. I would
have preferred the original resolution. The substitute presents
a most anomalous view of the whole subject. Suppose that
view is adopted; what isit? Whatdo you do with the Bishop?
You cannot put him on a circuit or station: he is a Bishop in
duress—a Bishop in prison bounds—an anomaly—a fifth wheel
in the machine of Methodism—doomed to live on the Book
‘Concern, while no provision is made for his rendering the
Church any service, if this resolution is adopted.”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 31

He also spoke of New England as the prime source of all
the difficulty;—but for her he believed the residue of the Church
would be at peace, and expressed the opinion that if the New
England Conferences should secede, the Church would be
gainer by it; and he wished they would do so.

Dr. Longstreet, of Georgia, next addressed the Conference
in an able argument, showing, among other things, that the
. North have not made the concessions to the South which
she has claimed to have done, pointing out the inconsistency
of the proceedings in the present case, &c. He said they had
laid down premises in their preamble, as the basis of their
action, and then had gone on, one day and part of another,
debating the subject, without attempting to give a single argu-
ment to sustain the position they had assumed, and then before
the South have opportunity to discuss the question, it is ex-
changed for a new proposition, &c.

Mr. J. T. Peck, of Troy Conference, followed in reply to Mr.
Pierce, of Georgia; and as we gave an extract from the speech
of the latter, we insert the reply of the former to the principal
points in Mr. Pierce’s speech:—

“He [Mr. Pierce] says we have made a false issue in this
discussion. And what is it? Why that we have discussed it
as an individual matter, confined in its application to Bishop
Andrew himself; whereas it was in truth a great practical
questjon, bearing upon the whole South. We admit it, Mr.
President; it is a great practical question, bearing not upon
the South merely, but upon the whole Church. We utterly
disclaim the limitation of the question to anyman. We take
up the issue exactly as he has laid it down. It is upon the
assertion and action of a great principle of immense practical
bearing that we predicate our arguments. It is, verily, the
brother may be well assured, a matter of great practical tm-
portance to us, and to the Church, whether we have a slave-
holding Bishop or not. Here, then, I have no contention with
him.

“But, Mr. President, the brother alarmed me! He made
a declaration which was to me utterly surprising! He says the
great question of unity is decided! [Mr.P. explained. ‘Pros-
pectively decided.”] Prospectively decided? to be sure! Did
any one suppose it had been decided retrospectively? Division,
then, in his mind, is really inevitable! Surely, sir, 7 had not
thought so. And I am happy to say I know many brethren
North and South, much more distinguished for age and expe-
rience than either of us, who do not think so. The division of
our excellent Church decided! The unity of our common
Methodism destroyed! May Heaven forbid it! Ido not be-
lieve it, sir. The strong bonds that hold us together, I trust,
32 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

are not sundered! But, he says, the Baltimore appeal case
virtually decided it. Ido not so understand it. There were,
it is true, several points of analogy between the case of Mr.
Harding and that of Bishop Andrew. But the action contem-
plated in the case of the Bishop is widely different from that.
had in the case of Mr. Harding. In that case we did nothing
more than to affirm the decision of the Baltimore Conferencey
and in that act say, that we would not allow slavery to be
crowded on her, after she had nobly declared she would not have it.
The appellant stood suspended from his ministerial functions.
But was any such thing intended in the case of Bishop Andrew?
Did the resolution affirm any such thing? Certainly not. It
merely proposed that he should desist from the exercise of the
episcopal office until he should free himself from the embar,
rassment of slavery. The cases then were widely different.
Brethren were undoubtedly premature in asserting that the
decision of the Conference in the Baltimore appeal case had
prospectively determined the division of the Church! Indeed,
the gentleman himself seemed to have doubts about it, when
he came to consider a little; for after he had progressed in his
argument so far as to consider the influence of the proposed
action in the case of the Bishop, he declared, Pass that reso-
lution, and the great question of Methodist unity is decided
forever. Indeed! Then it remains to,be decided, the Baltimore
appeal case to the contrary notwithstanding! I thank. the
brother for that. My judgment in the case cannot be altogether
groundless, since it derives support from his own declarations.
Be assured, sir, I greatly rejoice in this. :
“But the brother from Georgia says this measure will not
save us from secessions. We shall have secessions in New
England! We shall have them every where! What can be
done to satisfy New England?. Sir, as the name of New Eng-
land struck my ear I felt a thrill of the most intense interest.
But, the reverend gentleman proceeded, they are busy bodies
in other men’s matters! A thorn in the flesh! A messenger
of Satan to buffet us! And, alluding (as I understood him to
do) to a certain movement in New England, and certain prin-
ciples upon which that movement was based, he called it the
foul spirit of the pit! the Juggernaut of perdition! &c. Upon
this language, Mr. President, I may not remark! I must, of
necessity, leave it without animadversion! | But with the utmost
respect, this dear brother will excuse me for saying I much
poet terms used by some of his highly respected associates.
like the chaste and beautiful language of the sweet-spirited
and eloquent Mr. Crowder, and the dignified and forcible style
of the reverend gentleman who last preceded me. I must say,
Mr. President, I deprecate the use of such language in a con-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 33

troversy of such solemn importance—a controversy invested
with more elements of moral grandeur than any which has
engaged the attention of the American people for half a cen-
tury! I hope the brother will not use it again, and certainly
not on the floor of this General Conference.

But my friend from the Georgia Conference says, Let New
England go! I wish in my heart she would secede! And joy
go with her, for I am sure she will leave peace behind her!
Let New England go? I cannot forget this exclamation. It
vibrates in my soul in tones of grating discord. Why, ‘sir,
what is New England, that we should part with her with so
little reluctance? New England! The land of the pilgrims—
the land of many of our venerated fathers in Israel—the land
of Broadhead—of Merritj—of the reverend man [pointing to
George Pickering] who sits by my side, and a host of worthies
whom we have delighted to honor as the bulwarks of Method-
ism in its early days of primitive purity and peril. Let New
England go? No, sir, we cannot part so easily with the pioneer
land of the devoted and sainted Jesse Lee!

But, Mr. President, our brethren of the South utterly mistake
the truth in this matter! Why, sir, they can’t get half way to
New England in this war! They must wade through numbers
and forces of which they never dreamed! They must encoun-
ter us in the centre, whose opposition to slavery is uncompro-
mising. And Baltimore! (honor to her self-sacrificing devotion
to the cause of humanity) will‘be a formidable obstacle in the
way of their advance. But if they ever should subdue us, and
reach the land of the pilgrims, rest assured, sir, they would find
there a wall of brass which would remain forever impregnable
to the assaults of the slave power! We are happy that New
England is with us'to a man in this fearful conflict—that the
united West, and North, and East, form an insuperable barrier
to the advance of slavery! O,sir, ] fear me much our brethren
at the South are deceiving themselves in this matter. This
has never been a question of principle between us and New
England. We have always been agreed in fundamental anti-
slavery sentiments, and I am the more careful to allude to this,
because, so far as I remember, it is a distinction that has not
been made in this discussion. It has been purely a question of:
measures between us. In this, it is true, we have differed, but
in opposition of principle to slavery, North, East and West, we
always have been, and I trust shall ever remain, inseparably
united. We resist,as one man, the advancement of slavery,
which, not content to be confined within. its own geographical
limits, threatens to roll its dark waves over the North. Jt claims
the right to give us a slaveholding pastor! A slaveholding Bishop!
Do not then be surprised that we are so perfectly united in
34 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

asking to be set back exactly where We were a few months ago.
O, sir, if our brethren could roll the wheels of time back to
where they were last November, when we had, comparatively,
no difficulties to encounter! But this they cannot do. What
less, however, can they expect us to ask, than that they should
do what is equivalent to it, give us our Bishop without the
slaves?”

Saturday, May 25th. After Mr. Peck concluded the very
extended speech commenced the preceding day,

Mr. A. L. P. Green, of Tennessee, addressed the Conference in
opposition to the resolution. He thought the question nar-

rowed itself to this: has the General Conference, the constitu-
tion and Discipline being judge, a right to depose a Bishop for
having become connected with slavery? He thought Dr.
Bangs and others, on the other side, were quite wrong in their
position, that a Bishop is simply an officer of the General Con-
ference, placed precisely on the same ground, as regards his
tenure of office, with a Book Agent, an Editor of anewspaper,
or a Conference Secretary. This was strange doctrine to him.
An officer of the General Conference was elected for a definite
period, and unless re-elected, must then necessarily go out of
office. He was therefore not degraded by being removed or
superceded at the end of the term for which he was elected.
That or re-election must come of course. Not so a Bishop;—
When once elected and consecrated, he is a Bishop for life,
unless he cease to travel, or should misbehave. To put him
out of office then at any time during life, unless in one of these
_ contingencies, is to degrade him. It is like putting an Agent

or an Editor out of office in the midst of the term for which he

‘was elected. A Bishop, during life, could only get out of
office by resigning or being deposed. Was this true of other
officers? Or did a Book Agent have to declare solemnly that
he believed he was moved by the Holy Ghost to take on him
the office and work of a Book Agent? Was an Editor set
apart for his work hy holy rites of ordination and solemn im-
position of hands?

It was said that the proposed course was mild toward Bishop
Andrew. The pill might be sweetened to render it palatable,
but disguise it as you will, it has in it, if taken, episcopal death.

As to expediency, so much relied on in this case, he thought
while we have a Discipline designed to guide and govern our ac-
tion and administration, it was expedient that we should respect
that Discipline, no law of which was charged to have been vio-
lated by Bishop Andrew. With Paul some things were lawful
that were not expedient; but with him it was never expedient to do
what was unlawful, as is proposed in this case. The arguments
used to show the power of the.General Conference to act in
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 35

the absence of law, he thought not pertinent. Dr. Bangs sup-
posed that if Bishop Andrew had married a negro woman,
though there was no law of the Discipline against it, the Gen-
eral Conference would have power to depose him for the act;
but if the law of the Discipline had provided that any minister
might do that very act, under given circumstances, and then
Bishop Andrew had done the act under these precise cireum-
stances, the General Conference would have had no right or
power to contravene their own law by a plea of expediency.

It has been said and often repeated that the sénse of the
Church had ever been against a slaveholding Bishop—that we
had never had one, &c. He supposed that next to Bishop
Asbury, Bishop McKendree was entitled-to rank highest among
‘the apostles of American Methodism, and yet Bishop McKen-
dree had determined to buy a black boy to wait on him, and
was only prevented by the dissuasion of himself and another
brother.

When he heard brethren on all sides lauding the piety and
talents of Bishop Andrew, and declaring he had. transgressed
no law, but still demanding him as a sacrifice, it seemed to be
saying, ‘Here take him and crucify him, for I find no fault in
him.”

Dr. Bangs rose to correct Mr. Green. He did not make the
comparison alluded to[comparing Bishop Andrew to an Agent,
&c.] A Bishop was a Bishop, and not an Agent of the Gen-
eral Conference. But as the General Conference created him,
he thought they had power to depose-or suspend him for just
cause.

Mr. Green said he might be in a mistake as to the individual,
but he knew he was not as to the fact that the doctrine had
been advanced and advocated by that party [See Mr. Griffith’s
speech. ]

Monday, May 27th. Mr. Hamline, of Ohio, (now Bishop,)
took the floor, in a speech of considerable length, and quite
original in many of its views. He contended thatthe General
Conference had the right to remove a Bishop from his office
even without assigning any cause for the act, upon the same
principle that a Bishop can remove a Presiding Elder, an Elder
remove a circuit or.stationed preacher, a preacher a class-
leader, or a quarterly conference refuse to renew the license of
an exhorter or local preacher, on the ground of unacceptable-
ness. To show this power more fully, he said the General
Conference is supreme—“Its supremacy is universal. It has
legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy.” These proposi-
tions he elaborated at length. He contended that the power
of the General Conference “to make rues and regulations” was
very comprehensive. “To make rules” comprehended the
36 HISTORY OF 'THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

“legislative” power; “to make regulations” is executive or ad-
ministrative. To appoint a preacher his work, or remove him,
is a regulation. To appoint a Bishop to do this for the General
Conference is a regulation. “Torecall that Bishop to his former
station is a regulation.” Whatever powers the General Con-
ference possesses it can confer, and what it can confer it can
withhold. “And what it can confer or withhold, it can resume
at pleasure.” With regard to the power of the General Con-
ference to act in this case without law, he says:—

“Tt has been urged privately, by very many, that we have
no authority to displace a Bishop, except for crime and by a
formal trial. And they who advocate it, tell us to look into
section 4th, page 28th, and we will be convinced. Well, what
now is section 4th to us, in a question of this sort? That
whole sectiori is statutory. Were it a part of our Church
constitution, it might be invoked as authoritative. Mere rules
as they are, and alterable by us in ten minutes, by two Confer-
ence votes, they expressly recognize our authority to ‘expel a
Bishop for improper conduct.” Why then urge any thing in
the fourth section against this pending resolution? If there
were no express rule for deposing a Bishop, we should still be
competent to depose. And for this plain reason. Whatever
this Conference can constitutionally do, it can do without first
resolving that it has power to do it—without passing a rule
into the Discipline declaring its authority. The power of this
Conference is derived, not from its own enactment, but from
the constitution. Is there any thing in the restrictive articles
which prohibits the removal or suspension of a Bishop? This
will not be pretended, and of course nothing in our own statutes
can deprive us of powers conferred on us by the higher authority
of the constitution. ios

“Suppose the fourth section provided that this body ‘has not
power to depose a Bishop for improper’ conduct, if it seem
necessaty.’ We should still have the power to depose, because
the constitution confers it, and that is paramount to all our
resolutions and statutes. We cannot by our enactments divest
ourselves of constitutional powers, no more than man made in
God’s image, and about to inhabit God’s eternity, can spurn
the law of his being, and divest himself of free agency’ and
immortality. , ae:

“Now let me proceed after the manner of mathematiéians.
We have seen, if I mistake not, that a provision in the 4th
section, page 28th, declaring our incompetency to depose, would
still leave us free to do it, because the superior authority_of the
constitution confers the power. Much more then may we
depose, if, instead of a statute forbidding it, the Discipline is
silent on ‘the subject.”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 37

Of the meaning of the rule authorizing the General Confer-
ence to “expel a Bishop for improper conduct,” he says,—

“Have power to expel, sets forth the extent to which we
may proceed in our efforts to guard against the consequences
of a Bishop’s improprieties. The expulsion contemplated is
doubtless from office. For though depose is the word generally
used in such connections, expel is not less significant of the
thing. To put out of office is expulsion.”

This position is perhaps entirely new; and plausible as it
may appear, has this slight inconvenience attendant onit. If
to eapel for improper conduct means, as Bishop Hamline tells us,
to depose from office for an offence “less than imprudence,” as
the law designates no higher crime,or punishment than those
indicated in this clause in case of a Bishop, if he should be
guilty of murder, the General Conference could do no more
than depose him from office for an offence /ess than imprudence!

In carrying out his theory, Mr. Hamline uses the folowing
language, which, without attempting to comment on, we think
it proper to record:—

“That the Bishop’s is an office, is, I suppose, conceded.—
True, we ordain him; but. we may cease to ordain, and by
suspending the Conference rule which requires a day’s delay,
may immediately blot from the Discipline these words—page
26—“and the laying on of the hands of three Bishops, or at
least one Bishop and two elders.” Would not this harmonize our
practice and our principles?” ;

To urge the Conference to action in this delicate and diffi-
cult case, he says, “ When the Church is about to suffer detri-
ment which we by constitutional power can avert, itis as much
treason in us not to exercise the power we have, as to usurp in other
circumstances that which we have not.”

Mr. Comfort followed on the same side, highly eulogizing
‘the speech of Mr. Hamline, and characterizing the speeches in
this discussion as “pettifogging.” He said, however, that
Bishop Andrew was not arraigned for “improper conduct,” but
simply on account of “embarrassment.” He spoke of the
Bishop’s rumored intention to resign, to avoid this difficulty,
and regarded it as most magnanimous, and the responsibility
as resting on those who prevented his doingso. Division had
been talked of, but he did not. think the General Conference
possessed any such power. He had now no fears for the unity
of the Church. “He believed that so long as the President
occupied that chair as senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, he would. preside in the General Conference of the
whole Methodist Episcopal Church.”

Dr. Smith, of Virginia, next addressed the Conference. — He
first made a few remarks in reply to Mr. Hamline. He said,—.

4
38 HISTORY OF THE. ORGANIZATION OF THE

“From the fact that leaders and other subordinate officers of
the Church, may be displaced by their superiors, he [Mr. Ham-
line] argues that a Bishop may be displaced at the mere dis-
cretion of the General Conference. To this I reply, that his
analogy does not hold, because preachers and presiding elders
are themselves immediately responsible to higher officers for
any act by which they displace an inferior officer; but there is
no body superior to the General Conference, and if it be not
bound to observe its own rules in its administrative acts, then
it is irresponsible. Its course is as unsteady as the fitful winds
—its government is the mere will of a majority—in other
words, a popular tyranny. He assigns this absolute adminis-
trative power to the General Conference—not even controlled
by its own existing rules. Such was the doctrine as it fell upon
my ear. To sustain this, he gives equal legislative powers.
Sir, I deny the whole. I commend to his attention the report
of the General Conference of 1828, in which this doctrine is
repudiated in the strongest terms. This body has no such
legislative or administrative powers. They are strictly bound
to be governed in their acts of administration in Bishop An-
drew’s case, and every other, by their own rules. As such he
is entitled to a formal trial, and cannot be deposed by any other
process that does not involve purely extra-judicial proceeding.
I protest against any such proceeding.”

After giving briefly the history of Bishop Andrew’s connec-
tion with slavery, he prgceeded:—

“Now J maintain, that in no offensive sense is Bishop An-
drew a slaveholder; i. e., the sense in which the Discipline
defines a slaveholder. Two attributes must attach to the act of
holding this property to make it offensive in the sense of the
Discipline. First. It must be received and held with an inter-
tion to enslave. Surely Bishop Andrew did not do this! No
one has charged him with it. Second. The person holding
the slave must of purpose omit to manumit, when by doing so
he could secure his freedom. _It is equally certain that Bishop
Andrew has not done this. He is then not aslaveholder in an
offensive sense. An ultra-abolitionist alone could have the
hardihood to pronounce him one. It is only pretended that he
is ‘connected with slavery.’ Interpret this by the offensive
terms employed by speakers, and the plain meaning of the
offence charged is simply this—that he married the lady of hus
choice, without stopping to consult the tastes and abolition. affinities of
New England Methodists! And for this he is to be dishonored. be-
fore the world as having brought a stain, upon Methodism. How,
sir, is this likely to be received at the South? Must there not.
eome up, from the very foundations of society, one united voice

of scathing rebuke?
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 39

“It is in vain to plead that this course is called for by reasons
arising out of the character of our episcopacy as a general
superintendency. THe present prosecution follows directly on
the heels of the Baltimore case. Mr. Harding, an elder only, was
required by the Baltimore Conference to give an unconditional
pledge that he would manumit slaves, which, under the laws
of the State, did not belong tohim. This General Conference
has sustained their decision. Bishop Andrew, who, any more
than Mr. Harding, cannot move in the matter, if he would, by
reason of the laws of the State, must, we are told, share the
same fate. It is purely an abolition movement. In no other
light can it. be received at the South.”

He proceeds to state the grounds upon which it is proposed
to deprive Bishop Andrew of office,—the first of which is, that
by his marriage he rendered himself unacceptable to a large
portion of the Church in the North. This Dr. Smith meets in
an argument of considerable length. The following are some
of his remarks in stating and answering the other general
positions of the party opposed to Bishop Andrew:—

“The second ground on which it is sought to convict Bishop
Andrew of ‘improper conduct,’ is, that by becoming connected
with slavery he has violated the ‘ settled policy of the Church? But
what is our policy in relation to ministers holding slaves? Itis
settled in the compromise rule. No one has affirmed that his
case does not fall within the provisions of this rule. Then his
present position isin perfect harmony with the ‘settled policy’
of the Church, as defined in the compromise rule.

“The mover of the original resolution, Rev. A. Griffith of
Baltimore, did not surely have this in view. He no doubt
meant, by the ‘settled policy of the Church, the motives which
usually influenced members in voting for Bishops. Strange
source, to be sure, to look to for the policy of the Church! But
he is quite as unfortunate as unwise in this appeal to the policy
of the Church. I present him a dilemma. The membes of
the General Conference of 1832, who voted for James O. An-
drew as a Southern man, to be Bishop, either did so on the prin-
ciple of the COMPROMISE RULE, or they did not: if they did, Bishop
Andrew was then elected on the principle of the compromise
rule, and he is not an offender against the principles of his
election, because his present position in relation to slavery is
within the provisions of this rule, as no one denies. If they did
not, then they deceived the Southern portion of the Church,
by publishing to the world, in the book of Discipline, that
the basis of compromise laid in the rule on slavery, should
govern their elections. Hence either Bishop Andrew is not an
offender against the prineiples on which he was elected, or
those who elected him were deceivers. Mr. Griffith, and his
40 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

friends who voted with him in electing Bishop Andrew in 1832,
may take which horn of the dilemma they please. _ :

“The third ground on which this extra proceeding is basedis,
that his present position, as a slaveholding Bishop, ‘is in viola-
tion of the usage, or common law of the Church. Dr. Olin,
whom I regret to know has avowed himself against us in this
controversy, has, nevertheless, agreed with Dr. Winans in
setting aside this position, for the obvious reason that an omis-
sion to elect a slaveholder a Bishop is no proof that it is the
usage of the Church that a slaveholder shall not be Bishop.
But, sir, it is not with arguments of this kind I seek to engage
your attention, but rather with the law in the case.

“In civil jurisprudence the common law is necessarily subor-
dinate in authority to the statute law. So in ecclesiastical
administration, the common usage must yield to the specific rule
of Discipline. Consequently, if there be a usage among us
which violates the plain provisions of the rule on slavery, it
should be given up as contrary to Methodist Discipline. Hence
if there be such a usage as that contended for so earnestly by
speakers, it is of no authority at all.

“The fourth ground taken is this: ‘ Bishop Andrew was nom-
inated by our Southern brethren, and elected by the General Confer-
ence of 1832, as a candidate who, though living amidst a slaveholding
population, was nevertheless free from all connection with slavery;’
hence it is maintained, ‘that his present position is in violation of

“If Bishop Andrew was elected on the ground that he was
not a slaveholder, he has assured us that it was from no pledge
given or in any way authorized by him that he would not
become one. Neither does his position at present, sir, violate any
obligation implied in his election. He was elected, itis well known,
because he resided in a slaveholding State, and he was expected
to continue to reside there. Now, sir, can it be supposed that
the General Conference of 1832 was so imbecile of mind as
not to have known, at the time of his election, that from his
very location and circumstances he was at all times liable to
become connected with slavery, by the death of friends or by
marriage—and that in all human probability he would become
so connected, in process of time? In view of this obvious
probability he was elected. And let me remind you that they
were often told of these liabilities. I myself urged them as a
reason why they should elect the individual whom I preferred,
on the ground of his being aslaveholder. The answer usually
given was a very natural one. We will elect Andrew in
preference to one who is a slaveholder, because it will secure
a more harmonious vote in the North and West; and if he
should become connected with slavery, as you'state, and as we
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 41

allow he may be, why then it will be in the providence of God,
and fall within the provisions of the compromise rule—and
we must submit to it. They would then turn my argument upon
me, and urge me to vote for Andrew in the spirit of conciliation.
And now, sir, since this result has transpired—a result which
school boys could have forecast, in view-of which (unless you
suppose the Conference of 1832 distinguished by the merest
imbecility) James O. Andrew was elected—will you now cen-
sure him? will you now seek to degrade him?”

On the point of the “general superintendency,” so much
stressed in this controversy, he says:—

“Itis in vain, sir, to plead in defence of this most unwarrant-
able proceeding, thatthe constitutional feature of our episcopacy,
viz., that it shall be a gegeral superintendency, demands that
he should desist from the duties of his office. The plan of
annually presiding in every Conference, or once within the
recess of the sessions of General Conference, expired with
Bishop Asbury. No one since his day has done this. Bishop
Hedding has not visited the Southern Conferences, if at all, not
‘more than once, in twenty years. Is he less a general superin-
tendent for this? A general superintendency, as interpreted by
the practice of late years, implies eligibility to preside in any
Conference, but an actual presidency only where prudence
demands it.”

Mr. J. A. Collins, of Baltimore, insisted that the usage of the
Church was opposed to having a slaveholding Bishop. He
replied. to some remarks of Dr. Longstreet—defended the
Baltimore Conference, and said “he considered his Southern
brethren the most useful ministers of the Church.” He said it
was due Bishop Andrew to say that he was prepared to resign
when he found he was in this difficulty. Dr. Longstreet here
explained on this point. When he had done,

Bishop Andrew arose and said, “the remarks of Dr. Long-
street were correct. He heard, when he arrived at Baltimore,
a rumor of the intention of the Conference, and when he
arrived at New York, he learned that the edict was confirmed
that he must resign or be deposed. He never thought the
subject would become one of grave discussion: if he had

-offended the Discipline, he was willing to resign, if by doing
so he could remove their difficulties; he had no fondness for the
episcopacy, particularly now, in the form in which it had been
held up to that Conference, and he pitied the man who could
remain in it, or accept it at their hands. If he‘ could secure
the peace of the Church by resigning, he would gladly do it.
He had remarked that morning, in an editorial by Dr. Bond,
that it was said it all rested upon him—he was to be made the
scape-goat, and the destruction of the Church was to be laid upon

4*
42 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

him. God knew it was not so—if his resignation was necessary
to secure the peace of the Church, he would at once make it, and
return home, labor ashe had done among the slaves, and strive
to save those upon whom their pretended friends were inflicting
suffering and ruin.” ai

Mr. Collins continued. “He believed every word of it; he
loved and honored the man more than any other on the bench,
and he was only desirous of expressing to the Conference and
the people his reasons for giving the painful vote he felt com-
pelled to give in thiscase. He then submitted a preamble-and
resolutions as follows:—

“ Whereas, the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has become connected with
slavery by marriage and otherwise; and whereas a large pro-
portion of our ministry and membership in many of the Annual
Conferences are known to have been always opposed to the
election of a slaveholding Bishop, believing that such an event
is in contravention of the Discipline, which contemplates the
episcopacy as an ‘itinerant general superintendency, and
calculated also to strengthen the bonds of slavery; and whereas
the peace and unity of the Church in the non-slaveholding
Conferences will be liable to serious interruption from the
connection of Bishop Andrew with slavery, without some
. definite action of the General Conference in relation to it;
therefore,

“ Resolved, That the members of this General Conference are
constrained to express their profound regret, that Rev. James
O. Andrew, one of the general superintendents, has become
connected with slavery, in view of the faet, that while thus
cireumstanced he cannot perform the duties of his office accep-
tably to a large proportion of the ministers and members of our
Church.

“« Resolved, That Bishop Andrew be, and he hereby is, affec-
tionately and earnestly requested to take the necessary measures
to. free himself from connection with slavery at the earliest
period practicable within the ensuing four years.

“ Resolved, That all the matter pertaining to the appeal of
Rev. Silas Comfort, tried at the session of the General Confer-
ence in 1840, be erased. from the journal.”

‘Bishop Andrew then addressed the Conference:—

“Mr. President,—I have been on trial now for a week, and
feel desirous that itshould come to aclose. For a week I have
been compelled to listen to discussions of which I have been
the subject, and I must have been more than man, or less than
man,nottohave felt. Sir, have felt, and felt deeply. Iam not
offended with anyman. The most of those who have spoken
against me, have treated me respectfully, and have been as
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 43

mild as I had any right toexpect. Icherish no unkindly feel-
ings toward any. | do not quarrel with my abolition brethren,
though I believe their opinions to be erroneous and mischievous.
Yet so long as they conduct themselves courteously toward me,
I have no quarrel with them. It is due that some remarks
should be made by me before the Conference come to a con-
clusion upon the question, which I hope will be speedily done,
for I think a week is long enough for a man to be shot at, and it
is time the discussion should terminate.

‘As there has been frequent reference to the circumstances
of my election to the episcopal office, it is perhaps proper that
I give a brief history of that matter. A friend of mine (brother
Hodges) now with God, asked me to permit myself to be put
in nomination for that office. I objected—the office had no
charms for me. I was with a Conference that I loved,
and that loved me. What was I to gain to be separated
from a happy home—from a wife and children whom I loved
more than I did my own life? But my friend urged me; he
said my election would, he believed, tend to promote the peace
of the Church, Mid that he believed it would be especially
important to the prosperity of Methodism atthe South. Finally,
I consented, with the hope of failure; but 1 was nominated and
elected. I was never asked if | was a slaveholder—no man
asked me what were my principles on the subject; no one dared
to ask of me a pledge in this matter, or it would have been met
as it deserved. Only one man, brother Winans, spoke to me
on the subject: he said he could not vote for me, because he
believed I was nominated under the impression that I was not
aslaveholder. I told him that I had not sought the nomination,
nor did I desire the office, and that my opinions on the propriety
of making non-slaveholding a test of qualification for the office
of Bishop, were entirely in unison with his own. Sir, I do not
believe in this matter of secret will as a rule of action, either in
the revelations of the Bible, or in the prescriptions of the book
of Discipline. I believe in the revealed will of God, and in the
written law of the Church, as contained in the book of Discip-
line. I took office upon the broad platform of that book, and
I believe my case is covered by it. It was known that I was
to reside at the South: I was elected in view of that very thing,
as it was.judged important to the best interests of the,Church,
that one of the Bishops should reside in that section of the work,
and it was judged I could be more useful there than elsewhere.
Well, what was I todo then? . I was located in a countty where
free persons could not be obtained for hire; and I could not do the
work of the family; my wife could not do it; what was I to do?
I was compelled to hire slaves and pay their master for their
hire; but 1 had to change them every year—they were bad
44 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

servants, for they had no interest in me or mine—and I believe
it would have been less sin before God to have bought a servant:
who would have taken an interest in me and | in him: but I
did not do so.

“ At length, however, I came in possession of slaves, andlam
a slaveholder, as I have already explained to the Conference,
and I cannot help myself. It is known that I have waded
through deep sorrows at the South during the last four years;
Ihave buried the wife of my youth and the mother of my
children, who left me with a family of motherless children, who
needed a friend and a mother. I sought to make my home a
happy one—and I have done so. Sir, I have no apology ‘to
make. It has been said, I did this thing voluntarily, and with
my eyesopen. I did so deliberately and in the fear of God—
and God has blessed our union. I might have avoided this
difficulty by resorting to a trick—by making over these slaves
to my wife before marriage, or by doing as a friend, who has
taken ground in favor of the resolution before you, suggested,
‘Why,’ said he, ‘did you not let your wife make over these
negroes to her children, securing her annuity fom them?’ Sir,
my conscience would not allow me to do this thing. If I had
done so, and those negroes had passed into the hands of those
who would have treated them unkindly, I should have been
unhappy. Strange as it may seem to brethren, I am a slave-
holder for conscience’ sake. I have no doubt that my wife
would, without a moment’s hesitation, consent to the manumis-
sion of those slaves, if I thought proper to do it. I know she
would unhesitatingly consent to any arrangement I might
deem it proper to make on the subject. But how am I to free
them? Some of them are old, too old to work to support
themselves, and are only an expense to me; and some of them
are little children: where shall I send these, and who will
provide for them? But perhaps I shall be permitted to keep
these; but then, if the others go, how shall | provide for these
helpless ones? and as to the others, to what free state should I
send them? and what would be their condition? Besides, many
of them would not go—they love their mistress, and could not
be induced under any circumstances to leave her. Sir, an aged
and respectable minister said to me several years ago, whenI
had stated just such a case to him, and asked him what he
would do, ‘I would set them free,’ said he, ‘’d wash my hands
of them, and if they went to the devil, I'd be clear of them’
Sir, into such views of religion or philanthropy my soul cannot
enter. I believe the providence of God has thrown these
creatures into my hands, and he holds me responsible for their
proper treatment. I have secured them to my wife by a deed
of trust since our marriage. This arrangement was only in
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 45

accordance with an understanding existing previous to mar-
riage. These servants were hers; she had inherited them from
her former husband’s estate; they had been her only source of
support during her widowhood, and would still be her only
dependence if it should please God to remove me from her.
I have nothing to leave her. I have given my life to the Church
from the days of my youth, [and I am now fifty,] and although,
as I have previously remarked, she would consent to any
arrangement I might make, yet I cannot consent to take
advantage of her affection for me to induce her to do what
would injure her without at all benefitting the slaves.

“Sir, I did not for a moment believe that this body of grave
and reverend ministers would make this a subject of serious
discussion. I thought it likely that there might be some warm
ultra brethren who would take some exceptions to my course,
‘and on that account I did not make the deed of trust before
marriage, lest some should suppose I designed to dodge the
responsibility of the case. Those who know me must know
that I would not be governed by the mere matter of dollars
and cents. WhatcanIdo? I have no confession to make; I
intend to make none. I stand upon the broad ground of the
Discipline, on which I took office; and if I have done wrong
‘put me out. The Editor of the Christian Advocate has pre-
judged this case. He makes me the scape-goat of all the
difficulties which abolition excitement has gotten up at the
North. I am the only one to blame, in his opinion, should
mischief- grow out of this case. But I repeat, if lhave sinned
against the Discipline, | refuse not to die. I have spent my
life for the benefit of the slaves. When I was but a boy I taught
a Sunday school for slaves, in which I taught a number of them
to read, and from that period till this day I have devoted my
energies to the promotion of their happiness and salvation—
with all my influence, in private, in public, with my tongue,
with my pen, I have assiduously endeavored to promote their
present and eternal happiness. And am I to be sacrificed by
those who have done little or nothing for them? It is said, I
have rendered myself unacceptable to our people. I doubt
this. I have just returned from Philadelphia, where they knew
me to be a slaveholder; yet they flocked to hear me, and the
presence of God was with us; we had a good, warm, old-
fashioned meeting. JI may be unacceptable in New York, yet
from the experience I have had I doubt even that. To whom
am I unacceptable? Not to the people of the South, neither
masters nor slaves. Has my connection with slaves rendered
me less acceptable to the colored people of the South; the very
people for whom all this professed sympathy is felt? Does the
fact that Iam a slaveholder make me less respectable among
46 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

them? Let those who have labored long among them answer
the question. Sir, I venture to say, that in Carolina or Georgia,
I could to-day get more votes for the office of Bishop from the
colored people, than any supporter of this resolution, let him
avow himself an emancipator as openly ashe pleases. To the
colored people of the South then, and to their owners; to the
entire membership of the slaveholding Conferences, I would not
be unacceptable; but perhaps they are no part of ‘our people.’
In short, sir, I believe I should not be unacceptable. to one half
the connection; but on this question I have nothing to say.
Should the Conference think proper to pass me, there is plenty
of ground where I can labor acceptably and usefully. The
slaveholding Conferences will present a field sufficiently large
for me, should I live to the age of Methuselah; and the Bisheps,
in arranging the work, will certainly have discretion enough
not to send me where I would not be received; nor would |
obtrude myself upon any Conference, or lay my hands on the
head of any brother who would feel himself contaminated
by the touch. However, on this subject I have nothing to
say. The Conference can take its course, but I protest against
the proposed action as a violation of the laws of the Discipline,
and an invasion of the rights secured to me by that book.
Yet, let the Conference take the steps they contemplate; I eriter
no plea for mercy; I make no appeal for sympathy.. Indeed, {
love those who sympathize with me, but | do not want it now.
I wish you to act coolly and deliberately, and in the fear of
God; but I would rather that the Conference would change the
issue, and make the resolution to depose the Bishop, and take
the question at once, for I am tired of it. The country is be-
coming agitated .on the subject, and I hope the Conference will
act forthwith on the resolution.” .

Mr. Sehon said he had become a practical emancipator; but
it was doubtful if he had benefitted his slaves by the act, as
they had become paupers, dependant on charity. i

He did not questien the power of the General Conference to
depose a Bishop for good cause, after regular trial, but not in
the informal and summary way in which they were proceeding
against Bishop Andrew. He was confident that in many
places in the non-slaveholding States, Bishop Andrew would
oo be received with as much cordiality as at’ any time hereto-

ore.

Mr. Winans, of Mississippi, said, that he should confine -his
remarks to the fundamental principles. He denied that the
General Conference had any administrative power whatever,
and certainly not the plenary power attributed to it by the
brother from Ohio, Mr. Hamline. It is only a creature, having
delegated attributes, and no other. After many other remarks,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 4%

he said he had spoken too long, but if he had the strength, he
would. pretract the debate till January, rather than they should
be driven forth a ruined community—dissevered, destroyed, and
gloried over by other denominations, who were more prudent
in these matters than themselves. :

Mr. Finley said he had been taught that there was no-eon-
servation for slavery in Methodism; there never had been, and
he hoped there never would be. If so, he would seek another
body. He contended that when a Bishop or minister refused
to free slaves when he could do it, he could be cut off from the
Methodist Episcopal Church. He. had been astonished, he
said, at many of the reasons given by the speakers on the
question, and particularly with regard to the subject of slavery.
He had always taken ground against it—he had preached
against it in the face of slaveholders, and told them to their
teeth that it was an evil, and that they were doing wrong.
He believed that slavery would never have taken the stand it
had, but for the connection of Methodist ministers with it. He
had heard that it was done out of charity to the slaves, but he
did not understand it so; he thought it a queer kind of charity
to sell a man.

Mr. Finley said, “‘ This resolution is modified to the most. easy
requirement it could be to meet the feelings of Southern
brethren, and to cover the principle, and from this ground I
will not be moved. No, sir; on this ground will I stand until I
die.” He said, to retain a slaveholder in the episcopacy would
be equivalent to voting for a slaveholder directly for that office,
and that “It would violate the constituted law. It would:
injure, if not totally destroy, this vital organ of our itinerancy.”
“Any man who can say it is right for him to hold his fellow
being in bondage, and buy and sell him at pleasure, put him
under an. overseer, and drive, whip, and half starve him, and that.
this is connived at by the Methodist Church, I think must have.
a queer view of the Church and her Discipline. I now say:
before God, that whenever the Methodist Episcopal Church
shall sanction this doctrine, as much as I love her, I will leave
her and seek another.” “I never will agree that slavery shall
be. connected in any way with episcopacy; nor any where else,
only by necessity. I must state again, that from this principle
E never will be removed.”

Mr. Cartwright addressed the Conference in support of the
pending resolution, ina speech of some length, partly in a playful
strain, but of a miscellaneous and 'desultory character, rendering
a sketch of it nearly impracticable.

Mr. Stamper spoke in opposition to the resolution, and
especially defended the doctrine that the law governing the
subject of slavery, was one of compromise, to which the General.
48 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Conference was sacredly bound to adhere; but.the substitute
could not be passed without a violation of that law, and he
was therefore bound to oppose the measure. _ a

May 29th. The Conference passed a resolution giving leave
to Bishop Soule and his colleagues to address the body in the
case of Bishop Andrew, if they saw fit, when Mr. Dunwody,
who was entitled to the floor, had concluded his remarks.

After the passage of the resolution, the case of Bishop
Andrew was continued.

Mr. Dunwody, of Seuth Carolina, took the floor. After some
preliminary remarks, he said he was opposed to the resolution
on three grounds: First, it was unscriptural; secondly, it was
contrary to the Discipline; and, thirdly, it would be mischievous
in its effects. He spoke at considerable length.

Bishop Soule then delivered to the Conference the following
address:—

“T do not know but this may be a favorable moment for me
to offer to the Conference the few remarks I desire to make
before final action shall be had on the subject which. is now
pending before the Conference. I have had no solicitude with.
regard to the period of time when | should offer these remarks,
only that it might be a time of calmness and reflection. I will
indulge the hope that this is such atime, and therefore avail
myself of the opportunity. I rise, sir, at this moment, as I
before said, with all the calmness which the occasion, I think,
requires. But this is not the calm that precedes the tempest
and the storm; it isnot the calmness of indifference; it cannot
be. It is, sir, the calmness of conviction. It is the calmness
of principle. If indeed I could be persuaded that my; very re-
speetable brother from the Pittsburgh Conference was entirely
correct in his opinion, that all the light which could be furnished
on this subject had been furnished, [should notrise here. There
is a possibility that the brother may be mistaken. I cannot say
that I should have foreborne to arise though I had been convinced
of the correctness of the judgment of the respected brother
from New England, that though we should sit here till January
next, no brother would be changed in his vote on this question.
I say—I do not know that I should have foreborne my observa-
tions though I might have been convinced of the correctness
of this opinion; but if no more light could be produced, any
thing that I could say would be unavailing.

There are periods, sir, in the history of the life of every man
who sustains any important station in society, who-holds any
important relations to it, when his individual character cannot,
must not be neutralized by the laws of. association. Under
this view, in what I shall say to this Conference, I involve no
man in responsibility. My venerable colleagues are in no way
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 49

concerned in what I shall say to this Conference, so that how-
ever I may be involved, they are not involved. The South, on
my right is notinvolved. The North on my left, is not involved.
I stand in this regard alone. I hope not, indeed, alone in the
sentiments that J shall express to the Conference. Brethren
have manifested a solicitude to bring the question to an issue
—to close the debate and come to the vote. I ask brethren if
it is not possible, notwithstanding the time which has been
employed in this discussion, notwithstanding the large views
which brethren have expressed on the question before them,—
I ask is it not possible that action on the resolution may not yet be
premature? Society, sir, whether civil or religious, has much
more to fear from the passions of men—of its members—than
it has to fear from calm investigation and sober inquiry. Iam
not afraid to meet the calmness of deliberation any where. 1am
not afraid to meet it here; I am not afraid to meet it in the
Annual Conference; I am not afraid to meet it before the great
religious community of which we are members and ministers.
Tam not; but I fear the rage of the passions of men. I fear
excitements, ardent excitements, prematurely produced in
society; and I apprehend that if we trace the history of asso-
ciations, whether civil or ecclesiastical, we shall find that these
premature excitements, waking up the rage of passion, have
produced greater calamities than ever were produced by the
calmness of deliberation and the sobriety-of inquiry, however
extensive those investigations may have been. The sound of
the trumpet of alarm may go forth from within these conse-
crated walls—the sound may spread itself on the wings of the
wind, or of the whirlwind, over the length and breadth of
these lands; but, sir, when this sound shall have died away,
when the elements which; may have been awakened to bois-
terous and tumultuous action, shall subside into the calmness
of inquiry and reason, a voice may return to this hall, wafted
on a counterbreeze; and though the voice be not heard in the
thunder, the earthquake, or the storm, it may pierce through
the veil of our speculations, and our theories, and the first
sound will be heard in the inquiry, ‘ What is the cause?’ Well,
sir, it will be the province of reason and sobriety to answer.
Here it is, sir, spread out before me, spread out before you, in
a plain, unsophisticated statement of facts by Bishop An-
drew. I have not heard a brother from the North—I have not
heard a brother from the South—(and I have listened to hear)
—allege that there were any other facts, that there were any
other circumstances having any bearing whatever on the mer-
its of the case now before you. I take it for granted, then,
that we have the entire facts of the case before us; and these
facts are the cause of whatever alarm, whatever excitement

5
50 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

may have spread through our beloved Zion, and over this
continent. . ’

- “Now, sir, Ibeg the indulgence of the Conference while I
read an extract from the address of your general superintend-
ents at your last session. You will indulge me in this.

“¢The experience of more than half a century, since the
organization of our ecclesiastical body, will afford us many
important lights and landmarks, pointing out what is the safest
and most prudent policy to be pursued in our onward course
as regards African slavery in these States, and especially in
our own religious community: This very interesting period of
our history is distinguished by several characteristic features,
having a special claim to our consideration at the present time,
particularly in view of the unusual excitement which now —
prevails on the subject, not only in the different Christian
Churches, but also in the civil body. And first, our general
rule on slavery, which forms a part of the constitution of the
Church, has stood from the beginning unchanged, as testa-
mentary of our sentiments on the principle of slavery, and the
slave trade. And in this we differ in no respect from the sen-
timents of our venerable founder, or from those of the wisest
and most distinguished statesmen and civilians of our own
and other enlightened and Christian countries. Secondly, in
all the enactments of the Church relating to slavery, a due
and respectful regard has been had to the laws of the States,
never requiring emancipation in contravention of civil author-
ity, or where the laws of the States would not allow the
liberated slave to enjoy freedom. Thirdly, the simply holding
or owning slaves, without regard to circumstances, has not, at
any period of the existence of the Church, subjected the master
to excommunication. Fourthly, rules have been made from
time to time, regulating the sale and purchase and holding of
slaves, with reference to the different laws of the States where
slavery is tolerated; which, upon the experience of the great
difficulties of administering them, and the unhappy consequenc-
es both to masters and servants, have been as often changed
or repealed.

“«These important facts, which form prominent parts of our
past history as a Church, may very properly lead us to inquire
for that course of action in futnre which may be best calculated
to preserve the peace and unity of the whole body, promote
the greatest happiness of the slave population, and advance
generally, in the slaveholding community of our country, the
humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion. We
cannot withhold from you, at this eventful period, the solemn
conviction of our minds, that no new ecclesiastical legislation
con the subject of slavery, at this time, will have a tendency to
accomplish these most desirable objects. And we are fully
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 51

persuaded, that as a body of Christian ministers we shall
accomplish the greatest good by directing our individual and
united efforts, in the spirit of the first teachers of Christianity,
to bring both master and servant under the sanctifying influ-
ence of the principles of that gospel which teaches the duties
of every relation, and enforces the faithful discharge of them
by the strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim at the
amelioration of the condition of the slave? How can we so
effectually accomplish this, in our calling as ministers of the
gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole influence to bring
both him and his master to a saving knowledge of the grace
of God, and to a practical observance of those relative duties
so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired apostles?

“«Permit us to addethat although we enter not into the
political contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil
legislation, nor with the administration of the laws, we cannot
but feel a deep interest in whatever affects the peace, prosper-
ity, and happiness of our beloved country. The union of these
States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our national confedera-
tion, the reciprocal confidence of the different members of the
great civil compact,—in a word, the well-being of the community
of which we are members, should never cease to lie near our
hearts, and for which we should offer up our sincere and most
ardent prayers to the Almighty Ruler of the universe.

“¢But can we, as ministers of the gospel, and servants of a
Master ‘whose kingdom is not of this world, promote these
important objects in any way so truly and permanently as by
pursuing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful
crisis, render a better service to our country than by laying
aside all interference with relations authorized and estab-
lished by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and
faithfully to what especially appertains to our ‘high and
holy calling;’ to teach and enforce the moral obligations of
the gospel, in application to all the duties growing out of the
different relations in society? By a diligent devotion to this
evangelical employment, with an humble and steadfast reliance
upon the aid of divine influence, the number of ‘believing
masters’ and servants may be constantly increased, the kindest
sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens light-
ened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happi-
ness of society be promoted. While, on the other hand, if past
history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much
cause to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if employed
in interference with the relation itself, and consequently with
the eivil institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent,
than to accomplish, these desirable ends.’ ;

“Sir, Ihave read this extract, that the members of this Gen-
52 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

eral Conference who were not present at the last session, and
this listening assembly, who may not have heard it before, may
understand distinctly the ground on which I, with my colleagues;
stand in regard to these questions. I desire that this document
may stand recorded with my name to it, till I sleep in the dust
of the earth. (Amen.) I desire to leave it as a legacy to my
children and my children’s children, and if I might be permitted
to say so, I would leave it as a legacy to the Church when |
am no more. I want no man to write my epitaph. I will
write it myself. I want no man to write and publish my life:
lll do that myself as far as I think it may be necessary for the
interests of posterity or for the benefit of the Church of God.
J regret, in reading the life of my venerable colleague, who
has gone from earth to heaven since your last session, that this
document, as it stood connected with his name, has not ap-
peared in that memoir. I thank the author of ‘The History
of the Methodist Episcopal Church,’ I mean Dr. Bangs, for
having presented this documeg in that History. I met it in
Europe, and I am glad it is there. I never wished my name
detached from it, no never, never. When this was written,
your superintendents believed that they were acting in perfect
accordance with the pastoral address of the General Confer-
ence at its session in Cincinnati—we think sonow. Well, sir,
| have only one further remark to make before I proceed to
the chief object for which I address the Conference this morn-
ing. Itis this. I desire that no undue influence may be pro-
duced from the peculiar relation in which I stand to the Church.
Sympathy may exert too great an influence when it is brought
to bear on great principles. The only subject which has
awakened my sympathy during the whole discussion, is the
condition of my suffering brethren of the colored race, and this
never fails to doit. No matter where I meet the man of color,
whether in the South, or in the North with the amount of
liberty he enjoys, the sympathies of my nature are awakened
for him. Could I restore bleeding Africa to freedom, to inde-
pendence, to the rights—to al/ the rights of man, I would gladly
doit. But this I cannot do—you cannot do. And if I cannot
burst the bonds of the colored man, I will not strengthen them.
If I cannot extend to him all the good I would, I will never
shut him out from the benefits which I have it in my power to
bestow. But, sir, I cannot withhold this sentiment from the
Conference, that with the mental and physical labors of this
relation, I could never have been sustained—I could never have
supported myself—I could never have ministered to the Church
unless I had been settled down on some principles equally as
changeless as the throne of God, in my estimation, never, never
It is a constant recurrence to these great principles that has
MEFHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 53

sustained. me inthe discharge of what I eonceive to be my
duties—duties which grow out of my relation to the Church,
and not simply to this Gonference. These principles have-sus-
tained me in the city and in the desert waste; they have sus-
tained me in the North, and.they have sustained me in the
South; they have sustained me in the quarters of the black man,
and.in the huts of the red man. Shake me from these princi-
ples, and I am done!—I have done, I say. But what is this?
Why, sir, is the Methodist, Episcopal Church dependant upon
me? Far from it; her interest hangs not upon my shoulders
at all.. She can do a great deal better without me than I can
do without. her; much better. Well, sir, laying aside this point
—endeavoring to disengage myself as far as possible, consider
me as expressing my own opinions, without reference to my
colleagues. I wish to say, explicitly, that if the superinten-
dents are only to be regarded as the officers of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and conse-
quently as officers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, liable to
be deposed at will by a simple majority of this body, without
a form of trial, no obligation existing growing out of the con-
stitution and laws of the Church, even to assign cause where-
fore—I say, if this doctrine be a correct ane, every thing I haye
to. say. hereafter is powerless, and falls to the ground. But
brethren will permit me to say, strange as it may seem, al-
though I have had the honor and privilege to be a member of
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Chureh
ever since its present organization, though I was honored with
a seatin the convention of ministers which organized it, in
this respect I have heard for the first time, either on the floor
of this Conference, in an Annual Conference, or through the
whole of the private membership of the Church, this doctrine
advanced: this is the first time I ever heard it. Of course it
struck me asa novelty. I am not going to enter the arena of
controversy with this Conference. _ I desire that my position
may be defined. I desire to understand my landmarks as a
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church—not the Bishop of
the General Conference, not the Bishop of any Annual Gonfer-
ence. I thought that the constitution of the Church—I thought
that its laws and regulations—I thought that the many solemn
vows of ordination, the parchment which I hold under the
signatures. of the departed dead; I thought that these had
defined my landmarks—I thought that these had prescribed
my duties—I thought that these had marked out my course.
In my operations, | have acted under the conviction that these
were my directions and landmarks, and it affords me great
consolation this day to stand, at least in the judgment of this
body, to which I hold myself responsible, and before which |
5%
54 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

will always be ready to-appear to answer any charge they-shall
prefer against me—I say it affords me some gratification. to
have stood acquitted for twenty years in the discharge of the
high trust committed to my hands; and I here desire to offer
my grateful acknowledgments to the Episcopal Committee for
the report they have brought to this body, and to the Confer
ence, for their cordial acceptance of that report. I say. Ido. it
with sentiments of sincerity; and it is the more cordial to me
in view of what may yet be tocome. In this regard, although
I have trembled beneath the weight of responsibility, and
shrunk before the consciousness of my inability, and especially
as I have felt my physical infirmities coming upon me; and
knowing that I must be in the neighborhood of mental infirmity,
I stand this day acquitted in my own conscience—(O that I may
be acquitted at the bar of my eternal Judge)—that I have to
the best of my ability, with sincerity of heart, and with the
ardent desire to promote the great interests of the Church, and
the cause of God, in the discharge of the duties which you have
intrusted to me—I have never, in the discharge of this trust—
God is my witness—I have never given an appointment to any
preacher with a desire or design to afflicthim. Indeed,if I could
do it, |should abhor myself. Now, sir, whether this Conference
is to sustain the position on which I haveacted, or not, they are
very soon to settle in the vote which is before them: I mean,
they are to settle this question, whether it is the right of this
body, and whether they have the power, to depose a Bishop of
the Methodist Episcopal Church—whether they have a right to
depose my colleague—to depose me, without a form of trial.
See ye to that. Without specification of wrong, and by almost
uhiversal acclamation over this whole house, that Bishop An-
drew has been unblamable in his Christian character; without
blame in his ministerial vocation; that he has discharged the
duties of his sacred office to the Church of God with integrity,
with usefulness, and with almost universal acceptability, and
in good faith;—with this declaration before the community,
before the world, will this Conference occupy this positionythat
they have power, authority to depose Bishop Andrew, without
a form of trial, without charge, and without being once called
on to answer for himself in the premises? what he did say was
voluntary.

Well, brethren, [had conceived—I had understood from the
beginning, that special provision was made for the trial of
a Bishop. The constitution has provided that no preacher, no
person was to be deprived of the right of trial, according to
the forms of Discipline, and of the right of appeal; but, sir, if
I understand the doctrine advanced and vindicated, it is that
you may depose a Bishop without form of trial; you may

 
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 55

depose him without any obligation to show cause, and there-
fore he is the only minister in your Church who has no appeal.
It seems to me that the Church has made special provision for
the trial of the Bishop, for the special reason that the Bishop has
no appeal. Well now, sir, I only make these observations, as
I said, to the ear of reason. You will remember that this
whole thing is going out before the world, as well as the Church.
I wish to know my landmarks, to find out where I stand; for
indeed-I don’t hesitate to say to you, that if my standing and
the relation in -which I have been placed by the Methodist
Episcopal Chureh under my solemn vows of ordination—if my
relation is to stand on the voice of a sithple majority of this
body, without a form of trial, and without an obligation even
to show me cause why I am deposed, I have some doubt
whether there is the man on this floor that would be willing to
stand in my place. Now brethren will perceive at once the
peculiar situation in which 1am placed. Here are my brethren
from the Ohio and from other Conferences. We have been
together in great harmony and peace. There has been great
union of spirit every where; but I said at the beginning, there
were periods in the history of every man occupying any im-
portant relation or station in society, when his individual
character and influewce could not be neutralized by the laws
of association. You must.unmoor me from my anchorage on
the basis of this book, you must unsettle me from the principles
—my settled and fixed principles. From these I cannot be
shaken by any influences on my right hand or on my left hand
—neither the zeal of youth ner the experience of hoary age
shall move me from my principles. Convince me that I am
wrong, and [ yield. And here it may be necessary that |
should make an observation in regard to what I have said
before—it seems to have been misunderstood—I said, you
cannot immolate me on a Southern altar; you cannot immolate
me on a Northern altar; 1 can only be immolated on the altar
of the union of the Methodist Episcopal Church. What do
I mean by this? I mean—call it a compact—call it a compro-
mise, constitutional discipline; what you will—I mean on the
doctrines and provisions of this book, and I consider this as the
bond of union of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Here then
I plant my feet, and here I stand. Let brethren, sir, not mis-
understand me in another point, a point in which they may
misunderstand, me, in which I have been misunderstood, and
you join me on this point. I hold that the General Conference
ef the Methodist Episcopal Church has an indisputable right,
constitutional, sacred, to arraign at her tribunal every Bishop;
to try us there; to find us guilty of an offence with which we
are charged on evidence, and to excommunicate—expel us. I
56 HISTORY OF THE: ORGANIZATION OF THY .

ant always ready to appear before that body im-this reg ard.
recognize fully their right. But not for myself—not for these
men on my right hand and on my left hand, but for your sakes
and the Church of God of which you are members and minis-,
ters, let -me ask you, let me entreat you not to rash upon the
resolution now before you. Posterity, sir, will review your
actions, history will record them; and whatever we may-de
here will be spread out before the face of the world; the eyes
of men will be fixed upon it. In this view I was not surprised
to-hear brethren say, ‘Pause, brethren, I beseech you. pansegs
and I was not surprised to see men of mind and of-thoughi
approach the thing ‘with fear and.trembling; but -brethnem.
apprehend that there are great difficulties involved in thig:
subject; they apprehend that fearful consequences are to take
place on which ever side of the question they shall move... Pass
it, and the South suppose themselves involved in irretrievahlp
tuin. Refuse to,pass it, and the North consider the eonse-
quences perilous to them. Permit me to say, sir, that I hag
had some acquaintance, personal acquaintance, both with the
North and the South; I think I have: been able to cast- an
impartial.eye over these great departments of the Church. |
may err in judgment, but I apprehend-that the difficulties may
not be as insurmountable as brethren have apprehended them
to be. I know that some of my brethren of the North are
invelved in such a manner that I cannot apprehend—l see
no way in which they can compromise this question. ..; Why,
For the obvious reason that it involves a principle: -I will cont
promise with no man when a principle is.involved in the com-
promise. What is that principle? The men that avow itare
as honest as any men on this floor. Iknowthem: in.the men
there isno guile. What is the principle? It was advance
by my worthy brother Cass the otherday, Can he ¢o ine
the principle? You must convince him of the error of his
principle before he will compromise it. +»Whatisit? It is that
slavery, under all circumstances, is sin against God.”
Mr. Cass interposed—“ May I correct the Bishop?- I believe I
did not say so—I said it was a moral evil.” ' |
Bishop Soule proceeded—* Well, I am glad to be corrected:
This is not brother Cass’s principle. A moral evil—a moral
evil, and not a sin, under all circumstances. It affords:me a
great deal of pleasure to hear my worthy brother's statementy
for it greatly increases my hope that we shall have a compres
mise. oe
a“ Now, sir; notwithstanding brethren have thought, and wits
perfect sincerity, that they were ready to act on the resohutiom
——although undoubtedly a large majority of this body have
been prepared for it for some time, I cannot but believe that it
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 57

might be premature in the Conference taking action on it even
now. I will offer one or two reasons why I think the Confer-
ence is not prepared for action on the resolution. We have
been informed here from documents—to a great extent petitions
and memorials—on the subject of slavery in its various aspects
and interests. These documents—these petitions and memo-
rials—have been received with the respect due to the right of
petition. They have been committed to a large and judicious
committee to examine and report. That committee has not
reported to this body; it will report—I need not say to you that
it will report. The respect due to some thousand petitioners to
this body will lay them under solemn obligations to report; and
is it not possible that this report on the subject immediately
connected with the resolution before you—may not afford you
some light? You will have in the report of that committee
several important items, clearly developed before you of in-
formation. You will know the number of petitioners—of the
memorialists in‘each of the Annual Conferences. You will
know the relative. proportion of these petitioners to the whole
number of the Methodist Church within these Conferences.
You will know the aggregate number of all these memorialists
and petitioners, and you will consequently know the relative
number in regard to the whole community of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. It will not be disputed, I think, on the floor
of this General Conference, that the subjects, so far as they
have been presented when the memorials were up, that the
subjects on which you are memorialized in these documents
are not local. They are not subjects appertaining specially
and exclusively to the memorialists. So far as I heard, every
subject was of a general character, in which every member of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, East, West, North, and South,
have an equal:interest andconcern. The report of your com-
mittee may throw much light on this great subject. But this
isnotall. I beg to suggest to the brethren that the views of the
great body of the Methodist Church, and the great body of her
ministers, are not, and cannot be represented here, in regard to
the special point before you; and if this be a subject in which
all the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and all the
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have an equal
interest and concern, is it safe for this body to proceed to such
animportant action with regard to the whole interests of the
Church, without having a more full development of the subject,
both from ministers and Church, than the memorials as yet
presented afford? I ask it. Now will the delegation from New
York tell us what are the views of the great body of Methodists
within the New York Conference on this subject? We have
been sitting here, Mr. President, on this case almost from the
58 . HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

time we commenced it. It has been, however, before this
community. It has. been out before the whole Church, and
from the views the brethren have taken, I have been almost
surprised that we have not had memorials from the city where
we sit; I have been almost surprised that we have “not had
memorials from the people in Philadelphia, from the people in
Baltimore, from the people in Boston. We have had no
memorials. There has been no expression on their part, as I
have heard; and yet in the midst of this enlightened body of
Methodists: are we prepared thus to say what is the view of
the people around us on this question? and under such circum-
stances, do you hesitate to stay the question in the resolution
before you? I beg the brethren to go a little further on this
subject. I will go with my brethren to Ohio. Now I do not
know—I am a resident in Ohio—I have some acquaintance in
Ohio, both with preachers and with our very excellent and
worthy membership in Ohio—my brethren from them, these
delegates, have more, and doubtless can say more; but I should
not dare on the floor of this Conference to say that the act
would meet the approbation of the great body of preachers
and members in Ohio: I dare not say it. Itis sufficient for me,
however, in the present position I occupy to say, that the
Church has not known the subject, and has expressed no opinion
on the subject whatsoever. Isettle it down, then, as the basis
on which I shall proceed, that we have not, and cannot have
the views of our ministers and people generally on this subject,
so fully expressed to us as to others.

“The adoption of that resolution deposes Bishop Andrew
without form or trial—such is my deliberate opinion: I do not
believe it is safe for you,and I am out of the question. What
shall be done? The question, I know, wakes up the mind
of every brother. Can it be possible that the Methodist Epis-
copal Church is in such a state of excitement—in such astate,
Thad almost said, of revolution, as to be unprepared to send
out the plain, simple facts in the case to the Churches, to the
Annual Conferences, every where through our community,
and waive all action on this subject till another General Con-
ference?

“T said, almost at the commencement of these remarks, sir,
that I was not afraid of the deliberation of men, of our Annual
Conferences, of the General Conference—I am afraid of the
passions of men, and I could present before you some consid-
erations to illustrate the views that I have given you; and if I
give you these views in error of judgment, be assured that they
are not views which originate on the spur of the moment: they
are the result of sober and deliberate investigation. Can it
be possible that the simple circumstance of Bishop Andrew's
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 59

holding an office as a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal
Church four years longer, with this statement of facts in the
case—simple facts in the case—spread out before the enlight-
ened body of this great Methodist community—is there to be an
earthquake? 1 am not prepared to believe it: I soberly am not
prepared to believe it. Well, sir, this is the view that I take of
the subject. Permit me to make one other suggestion. The
providence of God directs the whirlwind and the storm; clouds
and darkness indeed may be around about us, but righteous-
ness and justice are the habitation of his throne. Let us be
careful that we never suffer a human arm to impede the opera-
tions of providence. My beloved colleague, Bishop Andrew,
and myself, and all my colleagues, may have passed away
from these scenes of troyble—and the passions which now
agitate the Church of God, may go to sleep, in God’s provi-
dence, long before four years go by.

“How easy it is for God to direct the elements of society!
Don’t be surprised, then, brethren, when I say to you, pause.
Brethren may possibly have a little more light: there may
be some ray from heaven or earth yet to shine upon this subject.
Now it is the solemn conviction of my mind that the safest
course you can pursue in the premises is to pass this subject
without any implication of Bishop Andrew’s character at all,
and to send out officially the plain and simple facts in the case
to all your societies—to all your Conferences. Let it be read
every where, and then we may have a further expression of
opinion, without any kind of agitation. I am about to take my
leave of you, my brethren. You must know—you cannot but
know, that with the principles I have stated to you—with the
avowal of my sentiments in regard to this subject—it would
not be Bishop Andrew alone that your word will affect! No
sir,—I implicate neither my colleagues on my right hand nor
on my left; but I say the decision of the question could not
affect Bishop Andrew alone. I wish it to be distinctly under-
stood, it cannot-affect him alone. I mean specially in this point
—I say that the resolution on which we are just about to act
goes to sustain the doctrine that the General Conference have
power and right to depose one of the Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church without the form of trial—that you are under
no obligation from the constitution or laws of the Church to
show cause even. Now every man must see, and every man
must know, that Bishop Andrew cannot be involved alone in
the vote. It is the principle which is involved. It goes to say
that when this Conference shall vote on the subject—a simple
majority of the Conference, without form or trial, can depose
a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Do you under-
stand it so? If I am mistaken, I shall stand corrected—and I
60 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF. THE

need not say to this Conference that such a decision will
involve others beside. It involves the office; it involves sthe
charge; it involves the relation itself. :

“And now, in taking leave, | offer devout prayer to Almighty
God that you may be directed wisely in the decision you are
about to make. I have given to you what in my sober and
deliberate judgment is the best and safest course which you
can pursue—safest: for all concerned. I want that opinion to
have no more influence upon you than it justly deserves in the
Conference. I thank the Conference for the attention they
have been pleased to give me. I thank the audience for their
attention. I very well know—I am not at all-unapprised that
the position I oeceupy—in which I stand on the principles of that
resolution—on the principles involved in it—may seal my fate.
I say I am not at all unapprised of that. Let me go; but I pray
you hold to principles—to principles; and with these remarks I
submit the whole to your and God’s direction —(Amen.)”

Dr. Durbin next addressed the Conference at considerable
length. He contended that it was only necessary to know in
a given case, that emancipation was practicable, leaving out of
view the enjoyment of freedom by the liberated slave. The
course of concession, Dr. Durbin said, had always been from
the North to the South, but admitted those concessions had
been made to the necessities of the South, and were properly
made. He contended that the sole power of the Bishop was
‘derived from his election by the General Conference, and that
therefore that body had rightful power to dispose of him as
they might deem for the good of the Church. Of the character
of the action proposed in Bishop Andrew’s case, Dr. Durbin
spoke as follows:—

“Now, sir, this action is not contemplated without cause.
The preamble states the ground of action clearly and distinctly,
in astatement of undisputed and indisputable facts. And what
does the resolution propose? Expulsion? No,sir. Deposition?
No. If I am pressed to a decision of this case in its present
form, I shall vote for that substitute, and so will many others;
but if, after we have voted for it, any man should come and tell
us personally that we have voted to depose Bishop Andrew, we
should consider it a personal—shall I say—insult, sir? The
substitute proposes only to express the sense of this Conference
in regard to a matter which it cannot in duty and conscience
pass by without a suitable expression; and having made the
solemn expression, it leaves Bishop Andrew to act as his sense
of duty shall dictate. Will any of the brethren on the other
side of the house tell us that if such is our deliberate sense,
and we deem it our duty to the Church to say so, we ought to
suppress it?”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 61

He stressed the point, that as by the constitution a Bishop
was to be a “general superintendent,” any thing that would
render him unacceptable ¢0 any portion f the work, must
disqualify him for the proper exercise of his episcopal fundgions;
and as a connection with slavery would have that effect in
many of the Northern Conferences, Bishop Andrew could not,
while that incumbrance remained, be a general superintendent
in the proper and constitutional sense.*

Dr. Durbin closed his speech with the following remarks and
resolution:—

“T will conclude, sir, by saying, a few days ago brother Early,
from Virginia, threw out a suggestion, at the close of the session,
viz., might not this matter be referred back to the Church or
the Conferences? This course was distinctly advised by your-
self, sir, this morning, in your address to the Conference. These
weighty facts led me to believe that the North would meet the
South on the following resolution, which I would willingly
offer if I had the least intimation that our brethren from the
South would meet us on it, viz:

“ Resolved, That the case of Bishop Andrew be referred to
the Church, and that the judgment of the next General Con-
ference be deemed and taken to be the voice of the Church,
whether Bishop Andrew shall continue to exercise his functions
as a general superintendent in the Methodist Episcopal Church
while he sustains the relation to slavery as stated in his com-

 

* There is certainly something remarkable in the manner in which this argu-
ment of general superintendency—the sole basis of the action against Bishop
Andrew—was used on that occasion. A general superintendency does not
imply a universal superintendency, extending to every part. A learned writer
i “The general is to the universal what a partis to the whole. The general
rule admits many exceptions, the universal rule admits of none.” (Eng.Synony-
mes.) General in this case is placed in opposition to local—diocesan. At the
time the rule was adopted, there were seven Conferences, and it was proposed to
have a Bishop for a Conference. This rule was intended to put down and
keep down this project of local, Conference Bishops, and to provide that a Bishop
should be limited to no particular Conference or work. But further, Southern
brethrer met this popular and successful argument, by saying to the majority,
“If you depose Bishop Andrew—directly or indirectly—you will not fill his
pa thus vacated, with a Southern man; for if he only voted to sustain the

ishop, he would be as unacceptable at the North as the Bishop himself; and
if you fill his place with one who takes part against him, he cannot be a general
superintendent in your sense, because he will be as unacceptable to the South as
Bishop Andrew can be to the North.” The majonty, however, seemed to see nu
force at all in the argument, but passed the resolution, and then filled the episco-
pal chair with the man who had been more ultra in his opposition to Bishop
Andrew, and sustained his opposition by more daring departures from the settled
principles of Methodism, than any other man in the Conference. Of course, in
their sense of the term, he could not be a general superintendent, for he could
not preside in the Southern Conferences at all; and when elected, it must have
been well known to all, that his course against Bishop Andrew would render him so
utterly unacceptable in the South as to render him entirely unavailable. Here,
by their own action, the sole objection upon which they relied in displacing
Bishop Andrew is made to bear with its utmost force against the new incumbent.

6
62 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

munication to the Conference, as reported to the Conference by
the Committee on Episcapacy.”

May 30th. Dr“Capers addressed the Conference at length.
He sgid Dr. Durbin seemed deeply to deprecate involving the
Church in the North in the evil of slavery by retaining Bishop
Andrew in the episcopacy, but remarked that if this fact would
involve the North in the evil they so much deprecated, they
were already so involved by the unity of the Church and the
ministry. He thanked God for this unity; but this unity stands
not alone in the episcopacy. We have not only one episcopacy,
but one ministry, one doctrine, one discipline; we were one in
usage North and South; and in this view he was astonished to
hear brethren talk of Bishop Andrew’s continuance in the
episcopacy as extending the evils of slavery over the North.
Not one more slave or slaveholder would be made in this way.
He noticed Dr. Durbin’s statement that the course of concession
had ever-been from the North to the South, from 1784 down-
ward. He inquired what was North and what South at that
date? Dr. Durbin says the majority was then in the South.
But where was that South? Methodism had not penetrated
into Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, or
South Carolina. But we had Maryland and Virginia for
the South. And where was the North? Not in New York;
for it was then a slaveholding State. Not New England; for
there was no Methodism there. It was evident that the brother
had’ presented the North as making concessions to the South,
when no such distinction obtained in the Church, for all were
slaveholding States. He alluded to the doctrine that a Bishop
is only an officer of the General Conference, and receives his
whole authority by the election of that body, and none by
consecration, and to the fact that Dr. Durbin had quoted Dr. Coke,
Mr. Asbury, and Mr. Dickens, in support of this position. He
said the authority was good, if the object had been to prove
(what no body denied) that a Bishop was amenable to“ the
General Conference, and might be removed for good cause;
“but no authority of Mr. Asbury, Dr. Coke, Mr. Dickens, or
any body else—before this case of Bishop Andrew’s caused it
to be asserted on this floor—can be adduced for any such doc-
trine.” “A Bishop an officer of the General Conference merely!
Then were it both untrue and blasphemous to invest him with
the office, with those holy words of the consecration service,
‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop
in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the imposition
of ‘our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost.” Dr. Capers closed by a powerful appeal
in behalf of the slaves of the South, from which we make the
following quotation:—
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 63

“T beseech brethren, to allow due weight to the considera-
tions which have been so kindly and ably urged by others on
this branch of tthe subject. «4 contemplate #, I confess, with a
bleeding heart. Never, never have I suffered as in view of
the evil which this measure threatens against the South. The
agitation has already begun; and I tell you that though our
hearts were to be torn out of our bodies, it could avail nothing,
when once you awaken the feeling that we cannot be trusted
among the slaves. Once you have done this thing, you have
effectually destroyed us. I could wish to die sooner than live
to see such a day. As sure as you live, brethren, there arc
tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands, whose destiny
may be periled by your decision on this case. When we tell
you that we preach tg a hundred thousand slaves on our mis-
sionary fields, we only announce the beginning of our work,—
the beginning openings of the door of access to the most
numerous masses of slaves in the South. When we add, that
there are two hundred thousand now within our reach who have
no gospel unless we give it to them, it is still but the same an-
nouncement of the beginnings of the opening of that wide and
effectual door, which was so long closed, and so lately has begun
to be opened, for the preaching of the gospel, by our ministry, to
a numerous and destitute portion of the people. O, close not.
this door! Shut us not out from this great work, to which we
have been so signally called of God. Consider our position. |
pray you, I beseech you by every sacred consideration, pause in
this matter. Do not talk about concessions tothe South. We
ask for no concessions,—no compromises. Do with us as you
please, but spare the souls for whom Jesus died. If youdeem
our toils too light, and that after all, there is more of rhetoric
than cross-bearing in our labors, come down and take a part
with us. Let this be the compromise, if we have any. |
could almost promise my vote to make the elder a Bishop who
should give such a proof as this of his devotion to,—I will not
say the emancipation of the negro race, but what is better,—
what is more constitutional and more Christian,—the salvation
of the souls of the negroes on our great Southern plantations.
Concessions! Weaskfornone. So far from it, we are ready to
make any in our power to you. We come to you not for. our-
selves, but for perishing souls; and we entreat you for Christ’s
sake, not to take away from them the bread of life, which we
are just now beginning to carry them. We beg for this—I
must repeat it—with bleeding hearts. Yes, I feel intensely on
this subject. The stone of stumbling and rock of offence, of
former times, when George Daugherty, a Southern man, and
a Southern minister, and one of the wisest and best that ever
graced our ministry, was dragged to the pump in Charleston,
64 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

and his life rescued by a sword in a woman’s hand,—the offence
of the anti-slavery measures of that day has but lately begun
to subside: I canfot, I say, forget past times, and the evil of
them, when in those parts of my own State of South Carolina,
where slaves are most numerous, there was little more charity
for Methodist preachers than if they had been Mormons, and
their access to the negroes was looked upon as dangerous to
the public peace. Bring not back upon us the evil of those
bitterdays. * * * # hn etn % is

“ Life or death, we will never desert that Christian work to
which we know God has called us. We ask to be spared no
trial; but that the way of trials may be kept open forus. We
ask to be spared no labor, but that we may be permitted to
labor on, and still, more abundantly. Add, if you please, to
the amount of our toils. Pile labor on labor more and more.
Demand of us still more brick; or even the full tale of brick
without staw or stubble; but cut us not off from the clay also.
Cut us not off from the slaves of the South, when (to say no-
thing of “concessions to the South,”) you shall have finished
the measure of your demands for the North.”

Dr. Peck suggested the propriety of bringing the debate to a
close, and Bishop Andrew begged that the question might be
taken without further delay.

“A motion for the previous question having failed, Bishop
Hedding requested that the Conference might not hold an
afternoon session, as the Bishops wished an opportunity. to
consult together, with a view to fixing on a compromise. With
this view, the case of Bishop Andrew was deferred until the
next day. os

May 31st. Bishop Waugh read the following Address of
the Bishops:—

To the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church:

Reverend and Dear Brethren,—The undersigned respectfully
and affectionately offer to your calm consideration the result of
their consultation this afterrioon in regard to the unpleasant
and very delicate question which has been so long and so ear-
nestly debated before your body, They have, with the liveliest
interest, watched the progress of your discussion, and have
awaited its termination with the deepest solicitude. As they
have pored over this subject with anxious thought, by day and
by night, they have been more and more impressed with the
difficulties connected therewith, and the disastrous results
which, in their apprehension, are the almost inevitable conse-
quences of the present action on the question now pending
before you. To the undersigned it is fully apparent that a
decision thereon, whether affirmatively or negatively, will
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 65

most extensively disturb the peace and harmony of that widely
extended brotherhood which has so effectively operated. for
good in the United States of America, and elsewhere, during
the last sixty years, in the development of a system of active
energy, of which union has always been a main element.
They have with deep emotion, inquired, Can any thing be
done to avoid an evil so much deprecated by every friend of
our common Methodism? Long and anxiously have. they
awaited for a satisfactory answer to this inquiry, but they have
paused in vain. At this painful crisis, they have unanimously
concurred in the propriety of recommending the postponement
of further action in the case of Bishop Andrew until the ensuing
General Conference. It does not enter into the design of the
undersigned to argue the propriety of their recommendation,
otherwise strong and valid reasons might be adduged in its
support. They cannot but think that if the embarrassment ot
Bishop Andrew should not cease before that time, the next
General Conference, representing the pastors, ministers, and
people of the several Annual] Conferences, after all the facts in
the case shall have passed in review before them, will be
better qualified than the present General Conference can be
to adjudicate the case wisely and discreetly. Until the cessa-
tion of the embarrassment, or the expiration of the interval
between the present and ensuing General Conference, the
undersigned believe that such a division of the work of the
general superintendency might be made without any infraction
of a constitutional principle, as would fully employ Bishop
Andrew in those sections of the Church in which his presence
and services would be welcome and cordial. If the course
pursued on the present occasion by the undersigned be deemed
novel, they persuade themselves that their justification, in
view of all candid and peace-loving persons, will be found in
their strong desire to prevent disunion, and to promote harmony
in the Church. :

Very respectfully and affectionately submitted,

ah Josuua Sous,
Evuan Heppine,
B. Waucu,

T. A. Morris.

Mr. Collins moved to adopt the suggestion. Mr. Mitchell
proposed -that it lie on the table one day, whieh Mr, Collins
assented to and. Mr. Havens opposed. A engeda fi

Dr. Bangs proposed its reference to a committee, which Mr.
Hamline and Dr. Olin approved, and Mr. Collins’ and Mr.
Slicer opposed. cd

Mr. J.T. Peck “thought the darkness was increased, and the
Conference deeper in the mire than ever.” He thought the

6*
66 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Bishops’ proposition was in effect that they should frankly
confess that all they had said on the subject was wrong, give
up all they had proposed to do, and leave the thing to the ope-
ration of time, when they had already refused to do so. .

The case was laid over until the following day; and in the
mean time it became quite obvious that Mr. Peck was not alone
in his feelings of ultraism, which so promptly rejected the
proposition of the Bishops, with something nearly allied to
indignation.. In view of the temper referred to, the Bishops
thought it expedient, after the meeting of the Conference, the
next morning, to define their position with respect to that paper.

Bishop Hedding “ wished to withdraw his signature from the
document, presented yesterday. .He had not been drawn or
persuaded into it. But in-signing it he had been governed by
two reasons: which he thought it his duty to present. First, he
signed it as a peace measure. Second, he believed it would
be generally acceptable to the Conference. In both these
expectations he was disappointed. Facts had come to his
knowledge which induced him to believe it would not make
peace, and that it might be productive of a lengthened debate,
and, instead of removing, would only increase the difficulty.
He therefore wished his name to be withdrawn, but would
submit if the Conference decided that he had no authority to
do so.” No objection was made. :

Bishop Waugh said “ that in regard to the same document a
few remarks might not be unnecessary. He wished his name
to remain, unless he saw other reasons than had yet appeared.
He came into the measure without persuasion or entreaty, as
the result of his own thoughts and voluntary inclination, though
slowly and reluctantly. Yet it was under a train of circum-
stances that left him little or no option in the premises. He
adopted it as a last resort, and’ with but little hope of success.
It did, however, appear to him that it would be better to put
that view before the General Conference, and let it take its
course, and so far as himself was concerned, he should be
perfectly satisfied with the result. He should exceedingly
regret if the communication were the occasion of a protracted
debate, but he hoped that would not be the case. He did not
feel at liberty to withdraw his name from a paper that he
designed to be for the preservation of the Church.”

‘Bishop Morris “wished’his name to remain attached to that
document, as a testimony that he had done what he could to
preserve the unity of the body.”

' Bishop Soule said, “ perhaps he ought to offer a few words in
connection with his colleagues, and it afforded him pleasure
to receive the assurances that they were in no way influenced
or persuaded to put their signatures to that paper. He ac-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 67

knowledged that they went into the incase as freely and
fully, and under the same conviction, as himself. Conference
were aware that this matter came before the superintendents
on motion. He put his signature to the document with the
same views and under the same convictions as his very worthy
colleagues did, and neither his views nor his, convictions were
changed in any way. And he wished his signature to that
document to go forth through a thousand channels to the
world. It is already before the American people, and I may
not and will not, withdraw it.”

The communication of the Bishops was taken up. Dr.
Bangs moved to lay it on the table, and said he had used every
effort in his power to effect a compromise, but from what had
been told him by members from the North and South, not a
vestige of this hope remained.

Dr. Winans said that the remark of Dr. Bangs might imply
that the South were opposed to the proposition of the Bishops.
This was not the case, for the Southern delegates were of one
mind to entertain the proposition of compromise offered by the
Bishops. is

The motion to lay on the table was intended as a final rejec-
tion of the Bishops’ proposition, and the vote on that motion
was taken by ayes and noes. We give the vote as one of
interest in the history of the case, especially as it has since
then been strangely asserted that the Bishops’ compromise was
rejected by the South. Itis therefore proper that those who
voted for and against that compromise should be known. The
following is the vote:— :

Yeas. New York Conference—Bangs, Rice, G. Peck, Stratten,
Sandford, F. Reed, Ferguson, Martindale, Richardson. Provi-
dence—Lovejoy, Upham, Benton, Townsend. New England—
J. Porter, King, Crandall, C. Adams, Pickering. Maine—-Hill,
E. Robinson, Randall, Morsex Hobart, Nickerson, Webber.
New Hampshire—E. Scott, Chamberlin, Kelly, Perkins, Dow,
Spaulding, Cahoon, Cass. Troy—Seymour, Wever, Coleman,
Spicer, Covel, Houghtaling, J.T. Peck. Black River—A. D.
Peck, A. Adams, Baker, Ninde. Oneida—Snyder, Comfort,
Rounds, Shepherd, Row, Bowen, Holmes. Genesee—Filmore,
Lucky, Steele, Abell, Hosmer. Eria—Steadman, Bain, Clarke,
J. Robinson, Goodwin. Pittsburg—W. Hunter, H. J. Clark,
Spencer, S. Elliott, Boyd, Wakefield, Drummond. Ohio—C.
Elliott, Raper, Trimble, Finley, Hamline, Connell, Ferree.
North Ohio—E. Thompson, Power, Poe, Yocum, Runnells.
Michigan—Crane, Billings; Baughman. Indiana—Simpson,
Wiley, Ames, Miller, Wood, Eddy.. Rock River—Mitchell.
IHinots—Akers, Cartwright. -Baltimore—Griffith. New Jersey
—Shaw, Winner—95. gs
68 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Nays. New York Conference—Olin, Carpenter. Genesee—
Hibbard, Seager, Alverson. Ohio—Sehon. Michigan—G.
Smith. Indiana—Ruter, Havens. Rock River—Weed, Sinclair,
H. W. Reed. —‘Iiinois—Stamper, Vancleve, N. G. Berryman,
Missowri—Redman, W. Patton, J. C. Berryman, J.M. Jameson.
Kentucky—Bascom, Gunn, Kavanaugh, Stevenson, Crouch,
Brush. Holston—Sevier, 8. Patton, T. Stringfield. Tennessee
—R. Paine, McFerrin, Green, Maddin. _Memphis—Harris,
Moody, McMahon, Joyner. Arkansas—J. C. Parker, Ratcliffe,
A. Hunter. Teras—Fowler, J. Clarke. Mississippi Winans,
Drake, Lane, Rogers. Alabama—Murrah, Boring, Garrett,
Hamilton. Georgia—L. Pierce, G. F. Pierce, Parks, Glenn,
Evans, Longstreet. South Carolina—Capers, Wightman, Betts,
Dunwody, Walker. North Carolina—J. Jamieson, Doub, Blake.
Virginia—Early, Lee, W. A. Smith, Crowder. Baltimore—
Slicer, Bear, Morgan, Tippett, Sargent, Collins, Gere, Hildt.
Philadelphia—Durbin, T.. J. Thompson, White, L. Scott, W.
Cooper, I. T. Cooper. New Jersey—J.S. Porter, Neal, Sover-
eign—-84.

The Bishops’ compromise was therefore laid on the table, or
rejected, and the resolution of Mr. Finley again taken up, and
carried by a vote of 111 to 69. The ayes and noes on the final
vote stood as follows:—

Yeas. New York Conference-—Nathan Bangs, Stephen Olin,
Phineas Rice, George Peck, John B. Stratten, Peter P. Sand-
ford, Fitch Reed, Samuel D. Ferguson, Stephen Martindale,
Marvin Richardson. Troy—Truman Seymour, John M. Wever,
James Covel, jun., Tobias Spicer, Seymour Coleman, James
B.. Houghtaling, Jesse T. Peck. Providence—J. Lovejoy, F.
Upham, S. Benton, Paul Townsend. New Hampshire—Elihu
Scott, J. Perkins, Samuel Kelley, S. Chamberlain, John G. Dow,
J. Spaulding, C. D. Cahoon, William D. Cass. New England
—J. Porter, D. S. King, P. Crandall, C- Adams, G. Pickering.
Pittsburg—William Hunter, H. J. Clark, J. Spencer, S. Elliott,
R. Boyd, S. Wakefield, J. Drummond. Maine—M. Hill, E.
Robinson, D. B. Randall, C. W. Morse, J. Hobart, Heman
Nickerson, G. Webber. Black River—A. D. Peck, A. Adams,
G. Baker, W. W. Ninde. Erie—J. J. Steadman, John Bain,
G. W. Clarke, J. Robinson, T. Goodwin. Oneida—J. M. Sny-
der, S. Comfort, N. Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, H. F. Row, E.
Bowen, D. Holmes, jun. Michigan—E. Crane, A. Billings, J.
A. Baughman. Rock River—B. Weed, H. W. Reed, J. T.
Mitchell. Genesee-—G. Filmore, S. Luckey, A. Steele, F. G.
Hibbard, S. Seager, A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson.
North Ohio—E. Thompson, J. H. Power, A. Poe, E. Yocum,
W. Runnells., Iilinois—P. Akers, P. Cartwright. Ohio—C.
Elliott, William H. Raper, J. M. Trimble, J. B. Finley, L. L.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 69

Hamline, Z. Connell, J. Ferree. Indiana—M. Simpson, A.
Wiley, E. R. Ames, J. Miller, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood, A. Eddy,
J. Havens. Teras—J. Clark. Baltimore—J. A. Collins, A.
Griffith, J. Bear, N. J. B. Morgan, J. Davis. Philadelphia—J.
P. Durbin, L. Scott. Mew Jersey—I. Winner, J. S. Porter, J.
K. Shaw—111.

Nays. New York Conference—C. W. Carpenter. Michigan
—G. Smith. Rock River—J. Sinclair. ~Ilinois—J. Stamper,
J. Van Cleve, N. G. Berryman. Kentucky—H. B. Bascom, W.
Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W.
Brush. Ohio—E.W.Sehon. Holston—E. F. Sevier, S. Patten,
T. Stringfield. Tennessee—R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P.
Green, T. Maddin. Missouri—W. W. Redman, W. Patten, J.
C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson. North Carolina—J. Jamieson,
Peter Doub, B. T. Blake. Memphis—G. W. D. Harris, S. S.
Moody, William M’Mahon, T. Joyner. Arkansas—J.C. Parker,
W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter.. Virginia—J. Early, T. Crowder,
W. A. Smith, L. M. Lee. Mississippi—William Winans, B.
M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M. Rogers. Texas—L. Fowler. Ala-
bama—J. Boring, J. Hamilton, William Murrah, G. Garrett.
Georgia—G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks, L. Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J.
E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet. South Carolina—William Capers,
W. M. Wightman, C. Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.
Baltimore—H. Slicer, J. A. Gere, T. B. Sargent, C. B. Tippett,
G.Hildt. Philadelphia—T.J. Thompson, H. White, W. Cooper,
I. T, Cooper. New Jersey--Thomas Neal, Thomas Sover-
eign—69.

Dr. L. Pierce gave notice that the Southern delegates would,
at their earliest convenience, present their protest against the
action of the Conference in this case, to be entered on the
journal. :

June 3rd. The following resolutions were offered by Mr.
Slicer and Mr. Sargent, of the Baltimore Conference:—

“ Resolved, That itis the sense of this General Conference,
that the vote of Saturday last in the case of Bishop Andrew
be understood as advisory only, and not in the light of a judi-
cial mandate.

“ Resolved, That the final disposition of Bishop Andrew’s
case be postponed until the General Conference of 1848, in
conformity with the suggestion of the Bishops in their address
to the Conference on Friday, May 31st.

“H. Sucer,

“T. B. Sarcenr.”

These resolutions were laid on the table by ayes 75, noes 68;
the North, with individual exceptions, voting for laying on the
table, and the South unanimously against it.
70 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The following series of resolutions were offered by Dr.
Capers:—

“Be it resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences
in General Conference assembled, That we recommend to the
Annual Conferences, to suspend the constitutional restrictions
which limit the powers of the General Conference, so far, and
only so far, as to allow of the following alterations in the
government of the Church, viz.:— ‘

“1, That the Methodist Episcopal Church, in these United
States and Territories, and the republic of Texas, shall consti-
tute two General Conferences, to meet quadrennially, the one
at some place South, and the other North of the line which now
divides between the States commonly designated as free States,
and those in which slavery exists.

“2. That each one of the two General Conferences thus
constituted, shall have full powers, (under the limitations and
restrictions which are now of force and binding on the General
Conference,) to make rules and regulations for the Church,
within their limits, respectively, and to elect Bishops for the
same.

“3. That the two General Conferences, aforesaid, shall sev-
erally have jurisdiction, as follows:—The Southern General
Conference shall comprehend the States of Virginia, Kentucky,
and Missouri, and the States and Territories lying southwardly
thereto, and also the republic of Texas; to be known and
designated by the title of the ‘Southern General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.” And
the Northern General Conference, to comprehend all those
States and Territories lying North of the States of Virginia,
Kentucky, and Missouri, as above mentioned, and to be known
and designated by the title of the ‘Northern General Confer-
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.’

“4, And be it further resolved, That assoon as three fourths
of allthe members of the Annual Conferences voting on these
resolutions shall approve the same, the said Southern and
Northern General Conferences shall be deemed as having
been constituted by such approval; and it shall be competent
for the Southern Annual Conferences to elect delegates to said
General Conference, to meet in the city of Nashville, Tenn.,
on the Ist day of May, 1848, or sooner, if a majority of two
thirds of the members of the Annual Conferences composing
that General Conference shall desire the same.

“5. And be it further resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book
Concerns at New York and Cincinnati, shall be held and
conducted as the property, and for the benefit, of all the Annual
Conferences, as heretofore:—the editors and agents to be elected
once in four years, at the time of the session of thé Northern
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 71

General Conference; and the votes of the Southern General
Conference to be cast by delegates of that Conference attend-
ing the Northern for that purpose.

“6, And be it further resolved, That our Church organiza-
tion for foreign missions shall be maintained and conducted
jointly between the two General Conferences, as one Church,
in such manner as shall be agreed upon from time to time be-
tween the two great branches of the Church as represented
in the said two Conferences.”

The resolutions were, on motion of Dr. Bangs, referred to
a select committee, consisting of Messrs. Capers, Winans,
Crowder, Porter, Filmore, Akers, Hamline, Davis and Sandford.

June 5th. Dr. Capers, from the above committee, reported
that “they could not. agree on a report which they judged
would be acceptable to the Conference.”

Dr. Longstreet, in behalf of the Southern and South-western
Conferences, presented the following Declaration:—

“The delegates of the Conferences in the slaveholding
States, take leave to declare to the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, that the continued agitation of
‘the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church,
—the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference,
—and especially the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop
Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual
suspension of him from his office as superintendent,—must
produce a state of things in the South which renders a continu-
ance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over these
Conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in he
slaveholding States. (Signed,)

“ Virginia Conference —John Early, W. A. Smith, notes
Crowder, Leroy M. Lee.

“ Kentucky H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H. H. Kava-
naugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush.

“ Missouri—-W. W. Redman, William Patton, J. C. Berry-
man, J. M. Jameson.

“« Holston.—E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas Stringfield.

“ Georgia.—G. F. Pierce, William i Parks, L. Pierce, J. W.
Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet.

« North Carolina.—James J amieson, Peter Doub, B.T. Blake.

“ Tlinois. —J. Stamper.

“ Memphis —G. W. D. Harris, Wm. McMahon, Thomas Joy-
ner, S. S. Moody.

« Arkansas.—John C. Parker, William P. Ratcliffe, Andrew
Hunter.

Mississippi. —Wm. Winans, B. M. Drake, John Lane, G. M.
Rogers.

“ Texas.—Littleton Fowler.
72 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF .THE

“ Alabama.—Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton, W. Murrah,
G. Garrett.

“ Tennessee.—Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green,
T. Maddin. . :

“ South Carolina.—William Capers, William M. Wightman,
Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.” i

After the reading of the paper, Dr. Elliott proposed its refer-
ence to a committee of nine.

Mr. Sandford said the declaration charged extra-judicial action
on the Conference; this he considered untrue, and an insult to
the Conference, and that therefore the paper ought not to be
entertained. :

Dr. Longstreet explained the meaning of extra-judicial pro-
ceedings, and showed that the action in this case was truly of
that character, and nothing in the nature of insult was intended
or legitimately embraced in the paper. The Southern dele-
gates simply expressed the opinion that it was no longer
desirable that that General Conference should have jurisdiction
over them.

Dr. Olin spoke of the action in Bishop Andrew’s case, and
said, had he regarded it as judicial or punitive, he would not
have voted for it. He said he would embody his sentiments in
the form of resolutions, and submitted the following, upon which
however no action was taken:—

“ Resolved, That this Conference does not consider its action
in the case of Bishop Andrew as either judicial or punitive,
but as a prudential regulation for the security and welfare of
the Church.

-“ Resolved, That having made a solemn declaration of what,
in their judgment, the safety and peace of the Church require,
it isnot necessary or proper to express any opinion as to what
amount of respect may justly belong to their action in the
premises.”

The Declaration was then referred to a committee, agreeably
to Dr. Elliott’s proposition, and Messrs. Paine, Filmore, Akers,
Bangs, Crowder, Sargent, Winans, Hamline, and Porter, were
appointed that committee.

The following resolution of instruction to the committee was
adopted:—

“ Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into con-
sideration the communication of the delegates from the
Southern Conferences be instructed, provided they cannot in
their judgment devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of
the difficulties now existing in the Church, on the subject of
slavery, to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mutual
and friendly division of the Church. “J. B. McFerrm,

“ Tosras Spicer.”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH, 73

Some of. the Southern brethren fearing the question of
jurisdictional division might be embarrassed, if not defeated,
by the introduction of constitutional scruples, it was moved by
Mr. Crowder, of Virginia, to amend the instruction by striking
out of it the word “ constitutional; but the Conference resolved
to have a constitutional division, or none, and accordingly refused
to amend as proposed, but passed the instruction as originally
offered. So the committee were instructed to confine their
action to constitutional principles.

June 6th. The Protest of the Southern delegates against
the action of the General Conference in the case of Bishop
Andrew, was introduced and read by Dr. Bascom, as follows:—

PROTEST.

“In behalf of thirteen Annual Conferences of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and portions of the ministry and member-
ship of several other Conferences, embracing nearly tive
thousand ministers, traveling and local, and a membership of
nearly five hundred thousand, constitutionally represented in
this General Conference, we the undersigned, a minority of
the delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General
Conference assembled, after mature reflection, impelled by
convictions we cannot resist, and in conformity with the rights
and usages of minorities, in the instance of deliberative assem-
blies and judicial tribunals, in similar circumstances of division
and disagreement, Do most solemnly, and in due form, protest
against the recent act of a majority of this General Conference,
in an attempt, as understood by the minority, to degrade and
punish the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, by declaring it to be the sense or
judgment of the General Conference that he desist from the
exercise of his episcopal functions, without the exhibition of any
alleged offence against the laws or discipline of the Church,
without form of trial, or legal conviction of any kind, and in
the absence of any charge of want of qualification or faith-
fulness in the performance of the duties pertaining to his office.

“We protest against the act of the majority in the case of
Bishop Andrew, as extra-judicial to all intents and purposes,
being both without law and contrary to law. We: protest
against the act because we recognize in this General Confer-
ence no right, power, or authority, ministerial, judicial or
administrative, to suspend or depose a Bishop of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, or otherwise subject him to any official disa-
bility whatever, without the formal presentation of a charge
or charges, alleging that the Bishop to be dealt with has been
guilty of the violation of some law, or at least some disciplinary
obligation of the Church, and also upon conviction of such

7
a
74 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

charge after due form of trial. We protest against the act in
question-as a violation of the fundamental law, usually known
as the compromise law of the Church, on the subject of slavery
—the only law which can be brought to bear upon the case of
Bishop Andrew, and the assertion and maintenance of which,
until it is constitutionally revoked, is guarantied by the honor
and good faith of this body, as the representative assembly of
the thirty-three Annual Conferences known as contracting
parties in the premises.

“And we protest against the act further, as an attempt to
establish a dangerous precedent, subversive of the union and
stability of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and especially as
placing in jeopardy the general superintendency of the Church,
by subjecting any Bishop of the Church at any time to the will
and caprice of a majority of the General Conference, not only
without law, but in defiance of the restraints and provisions of
law. The undersigned, a minority of the General Conference,
in protesting, as they do, against the late act of the majority,
in the virtual suspension of Bishop Andrew, regard it as due
to themselves and those they represent, as well as the character
and interests of the Church at large, to declare, by solemn and
formal avowal, that after a careful examination of the entire
subject, in all its relations and bearings, they protest as above,
for the reasons and upon the grounds following, viz., 1st. The
proceeding against Bishop Andrew in this General Conference
has been upon the assumption that he is connected with slavery
—-that he is the legal holder and owner of slave property. On
the subject of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church, both
as it regards the ministry and membership, we have special
law, upon which the adjudication of all questions of slavery
must, by intention of law, proceed. The case of Bishop An-
drew, therefore, presents a sitnple question of law and fact,
and the undersigned cannot consent that the force of circum-
stances and other merely extrinsic considerations. shall be
allowed to lead to any issue, except that indicated by the law
and the facts in the case. In the late act of the majority, law,
express law, is appealed from, and expediency in view of
circumstances—relative propriety—assumed necessity, is sub-
stituted in itsplace asa rule of judgment. It is assumed, and
the assumption acted upon, that expediency may have juris-
diction even in the presence of law—the law, too, being special,
and. covering the case, in terms. In the absence of law, it
might be competent for the General Conference to act upon
other grounds; this is not disputed, nor yet that it would have
been competent for the Conference to proceed upon the forms
of law—but that the terms and conditions of a special enact-
ment; having all the force of a common public charter, can be
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH, 75

rightfully waived in practice, at the promptings of a fugitive
unsettled expediency, is a position the undersigned regard, not
merely as erroneous, but as fraught with danger to the best
interests of the Church.

“The law of the Church on slavery has always existed since
1785, but especially since 1804, and in view of the adjustment
of the whole subject, in 1816, as a virtual, though informal,
contract of mutual concession and forbearance, between the North
and the South, then, as now, known and existing in distinct
parties, in relation to the vexed questions of slavery and
abolition. Those conferences found in States where slavery
prevailed constituting the Southern party, and those in the non-
slaveholding States the Northern, exceptions to the rule being
found in both. The yights of the legal owners of slaves, in all
the slaveholding States, are guarantied by the constitution of
the United States, and by the local constitutions of the States
respectively, as the supreme law of the land, to which every
minister and member of the Methodist Episcopal Church within
the limits of the United States government professes subjection,
and pledges himself to submit, as an article of Christian faith,
in the common creed of the Church. Domestic slavery,
therefore, wherever it exists in this country, is a civil regulation,
existing under the highest sanctions of constitutional and muni-
cipal law, known to the tribunals of the country, and it has al-
ways been assumed, at the South, and relied upon as correct,
that the North or non-slaveholding States, had no right, civil or
moral, to interfere with relations and interests thus secured to
the people of the South by all the graver forms of law and social
order, and that it cannot be done without an abuse of the
constitutional rights of citizenship. The people of the North,
however, have claimed to think differently, and have uniformly
acted toward the South in accordance with such opposition of
opinion. Precisely in accordance; too, with this state of things,
as it regards the general population: of the North and South
respectively, the Methodist Episcopal Church has been divided
in opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery and abolition,
since its organization in 1784; two separate and distinct parties
have alwaysexisted. The Southern Conferences, in agreeing
to the main principles of the compromise law in 1804 and 1816,
conceded by express stipulation their right to resist Northern
interference in any form, upon the condition, pledged by the
North, that while the whole Church, by common consent, united
in proper effort for the mitigation and final removal of the evil
of slavery, the North was not to interfere, by excluding from
membership or ministerial office in the Church, persons owning
and holding slaves in States where emancipation is not practi-
cable, and where the liberated slave is not permitted to enjoy
76 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

freedom. Such was the compact of 1804 and 1816, finally
agreed to by the parties after a long and fearful struggle, and
such is the compact now—the proof being derived from history
and the testimony of living witnesses. And is it possible to
suppose that the original purpose and intended application of
the law was not designed to embrace every member, minister,
order, and officer of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Is the
idea of excepted cases allowable by a fair construction of the

“law? Do not the reasons and intendment of the law place it

beyond doubt, that every conceivable case of alleged miscon-
duct that can arise, connected with slavery or abolition, is to be
subjected by consent and contract of parties to the jurisdiction
of this great conservative arrangement?

“Is there any thing in the law or its reasons creating an
exception in the instance of Bishops? Would the South have
entered into the arrangement, or in any form consented to the
law, had it been intimated by the North that Bishops must be
an exception to the rule? Are the virtuous dead of the North
to be slandered by the supposition that they intended to except
Bishops, and thus accomplished their purposes, in negotiation
with the South, by a resort to deceptive and dishonorable
means? If Bishops are not named, no more are presiding
elders, agents, editors—or indeed any other Officers of the
Church, who are nevertheless included, although the same rule.

of construction would except them also. The enactment was

tor an entire people, East; West, North, and South. It was for
the Church, and every member of it—for the common weal of
the body—-and is therefore universal and unrestricted in its
application; and no possible case can be settled upon any other
principles, without a direct violation of this law, both in fact

and form. The law being what we have assumed, any viola-

tion of it, whatever may be its form or mode, is as certainly a
breach of good faith as an infringement of law. It must be
seen, from the manner in which the compromise was effected,
in the shape of a law, agreed to by equal contracting parties,
“the several Annual Conferences,” after long and formal
negotiation, that it was not a mere legislative enactment, a
simple decree of a General Conference, but partakes of the
nature of a grave compact, and is invested with all the sacred-
ness and sanctions of a solemn treaty, binding respectively the
well-known parties to its terms and stipulations. If this be so,
-——and with the evidence accessible who can doubt it?—if this
be so, will it prove a light matter for this General Conference
to violate or disregard the obligation of this legal comp: omise,
in the shape of public recognized law? Allow that the present
parties in this controversy cannot be brought to view the subject
of the law in question in the same light, can such a matter end

*
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. T7

in a mere difference of opinion as it respects the immediate
parties? The law exists in the Discipline of the Church. The
law is known, and its reasons are known, as equally binding
upon both parties, and what is the likelihood of the imputation
of bad faith under the circumstances? What the hazard, that
such imputation, as the decision of public opinion, it may be
from a thousand tribunals, will be brought to bear, with all
the light and force of conviction, upon any act of this body, in
violation of the plain provisions of long-established law,
originating in treaty, and based upon the principles of conven-
tional compromise?

“In proportion to our love of truth, of law, and order, are
we not called upon to pause and weigh well the hazard, before,
as a General Conferehce, we incur it beyond change or remedy?
The undersigned have looked to the great conservative law of
the Discipline on the subject of slavery and abolition, as the
only charter of connectional union between the North and the
South; and whenever this bond of connection is rendered null
and void, no matter in what form, or by what means, they are
compelled to regard the Church, to all practical purpose, as
already divided without the intervention of any other agency.
By how far, therefore, they look upon the union of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church as essential to its prosperity, and the
glory and success of American Methodism, by so far they are
bound to protest against the late act of the General Conference,
in the irregular suspension of Bishop Andrew, as not only
without law, but in direct contravention of legal stipulations
known to be essential to the unity of the Church. And they
are thus explicit in.a statement of facts, that the responsibility
of division may attach where in justice it belongs. The
minority making this protest are perfectly satisfied with the
law of the Church affecting slavery and abolition. They ask
no change. They need—they seek no indulgence in behalf of
the South. Had Bishop Andrew been suspended according to
law, after due form of trial, they would have submitted without
remonstrance, as the friends of law and order.

“ They except and protest further, against the lawless procedure,
as they think, in the case of Bishop Andrew, because, apart
from the injustice done him and the South, by the act, other
and graver difficulties necessarily incidental to this movement
come in for ashare of attention. The whole subject is, in the
very nature of things, resolved into a single original question.
Will the General Conference adhere to, and in good faith assert
and maintain the compromise law of the Church on the vexed
question dividing us—or will it be found expedient generally,
as in the case of Bishop Andrew, to lay it aside and tread it
underfoot? No question on the subject of slavery and abolition

q*
78 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

can be settled until the General Conference shall settle this
beyond the possibility of evasion. In the present crisis, it is
the opinion of the undersigned, that every Bishop of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and every member of this General
Conference, is especially called upon by all the responsibilities
of truth and honor to declare himself upon the subject, and
they deem it proper, respectfully and urgently, to make such
call a part of this protest. When so much depends upon it,
can the General Conference, as the organ of the supreme.
authority of the Church, remain silent without incurring the
charge of trifling both with its interests and reputation? Law
always pledges the public faith of the body ostensibly governed
by it to the faithful assertion and performance of its stipulations,
and the compromise law of the Discipline, partaking as it
does of the nature of the law of treaty, and embracing, as has
been seen, all possible cases, pledges the good faith of every
minister and member of the Methodist Episcopal Church against
saying or doing any thing tending to annul the force or thwart
the purposes of itsenactment. The only allowable remedy of
those who object to the law is to seek a constitutional change
of the law, and in failure to submit, or else retire from the
Church. All attempts to resist, evade, or defeat the objects
and intended application of the law, until duly revoked, must
be regarded as unjust and revolutionary, because an invasion
of well-defined conventional right. And the undersigned
except to the course of the majority in the informal prosecution
of Bishop Andrew and the anomalous quasi suspension it
inflicts, as not only giving to the compromise a construction
rendering it entirely ineffective, but as being directly subversive
of the great bond of union which has held the North arid South
together for the last forty years. Turning to the confederating
Annual Conferences of 1804, and the vexed and protracted
negotiations which preceded the General Conference of that
year, and finally resulted in the existing law of the Discipline,
regulating the whole subject, and glancing at nearly half a
million of Methodists, now in the South, who have come into'the
Church with all their hopes and fears, interests and associations,
their property, character, and influence, reposing in safety upon.
the publicly pledged faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
only to be told that this is all a dream, that a part of what was
pledged was never intended to be allowed, and that the whole
is at all times subject to the discretion of a dominant majority,
claiming, in matter of right, to be without and above law,
competent not merely to make.all rules and regulations for the
proper government of the Church, but to govern the Church
without rule or regulation, and punish and degrade without
even the alleged infringement of law, or the form of. trial, if
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 79

it be thought expedient, presents a state of things filling the
undersigned with alarm and dismay. Such views and facts,
without adducing others, will perhaps be sufficient to show the
first and principal ground occupied by the minority in the
protest. They cannot resist the conviction that the majority
have failed to redeem the pledge of public law given to the
Church and the world by the Methodist Episcopal Church.

“2d. The undersigned are aware that it is affirmed by some
of the majority, but meanwhile denied by others, and thus a
mooted and unsettled question among themselves, that the
resolution censuring and virtually suspending Bishop Andrew,
as understood by the minority, is mere matter of advice or
recommendation; but so far. from advising or recommending
any thing, the language of the resolution, by fair and necessary
construction, is imperative and mandatory in form, and, un-
qualified by any thing in the resolution itself, or in the preamble
explaining it, conveys the idea plainly and most explicitly, that
it is the judgment and will of the Conference that Bishop
Andrew shall cease to exercise the office of Bishop until.he
shall cease to be the owner of slaves. ‘Resolved, That it is
the sense of this Conference that he desist. That is, having
rendered himself unacceptable to the majority, it is their judg-
ment that he retire from the bench of Bishops, and their field
of action.

“ No idea of request, advice, or recommendation, is conveyed
by the language of the preamble or resolution, and the recent
avowal of an intention to advise is, in the judgment of the
undersigned, disowned by the very terms in which, it is said,
the advice was given. The whole argument of the majority,
during a debate of twelve days, turned upon the right of the
Conference to displace Bishop Andrew without resort to formal
trial. No one questioned the legal right of the Conference to
advise; and if this only was intended, why the protracted
debate upon the subject? But further, a resolution respectfully
and affectionately requesting. the Bishop to resign had been
laid aside, to entertain the substitute under notice; a motion
too to declare the resolution advisory was promptly rejected
by the majority; and in view of all these facts, and the entire
proceedings of the majority in the case, the undersigned have
been compelled to consider the resolution as mandatory judg-
ment, to the effect that Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise
of his episcopal functions. If the majority have been misun-
derstood, the language of their own resolution, and the position
they occupied in debate, have led to the misconception; and
truth and honor, not less than a most uhfortunate use of lan-
guage, require that they explain themselves...

“3d. We except to the act of the majority, because it is
.

80 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

assumed that conscience and principle are involved, and require
the act complained of, as expedient and necessary under the
circumstances. Bishop Andrew being protected by the law of
the Church, having cognizance of all offences connected with
slavery, such connection in his case, in the judgment of all
jurisprudence, can only be wrong in proportion as the law is
bad and defective. It is not conceived by the minority, how
conscience and principle can be brought to bear upon Bishop
Andrew, and not upon the daw and the Church having such law.
They are obliged to believe that the law and the source from
which it emanates must become the object of exception and
censure before Bishop Andrew, who has not offended against
either, unless the Church is against the law, can be subjected
to trial at the bar of the conscience and principles of men who
profess subjection and approval, in the instance both of the law
and the Church. ; :
“The undersigned can never consent, while we have a plain
law, obviously covering an assumed offence, that the offence
shall be taken, under plea of principle, out of the hands of the
law, and be re-subjected to the conflicting opinions and passions
which originally led to a resort to law, as the only safe standard
of judgment. They do not understand how conscience and
principle can attach grave blame to action, not disapproved
by law—express law too, made and provided in the case—
without extending condemnation to the law itself, and the body
from which it proceeds. The Church can hardly be supposed
to have settled policy and invariable custom, in contravention
of law; the avowal of such custom.and policy therefore, ex-
cluding from the episcopacy any and every man, in any way
connected with slavery, is mere assumption. No contract,
agreement, decree, or purpose of this kind, is of record, or
ever existed. No such exaction, in terms or by implication,
was ever made by the North, or conceded by the South. No
conventional understanding ever existed to this effect, so far
as the South is concerned, or has been informed. That it has
long, perhaps always, been the purpose of the North, not to
elect a slaveholder to the office of Bishop, is admitted. But
as no law gave countenance to any thing of the kind, the South
regarded it as a mere matter of social injustice, and was not
_ disposed tocomplain. The North has always found its security
in numbers, and the untrammeled right of suffrage, and to this
the South has not objected. .The assumption, however, is
entirely different, and is:net:admitted by the South, but is
plainly negatived hy..thg:lawand language of the Discipline,
as explainedsby.ailthor ‘of the General’ Conference.
. _“No.such conéession, beyond ‘peaceable submission to the
: right of suffrage, exereiséd bythe majority, will ever be sub-

+h
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 81

mitted to by the South, as it would amount to denial of equal
abstract right, and a disfranchisement of the Southern ministry,
and could not be submitted to without injury and degradation.
If, then, the North is not satisfied with the negative right
conceded to the South by law in this matter, the minority would’
be glad to know what principle or policy is likely to introduce
beyond the existing provisions of law. As the contingency
which has occasioned the difficulty in the case of Bishop
Andrew, and to which every Southern minister is liable at any
time, does not, and cannot fall under the condemnation of existing
law, and he cannot be punished, nor yet subjected to any official
disability, without an abuse of both right and power, on the
part of this General Conference, the minority are compelled to
think that the majority ought to be satisfied with the conscious-
ness and declaration, that they are in no way responsible for
the contingency, and thus, at least, allow Bishop Andrew the
benefit of their own legislation, until they see proper to change
it. This attempt by the majority to protect a lawless prosecu-
tion from merited rebuke, by an appeal to conscience and
principle, condemning Bishop Andrew, while the law and the
Church, shielding him from the assault, are not objected to, is
looked upon by the minority as a species of moral, we will
not say legal casuistry, utterly subversive of all the principles
of order and good government.

“4th. The act of the majority was ostensibly resorted to,
because, as alleged, the Church in the middle and Northern
Conferences will not submit to any, the slightest connection
with slavery. But if connection with slavery is ruinous to the
Church in the North, that ruin is already wrought. Who does
not know that the very Discipline, laws, and legislation of the
Church necessarily connect us all with slavery? All our pro-
visional legislation on the subject has proceeded on the assump-
tion that slavery is an element of society—a principle of action
——a household reality in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States. Itis part and parcel of the economy of Ameri-
can Methodism, in every subjective sense. It has given birth
to law and right, conventional arrangements, numerous mis-
sions, and official trusts. Every Bishop, every minister, every
member of the Church is of necessity connected with slavery.
Each is brother and .co-member, both with slave and master,
by the very laws and organization of the Church.

“Tf, then, connection with slavery is so disastrous, the only
remedy is to purify the Church by re-organization, or get out
of it assoon as possible. And would not this aversion to slavery
—would not conscience and principle, so much plead in this
controversy, appear much more consistent in every view of the
subject in striking at the root of the evil, in the organic struc-
82 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ture of the Church, than in seeking its personification in Bish-
op Andrew, protected although he be by law, and proceeding to
punish him, by way of calling off attention from the known
toleration of the same thing, in other aspects and relations?

‘ «“Tmpelled by conscience and principle to the illegal arrest
of a Bishop, because he has incidentally, by bequest, inheritance,
and marriage, come into possession of slave property, in no
instance intending to possess himself of such property, how
long will conscience and principle leave other ministers, or
even lay members undisturbed, who may happen to be in the
same category with Bishop Andrew? Will assurances be
given that the lawlessness of expediency, controlled, as in such
case it must be, by prejudice and passion, will extend no
further—that there shall be no further curtailment of right as
it regards the Southern ministry? Yet what is the security of
the South in the case? Is the public faith of this body, as
instanced in the recent violations of the compromise law, to
be relied upon as the guaranty for the redemption of the
pledge? What would such pledge or assurance be but to
remind the South that any departure at all from the great
conservative pledge of law, to which we appeal, was much
more effectively guarded against originally, than it is possible
to guard against any subsequent infringement, and to make
the South feel further that disappointment in the first instance
must compel distrust with regard to the future? The Church
having specific law on. the subject, all questions involving
slavery must inevitably, by intention of law, come within the
purview of such special provision, and cannot be judged of
by any other law or standard, without a most daring departure
from all the rules and sobrieties of judicial procedure, and the
undersigned accordingly except to the action of the majority in
relation to Bishop Andrew, as not only without sanction of law,
but in conflict with rights created by law.

“5th. As the Methodist Episcopal Church is now organized,
and according to its organization since 1784, the episcopacy is
a co-ordinate branch, the executive department proper of the
government. A Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church is
not a mere creature—is in no prominent sense an officer of
the General Conference. The General Conference, as such,
cannot constitute a Bishop. It is true, the Annual Conferences
select the Bishops of their Church, by the suffrages of their
delegates, in General Conference assembled, but the General
Conference in its capacity of a representative body or any
other in which it exists, does not possess the power of ordina-
tion, without which a Bishop cannot be constituted.

“The Bishops are beyond a doubt an integral constituent
part of the General Conference, made such by law and the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 83

constitution; and because elected by the General Conference,
it does not follow that they are subject to the will of that body,
except in conformity with legal right and the provisions of law,
in the premises. In this sense, and so viewed, they are subject
to the General Conference, and this is sufficient limitation of
their power, unless the government itself is to be considered
irregular and unbalanced in the co-ordinate relations of its
parts. In a sense by no means unimportant the General Con-
ference is as much the creature of the episcopacy, as the Bishops
are the creatures of the General Conference. Constitutionally
the Bishops alone have the right to fix the time of holding the
Annual Conferences, and should they refuse or neglect to do
so, no Annual Conference could meet, according to law, and,
by consequence, no delegates could be chosen, and no General
Conference could be chosen, or even exist. And because this
is so, what would be thought of the impertinent pretension,
should the episcopacy claim that the General Conference is
the mere creature of their will? As executive officers as well as
pastoral overseers, the Bishops belong to the Church as such, and
not to the General Conference as one of its counsels or organs
of action merely.

“The General Conference is in no sense the Church, not
even representatively. It is merely the representative organ
of the Church, with limited powers to do business, in the
discharge of a delegated trust.

“Because Bishops are in part constituted by the General
Conference, the power/of removal does not follow. Episcopacy
even in the Methodist Church, is not a mere appointment to
labor. It is an official consecrated station, under the protection
of law, and can only be dangerous as the law is bad, or the
Church corrupt. The power to appoint does not necessarily
involve the power toremove; and when the appointing power
is derivative, as in the case of the General Conference, the
power of removal does not accrue at all, unless by consent of
the co-ordinate branches of the government, expressed by law,
made and provided in the case. When the Legislature of a
State, to appeal to analogy for illustration, appoints a Judge or
Senator in Congress, does the Judge or Senator thereby become
the officer or creature of the Legislature, or is he the officer or
senatorial representative of the State, of which the Legislature
is the mere organ? And does the power of removal follow
that of appointment? The answer is negative, in both cases,
and applies equally to the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, who, instead of being the officers and creatures of the
General Conference, are de facto the officers and servants of
the Church, chosen by the General Conference, as its organ of
action, and no right of removal accrues, except as they fail to
84 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

accomplish the aims of the Church in their appointment, and
then only in accordance with the provisions of law. But when
a Bishop is suspended, or informed that it is the wish or will of
the General Conference that he cease to perform the functions
of Bishop, for doing what the law of the same body allows him
to do, and of course without incurring the hazard of punishment,
or even blame, then the whole procedure becomes an outrage
upon justice, as well as law.

“The assumption of power by the General Conference
beyond the warrant of law, to which we object, and against
which we protest, will lead, if carried into practice, to a direct
violation of one of the restrictive rules of the constitution.
Suppose it had been the ‘sense’ of this General Conference,
when the late communication from the Bishops was respectfully
submitted to the Conference, that such communication was an
interference with their rights and duties—an attempt to tamper

with the purity and independence, and therefore an outrage °

upon the claims and dignity of the Conference not to be borne
with. And proceeding a step further, suppose it had been the
‘sense’ of the Conference that they ail desist from performing
the functions of Bishops until the ‘impediment’ of such offence
had been removed—assume this, (and so far as mere law is
concerned, no law being violated in either case, it was just as
likely as the movement against Bishop Andrew,) and had it
taken place, what had become of the general superintendency?
If a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church may, without
law, and at the instance of mere party expediency, be suspended
from the exercise of the appropriate functions of his office, for
one act, he may for another. Admit this doctrine, and by what
tenure do the Bishops hold office? One thing is certain,
whatever other tenure there may be, they do not hold office
according to law.

“The provisions of law and the faithful performance of
duty, upon this theory of official tenure, afford no security.
Admit this claim of absolutism, as regards right and power on
the part of the General Conference, and the Bishops of the
Methodist Episcopal Church are slaves, and men constituting
this body their masters and holders. They are in office only
at the discretion of a majority of the General Conference,
without the restraints or protection of law. Both the law and

themselves are liable and likely at any time to be overborne’

and trampled upon together, as exemplified in the case of
Bishop Andrew. If the doctrine against which we protest be
admitted, the episcopal office is, at best, but a quadrennial
term of service, and the undersigned are compelled to think
that the man who would remain a Bishop, or allow himself to
be made one, under such circumstances, ‘desires a good work,’

<
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 85

and is prepared for self-sacrifice, quite beyond the comprehen-
sion of ordinary piety.

“ As it regards Bishop Andrew, if it shall be made to appear
that the action in his case was intended only to advise and
request him to desist from his office, it does not in any way affect
the real or relative character of the movement. When a body
claiming the right to compel, asks the resignation of an officer,
the request is to all official and moral purposes compulsory, as
it loads the officer with disability, and gives notice of assumed
unworthiness, if not criminality. The request has all the force
of a mandate, inasmuch as the officer is by such request com-
pelled either to resign or remain in office contrary to the known
will of the majority. A simple request, therefore, under the
circumstances supposed, carries with it all the force of a decree,
and is so understood, it is believed, by all the world.

“To request Bishop Andrew to resign, therefore, in view of
all the facts and relations of the case, was, in the judgment of
the minority, to punish and degrade him; and they maintain
that the whole movement was without authority of law, is
hence of necessity null and void, and therefore not binding
upon Bishop Andrew, or the minority protesting against it.

“6th. We protest against the act of the majority, instructing
Bishop Andrew to desist from the exercise of his office, not
merely on account of the injustice and evil connecting with
the act itself, but because the act must be understood as the
exponent of principles and purposes, as it regards the union
of the North and South in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
well nigh destroying all hope of its perpetuity. The true
position of the parties in relation to a long existing conven-
tional arrangement, on the subject of slavery and abolition,
has been fully under notice; and when men of years and
wisdom, experience and learning—men of no common weight
of character, and with a well earned aristocracy of Church
influence thrown about them, assume and declare, in action as
well asin debate, that what a plain law of the Church—the only
law applicable in the case—sustained and: enforced, too, by
an explanatory decree of this body, at a previous session decides
—shall not be a disqualification for office, of any grade, in the
ministry—when such men, the law and decision of the General
Conference notwithstanding, are heard declaring that what
law provides for and protects nevertheless ahvays has been and
always shall be a disqualification, what further evidence is
wanting to show that the compromise basis of union, from which
the South his never swerved, has been abandoned both by the
Northern and middle Conferences, with a few exceptions in
the latter, and that principles and purposes are entertained
by the majority, driving the South to extreme action, in defence

8
86 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

both of theirrights‘andreputation? And how far the long train
of eventful sequencés, attendant upon the threatened result of
division, may be traceable to the Northern and middle Confer-
ences, by the issue thus provoked, is a question to be settled not
by us, but by our contemporaries and posterity.

“It is matter of history, with regard to the past, and will not
be questioned, that now, as formerly, the South is upon the
basis of the Discipline, on the subject of slavery. The minority
believe it equally certain that this is not true with regard to
the North proper especially. In view, then, of the unity of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, which party has been, in equity,
entitled to the sympathy and protection of the middle or umpire
Conferences? those who through good and evil report have kept
good faith and adhered to law, or those whose opinions and
purposes have led them to seek a state of things in advance
of law, and thus dishonor its forms and sanctions?

“7th. In proportion as the minority appreciate and cling to
the unity of the Methcdist Episcopal Church, they are bound,
further, to except to the position of the majority, in this contro-
versy. Allow that Bishop Andrew, without, however, any
infringement of law, is, on account of his connection with
slavery, unacceptable in the-Northern Conferences. It is
equally known to the majority, that any Bishop of the Church,
either violating, or submitting to a violation of the compromise
charter of union between the North and the South, without
proper and public remonstrance, cannot be acceptable at the
South, and need not appear there. By pressing the issue in
question, therefore, the majority virtually dissolve the govern-
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, because in every
constitutional aspect it is sundered by so crippling a co-ordinate
branch of it as to destroy the itinerant general superintendency
altogether. Whenever it is clearly ascertained that the com-
promise law of the Church, regulating slavery and abolition, is
abandoned, every Bishop, each of the venerable and excellent
men who now adorn the Church and its counsels, ceases to be
a general superintendent. The law of union, the principle of
gravitation, binding us together, is dissolved, and the general
superintendency of the Methodist Episcopal Church is no more!

“8th. The South have not been led thus to protest merely
because of the treatment received by Bishop Andrew, or the
kindred action of this body in other matters. The abandon-
ment of the compromise—the official refusal by the majority,
as we have understood them, to abide the arbitrament of law,
is their principal ground of complaint and remonstrance. If
the minority have not entirely misunderstood the majority, the
abolition and anti-slavery principles of the North will no longer
allow them to submit to the law of the Discipline on the general
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 87

subject of slavery and abolition; and if this be so, if the
compromise law be either repealed-or allowed to remain a
dead letter, the South cannot submit, and the absolute necessity of
division is already dated. And should the exigent circumstances
in which the minority find themselves placed, by the facts and
developments alluded to in this remonstrance, render it finally
necessary that the Southern Conferences should have a separate,
independent existence, it is hoped that the character and services
of the minority, together with the numbers and claims of the

inistry and membership of the portion of the Church repre-
sented by them, not less than similar reasons and considerations
on the part of the Northern and middle Conferences, will
suggest the high moral fitness of meeting this great emergency
with strong and steadyspurpose to do justice to all concerned.
And it is believed that, approaching the subject in this way, it
will be found practicable to devise and adopt such measures
and arrangements, present and prospective, as will secure an
amicable division of the Church upon the broad principles of
right and equity, and destined to result in the common good of
the great body of ministers and members found on either side
the-line of separation.

Signed by the following delegates, viz:—

“ Kentucky.—H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H. H. Kava-
naugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush.

“ Virginia Conference. —John Early, W. A. Smith, Thomas
Crowder, Leroy M. Lee.

“ Missouri_—W. W. Redman, William Patton, J. C. Berry-
man, J. M. Jameson.

« Holston—E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas Stringfield.

“ Georgia.—G. F. Pierce, William J. Parks, L. Pierce, J. W.
Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet.

« North Carolina.—James Jamieson, Peter Doub, B.T. Blake.

“ Illinois —N.C. Berryman, J. Stamper.

“ Memphis. —G. W. D. Harris, Wm. McMahon, Thomas Joy-
ner, S. S. Moody.

“ Arkansas. af C. Parker, Wm. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter.

“ Mississippi —W .Winans, B. M. Drake, J.Lane,G. M.Rogers.

« Texas Littleton Fowler.

« Alabama.—J. Boring, J. Hamilton, W. Murrah, G. Garrett.

“ Tennessee.—Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green,
T. Maddin.

“ South Carolina.—William Capers, William M. Wightman,
Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.

“ Philadelphia—I. T. Cooper, W. Cooper, T. I. Thompson,
Henry White.

“ Ohio—E. W. Sehon.

New Jersey—T. Neal, T. Sovereign.”
88 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The chair ordered the Protest to be entered upon the Con-
ference journal. .

On motion of Dr. Simpson, Dr. Olin, Dr. Durbin, and Mr.
Hamline were appointed a committee “to prepare a statement
of facts connected with the proceedings in the case of Bishop
Andrew,” and that they have liberty. to examine the Protest,”
&c. In other words, the committee was raised to prepare a
reply to the Protest, and this purpose is distinctly avowed; but
as a reply-to a protest was a thing without precedent, it was
so modified as to propose a “statement of facts.”

The action of the Conference had involved the Bishops in a
perplexing difficulty. The Conference had declared it the
sense of the body that Bishop Andrew should cease to exercise
the functions of his office; but the resolution was so conveniently
ambiguous, that while on the one hand Mr. Hamline had
pronounced it “a mandamus measure, whose passage would
ABSOLUTELY suspend the exercise of the superintendent's functions,
until he complied with the prescribed condition—the power to do
which was the same with that required to suspend or depose a,
Bishop,”—on the other hand, Dr. Durbin said that the resolu-
tion “only proposed to express the sense of this Conference in
regard to a matter which it cannot, in duty and conscience,
pass by without a suitable expression; and having made the
solemn expression, it leaves Bishop Andrew to act as his sense
of duty shall dictate.’ He even said, that if any man should
charge him, in voting for the resolution, (the mandamus measure
of absolute suspension of Me. STamling) with voting to depose
Bishop Andrew, he would consider it a personalinsult. Now,.
it became the duty of the Bishops to make out and publish
their plan of episcopal visitation for the succeeding four years,
at the close of the General Conference; and if the construction
of the Hamline section was correct, Bishop Andrew was
‘absolutely suspended,” and of coursé could not be taken into
the plan of episcopal labor; but if the Durbin section of the
party was right, then the General Conference having expressed.
its sense of the matter, left Bishop Andrew perfectly free to be
governed by his sense of duty, and of course there was nothing
to prevent his being rendered available in the episcopacy. In
this state of conflicting opinions among the Northern leaders,
the Bishops found it necessary to apply again to the oracle for
a less equivocal response; for act as they might, they must
come into conflict with one or other division of the majority.
They therefore addressed to the General Conference the follow-
ing inquiries:—

“To the General Conference.
“ Reverend and Dear Brethren,—
“As the case of Bishop Andrew unvoidably involves the
.
e

'
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 89

future action of. the superintendents, which, in their judgment,
in the present position of the Bishop, they have no discretion
to decide upon, they respectfully request of the General Con-
ference official instruction, in answer to the following ques-
tions:—

“ First. Shall Bishop Andrew’s name remain as it now stands -
in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline, or shall it be struck
off these official records?

* Second. How shall the Bishop obtain his support?—as pro-
vided for in the form of Discipline, or in some other way?

“ Third, What work, if any, may the Bishop perform; and
how shall he be appointed to the work?

“ Josnua Sous,

“ Exuan Heppine,

“ Beverty Waucu,
“Tuos. A. Morris.”

To these inquiries the Conference returned the following
answer:—

“ Resolved, 1st, as the sense of this Conference, That Bishop
Andréw’s name stand in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Dis-
cipline, as formerly.

“ Resolved, 2d, That the rule in reference to the support of a

Bishop and his family, applies to Bishop Andrew.
'_ “ Resolved, 3d, That whether in any, and in what work, Bishop
Andrew be employed, is to be determined by his own decision
and action, in relation to the previous action of this Conference
in his case.”

The first of these resolutions was adopted by a vote of 155
to 17, none voting against it but ultra northerners or aboli-
tionists.

The second resolution was adopted by a vote of 152 to 14.

On the third, the grand mystifying resolutiog, which placed
the matter just where it was before, the vote stood as follows:

Yeas. Nathan Bangs, Phineas Rice, George Peck, John B.
Stratten, Peter P. Sandford, Fitch Reed, Samucl D. Ferguson,
Stephen Martindale, Marvin Richardson, J. Lovejoy, F. Upham,
S. Benton, Paul Townsend, J. Porter, D. S. King, P. Crandall,
C. Adams, G. Pickering, M. Hill, E. Robinson, D. B. Randall,
C. W. Morse, J. Hobart, Heman Nickerson, G. Webber, Elihu
Scott, S. Chamberlain, Samuel Kelley, J. Perkins, J. Spaulding,
C.D. Cahoon, William D. Cass, Truman Seymour, James Covel,
Tobias Spicer, Seymour Coleman, James B. Houghtaling, Jesse
T. Peck, A. D. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W. W. Ninde, J.
M. Snyder, 8. Comfort, N. Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, H. F. Row,
E. Bowen, D. Holmes, G. Filmore, 8. Luckey, A. Steele, F. G.
Hibbard, A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson, J. S. Steadman,
John Bain, G. W. Clarke, J. Robinson, T. Goodwin, William

8*

*
‘
90 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Hunter, H. J. Clark, J. Spencer, S. Elliott, 8. Wakefield, J.
Drummond, C. Elliott, William H. Raper, J. M. Trimble, J.B.
Finley, L. L. Hamline, Z. Connell, J. H. Power, A. Poe, E.
Yocum, W. Runnells, E. Crane, A. Billings, J. A: Baughman,
M. Simpson, A. Wiley, E. R. Ames, J. Miller, C. W. Ruter, A.
Wood, A. Eddy, J. Havens, B. Weed, H. W.Reed,J.T. Mitchell,
P. Akers, P. Cartwright, A. Griffith, J. Bear, N. J. B. Morgan,
J. A. Collins, J. Davis, J. P. Durbin, L. Scott, I. Winner, J. 8:
Porter, J. K. Shaw—103. ea
Nays. C. W. Carpenter, John G. Dow, R. Boyd, G. Smith,
J. Stamper, J. Van Cleve, N. G. Berryman, W. W. Redman,
J.C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson, H. B. Bascom, W. Gunn, H. H:
Kavanaugh, E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush, E. F.
Sevier, §. Patton, T. Stringfield, R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A.
L. P.Green, T. Maddin, G. W. D. Harris, 8. S. Moody, William
M’Mahon, T. Joyner, J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter,
L. Fowler, William Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M.
Rogers, William Murrah, J. Boring, G. Garrett, J. Hamilton,
G. F. Pierce, L. Pierce, W. J. Parks, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans,
A.B. Longstreet, William Capers, W. M. Wightman, C. Betts, °
S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker, Peter Doub, B. T. Blake, J:
larly, L. M. Lee, W. A.*Smith, T. Crowder, H. Slicer, C. B.
Tippett, T. B. Sargent, J. A. Gere, G. Hildt, T. J. Thompson,
II. White, I. T. Cooper, W. Cooper, T. Neal, T. Sovereign—67.

This resolution allowed one party of the North still to regard
the action of the General Conference as mandatory, and the other
to consider it merely advisory. And up to the present time not
the smallest advance has been made toward any settled or
agreed understanding on the part of the majority, as to the
true nature and intention of the action against Bishop Andrew.

_ June 7th. Br. Paine, chairman of the select committee of
nine, reported the following Plan of Separation:—

“The select committee of nine to consider and report on the
declaration of the delegates from the Conferences of the slave-
holding states, beg leave to submit the following report:

« Whereas, a declaration has been presented to this General
Conference, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the
hody from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slaveholding
States, representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the
objects and purposes of the Christian ministry and Church
organization cannot be successfully accomplished by them
under the jurisdiction of this General Conference as now

constituted; and
‘ _“ Whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to
which the declaration asks attention as not improbable, we
esteem it the duty of this General Conference to meet the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 91

emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity;
therefore,

“ Resolved, by the delegates of the several Annual Confer-
ences in General Conference assembled, :

“1. That, should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding
States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical
connection, the following rule shall be observed with regard to
the Northern boundary of such connection:—All the societies,
stations, and Conferences adhering to the Church in the South,
by, a vote of a majority of the members of said societies,
stations, and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested
pastoral care of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the
Methodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organ-
ize Churches or societies within the limits of the Church South,
nor shall they attempt t8 exercise any pastoral oversight therein;
it being understood that the ministry of the South reciprocally
observe the same rule in relation to stations, societies, and
Conferences, adhering, by vote of a majority, to the Methodist
Episcopal Church; provided also, that this rule shall apply only
to societies, stations, and Conferences bordering on the line of
division, and not to interior charges, which shall in all cases
be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they
are situated.

“2. That ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and
office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer,
remain in that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves
to the Church South.

“3. Resolved, by the delegates of all the Annual Conferences
in General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all
the Annual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to
authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the
first clause shall read thus: ‘They shall not appropriate the
produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to
any other purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling,
supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their
wives, widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may
be determined upon by the vote of two-thirds of the members of
the General Conference.’ :

“4, That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of
three-fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution,
shall have concurred in the recommendation to alter the sixth
restrictive article, the Agents at New York and Cincinnati shall,
and they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to
any authorized agent or appointee of the Church South, should
one be organized, all notes and book accounts against the
ministers, church members, or citizens, within its boundaries,
with authority to collect the same for the sole use of the
92> HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Southern Church, and that said Agents also convey to aforesaid
agent or appointee of the South, all the real estate, and assign
to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right
and interest connected with the printing establishments at
Charleston, Richmond, and Nashville, which now belong to the
Methodist Episcopal Church. |

“5, That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved
the aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall
be transferred to the above agent for the Southern Church so
much of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Con-
cern as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, &c., men-,
tioned in the last resolution, bear the same proportion to the
whole property of said Concern that the traveling preachers in
the Southern Church shall bear to all the traveling ministers of
the Methodist Episcopal Church; the division to be made on
the basis of the number of traveling preachers in the forth-
coming Minutes. ‘

“6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual
payments of $25,000 per annum, and specifically in stock of
the Book Concern, and in Southern notes and accounts due the
establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned
above; and until the payments are made, the Southern Church
shall share in all the nett profits of the Book Concern, in the
proportion that the amount due them, or in arréars, bears to
all the property of the Concern.

“7, That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley
be, and they are hereby appointed commissioners to act in
concert with the same number of commissioners appointed by
the Southern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate
the amount which will fall due to the South by the preceding
rule, and to have full powers to carry into effect the whole
arrangements proposed with regard to the division of property,
should the separation take place. And if by any means a
vacancy occurs in this board of commissioners, the Book Com-
inittee at New York shall fill said vacancy. :

“8. That whenever any agents of the Southern Church are
clothed with legal authority or corporate power to act in the
premises, the Agents at New York are hereby authorized and
directed to act in concert with said Southern agents, so as to
give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force.

“9. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in meeting houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference
funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the
Southern organization, shall be forever free from any claim set
up on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this
resolution can be of force in the premises.

“10. That the Church so formed in the South shall have a
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 93

common right to use all the copy-rights in possession of the
Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati, at the time of the
settlement by the commissoners.

“11. That the Book Agents at New York be directed to
make such compensation to the Conferences South, for their
dividend from the Chartered Fund, as the commissioners above
provided for shall agree upon.

“12, That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that
part of this report requiring the action of the Annual Confer-
ences before them as soon as possible, beginning with the New
York Conference.”

June 8th. The Plan was taken up, and
- “Dr. Elliot moved its adoption, and would explain his views
on the subject without, attempting to approach debate. He
had had the opportunity of examining it, and had done so
narrowly. He believed it would insure the purposes designed,
and would be for the best interests of the Church. It was his
firm opinion that this was a proper course for them to pursue,
in conformity with the Scriptures, and the best analogies they
could collect from the ancient Churches, as well as from the
best organized modern Churches. All history did not furnish
an example of so large a body of Christians remaining in such
close and unbroken connection as the Methodist Episcopal
Church. It was now found necessary to separate this large
body, for it was becoming unwieldy. He referred to the
Churches at Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which,
though they continued as one, were at least as distinct as the
Methodist Episcopal Church would be if the suggested sepa-
ration took place. The Church of England was one under
the Bishops of Canterbury and York, connected and yet dis-

“tinct. In his own mind it had been for years perfectly clear
that to this conclusion they must eventually come. Were the
question that now unhappily agitated the body dead and buried,
there would be good reason for passing the resolutions con-
tained in that report. As to their representation in that Gen-
eral Conference, one out of twenty was but a meagre repre-
sentation, and to go on as they had done, it would soon be one
out of thirty. And the body was now too large to do business
advantageously. The measure contemplated was not schism,
but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperity.”

Mr. Griffith opposed the measure, and denied the power of
the General Conference to divide the Church.

Mr. Cartwright thought the measure a wicked one, and that
it robbed both North and South of their rights. “ From the days
of O’Kelly down to the last Scottite disturbances, God had pro-
vided a trash-trap to take away the scum.”. He was willing to

, , , lay the whole matter before the people for four years, and then
94 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

abide the result. Dr. Paine advocated the measure.’ Dr.
Lucky said,— :

“He regarded the resolution as provisionary and prelimi-
nary, settling nothing at present, but providing, in an amicable
and proper way, for such action as it might hereafter be ne-
cessary to take. He hoped such necessity would never arise,
and that Southern brethren would not find it necessary to leave
them. Reference had been made to secession, &c. ‘ But was
it not better that they should separate than have a continuation
of strife and of warfare?) The danger apprehended by his
friend from Illinois existed only in the fires of his imagination.
He (Dr. L.) had said privately and frequently, that if the sep-
aration were necessary, it ought to be amicably and constitu-
tionally effected, and there was no intention of doing it other-
wise. Allusion had been made to the radicalism that had dis-
turbed the Church some years ago, but that had no affinity with
the presentcase. Hegrantedthat Mr. Wesley had contended at
one time for the unity of the Methodist body throughout the
world, but he subsequently saw it necessary to permit the con-
nection in the United States to separate, and had it not been
for the best?”

“Dr. Bangs explained the composition of the committee, as
formed by three from the South, three from the middle States,
and three from the North. They were also instructed, by are-
solution of the Conference, how to act in the premises; that
if they could not adjust the difficulties amicably, they were to
provide for separation if they could do so constitutionally.—
Under such instructions the committee went out and proceeded
to interchange their thoughts upon the subject. Great diffi-
culties arose, which were revolved in their minds, and after
two days of close labor, after minute inspection and revision
of every sentence, they had presented this report, from which
the Conference would see that they had at least obeyed their
instructions, and had met the constitutional difficulty by send-
ing round to the Annual Conferences that portion of the report
which required their concurrence. The speakers who have
opposed that report have taken entirely erroneous views of it.
It did not speak of division—the word had been carefully
avoided through the whole document—it only said, “in the
event of a separation taking place,” throwing the reésponsi-
bility from off the shoulders of the General Conference and
upon those who should say that such a separation was neces-
sary. He hoped the time would never come. But what was
the true course for men brought into difficulties? Why, there
was an old adage—and he knew not that it was any the worse
for its age—of, two evils choose the least—the choice was
between the violent separation of the South and its peaceable
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 95

and amicable separation; and which was the lesser evil? He
need not answer, for the response was already in every man’s
breast. Objections had been made on the ground of the reso-
lutions interfering with liberty of conscience on the part of the
members, by forcing them to take a position which they might
not wish totake. That was a groundless objection altogether.
The laws, discipline, doctrines, government, all would be the
same, and they should be as warm in their affection toward
each other as they are now. [Amen, in a very earnest and
feeling tone from Dr. Capers.] Allusion had been made to the
course pursued by Mr. Wesley, in reference to the Methodist
Chureh in the United States. The same would apply to the
Methodist societies in Ireland. They had an independent
Conference.” a

Several voices. No, no. ;

Mr. T. B. Sargent. “They have a separate relation just as
the government of Ireland differs from the government of Eng-
land,—it is indeed adapted to the civic government.”

Dr. Bangs. “That isjust what we want. The South ask a
separate Conference, adapted to the institutions of that por-
tion of the country. Another evil was that there was a di-
versity of sentiment among the border Conferences; if the
line proposed by the resolutions were drawn it would lessen
the evil] and perhaps remove it out of the way altogether. He
(Dr. B) had been a traveling preacher about forty-four years,
and gloried in the belief that the Methodist Episcopal Church
was one; he had done all in his power to keep it so. He
hoped that the providence of God would overrule the present
adverse circumstances for good, but if they must separate, was
it right to deprive their brethren of the South of their just
rights? Would it be right for the majority to deprive the mi-
nority of one iota of their rights, temporal or spiritual? He
would not do it, and he hoped the Conference would come to a
unanimous adoption of the report.”

- “Mr. Filmore explained still further the constitution and la-
bors of the committee, and went on to say that the design of
God in raising up the Methodists was to spread Scriptural holi-
ness through the land. The brethren fromthe South say, they
fear they cannot go on doing this under existing circumstances.
The North say, if they yield any of the ground they: have ta-
ken, they shall throw impediments in their own path in carry-
ing out the same object. Now Methodism, as the child of
Providence, adjusts herself, as she has always done, to the cir-
cumstances of the case—she proposes that, if these fears prove
well grounded, they divide into bands, and go on spreading
holiness through their respective territories; their strife, he be-
lieved, would be to excel in straight-forward Wesleyan Meth-
96 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

odism. The resolutions do not say that the South must go,
shall go, will go, or that any body wants them to g6j but
simply make provision for such a contingency, and provide
that in such case they shall have all necessary munitions of
war for carrying on their holy enterprise. He-did not think
there was a man among them who would dare to lay his head
upon his pillow, if he held from his Southern brethren one
cent of their common funds.

“The report had cost the committee three days of close ap-
plication, and the sub-committee had worked by night as well
as by day. Every sentiment in the report had been sifted,
and every word weighed, and the committee had brought it
in understanding what it was.. He was aware it was the
work of human hands; but let that General Conference pro-
pose fifty amendments, and fifty to one they would amend it
for the worse.” ee

“Mr. Finley could see in the report no proposition to divide
the Church. If he saw such a proposal he should stop at the
threshold. Nor did he see anything unconstitutional in it.
The constitution did not require them to send abroad a propo-
sition to divide the Church, and it would, therefore, be uncon-
stitutional to send such a proposition to the Annual Confer-
ences. And now he expected his’ brother from Illinois, (Cart-
wright) and himself, would tear the blanket between them,
they having got hold on opposite sides. — ee

“The parties voting on each side of the great question stood
precisely alike. There was a great gulf between them, and
he wished there was middle ground on which both could
stand. His heart would have gladly moved further if he could
have secured what he wanted; but he and his friends had gone
as far as the safety of the work would allow them. There
was one point that had not been touched yet. Mr. Wesley
separated the American Church from the English Church.
And in 1824-8 there was an application made by the Canada
Conference, to set them off as a distinct Church; and the Gen-
eral Conference told them they had no power to do so, but
gave them liberty to do just what they now proposed to do
with the South. They agreed, that if they went off, and set
up for themselves, we would authorize one of our Bishops to
ordain a man for them, if they should, elect one to :the
episcopacy.” Be

My. Cartwright. “We did not give them any part of :the
funds.”

Dr. Bangs. “The New York Conference gave them $10,000.”

Mr. Finley. “The General Conference voted that the New
York Conférence should make that division, and we are now
doing nathing more than we did then.’ ’
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 97

. Acall being made for the reading of the Journal on this point,
“Mr. Hamline took the floor, by consent, vintil the journals
were examined.- He explained the action of the committee
in reference to the sixth restrictive article. When the first
committee met they had before them a paper, which proposed
a new form or division of the Church. The committee thought
there were difficulties in the way of such,a proposition. One
provision was to send it to the Annual Conferences, but that
‘was unconstitutional and revolutionary in its character; and
when their votes came back the General Conference would
have no more authority than they had now. Why then send
it? The Book Concern is chartered in behalf of the General
Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States; and if they
did separate until only one State remained, still Methodism
would remain the same, and it would still be the Methodist
Episcopal Church of the United States. But if they sent out
to the Annual Conferences to alter one restrictive article it
would be constitutional, and to divide the Book Concern so
that they might be honest men and ministers. The resolution
oes on to make provision, if the Annual Conferences concur,
or the security and efficiency of the Southern Conferences, for
the Methodist Church would embrace them in its fraternal arms,
tendering to them fraternal feelings and the temporalities to
which they were entitled.’ And the committee thought it could
not be objected to on the ground of constitutionality. He, for
one, would wish to have his name recorded affirming them to
‘be. brethren, if they found they must separate. God forbid
that they should go as an arm torn out of the body, leaving
the point of juncture all gory and ghastly! But let them go
as brethren ‘beloved in the Lord,’ and let us hear their voice
responsive claimin® us for brethren—let us go and preach Jesus.
to them, and they come and preach Jesus to. us.”

Dr. Bond earnestly contended against giving border societies,
stations, &c., the right of choosing to which side they would
belong, and insisted on following conference lines, requiring all
on the North side to adhere to the North, and all on the South
side to adhere to the South. ‘Ido beseech brethren,” said the
Doctor, “to weigh well this matter, and that you adhere to the
conference lines, as they now stand, and then we shall have peace.”

Mr. Collins said, he belonged to a part slaveholding and part
non-slaveholding country. He, in connection with others,
sought some common ground, on which they could all meet and
unite in kind and fraternal feelings. They were not able it
seemed to come to that ground. He had mentioned at the
time of the vote on Bishop Andrew’s case, that he should move a
re-consideration; and he had done so with intention, that if any
measure could be proposed which would render that action

9
98, HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

unnecessary, they might recall it. He had seen no such
measure yet, and therefore had not moved: a re-consideration.
He thought the report contained the best proposition under the
circumstances, and they were not prepared to throw out any
thing which would tend to heal the breach. He hoped they
would not come to separation at all. The Southern brethren
had taken such ground before them, and they were well known
to be men of integrity, as well as talents and piety, and had
taken a strong hold upon their people, so that if the evil could be.
averted he believed it wouldbe. But, if it must come, let there
be a pro rata division of the concern. The preachers would.
have to let the members decide the question for themselves. ~

Mr. Porter advocated the resolutions briefly. '

Mr. Sandfdrd opposed the Plan as tending to encourage
separation. “ : ; i ‘

Some remarks were made and amendments suggested, which
seemed to.assume that the Annual Conferences must first vote
to change the sixth restrictive rule, before the other parts of
the Plan of Separation could go into effect. To.correct this.
impression, Dr. Winans gave the history of the matter in
committee. He said, “It would be observed that. there was
only one provision ofthe whole report that went to the Annual
Conferences; and that merely authorized, should occasion occur,
the appropriation of the proceeds of the Book Concern otherwise
than was now appropriated. They were not sending round to
the Annual Conferences any proposition in which the’ action of
the South in reference to the separation was concerned. The
only proposition was that they might have liberty, if necessary,
to organize aseparate Conference; and it wasimportant that the
South should know, at an early period, that they had such lib-
erty, in order to allay the intense excitementwhich prevailed in
that porotin of the work.” . ,

“Mr. Hamline would state the views of the committee on
the subject. They had carefully avoided presenting any
resolution which would embrace the idea of separation or
division. The article which was referred to the Annual Con-
ferences had not necessarily any connection with division. It
was thought, as complaints were abroad respecting the present
mode of appropriating the proceeds of the Book Concern, it
would be for the general good that the power to appropriate
such proceeds should be put in the power of a two-thirds vote,
instead of in the power of a mere majority, thus making it
more difficult to make a wrong appropriation. And the occa-
sion of this report was taken hold of by the committee to make
it more difficult to misappropriate the funds, in which they
believed they should serve both the particular object of the
report and the general good of the Methodist E. Church.”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 99

Mr. Filmore said, “the design of the’ committee was to put
a restriction upon the General Conference, and to make a two-
thirds vote necessary to all appropriations of the produce of
the Book Concern, instead of a majority.”

The remarks of these members of the committee, with the
action of the Conference in refusing any amendment or modifi-
cation to suit an opposite View of the subject, show most
conclusively that the design ‘was not to make any other part
of the Plan of separation dependent upon a change of the
testrictive rule.

The /irst resolution in the Plan was then adopted by a vote

of 147 to 22; and after a re-consideration of the vote, for fhe

_. purpose of authorizing the Southern Conferences instead of the

Delegates to decide on the necessity of a separation, the vote was
again taken, and stood ayes 135, noes 15, as follows:—

Yuas.—N. Bangs, P. Rice, G. Peck, S. D. Ferguson, M. Rich-
ardson, F. Upham, P. Townsend, J. J. Porter, D. S. King, P.
Crandall, C. Adams, G. Pickering, M. Hill, E. Robinson, D. B.
Randall, C. W. Morse, G. Webber, E.*Scott, S, Kelly, J. Per-
kins, J. G. Dow, J. Spaulding, C.D. Cahoon, W: D. Cass, T.
Seymour, J. M. Wever, J. Covel, T. Spicer, S. Coleman, J. B.
Houghtaling, J. T. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W. W. Ninde,
N. Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, E. Bowen, G. Filmore, 8. Lucky,
F. G. Hibbard, 8. Seager, A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson,
J.J. Steadman, G. W. Clark, J. Robinson, W. Hunter, H. J.
Olark, J. Spencer, S. Elliott, R. Boyd, J. Drummond, C. Elliott,
W.H. Raper, E. W. Sehon, J. M. Trimble, J. B. Finley, Z.
Connell, FE. Thompson, E. Yocum, W. Runnells, G. Smith, A.

Billings, J. Baughman, M. Simpson, A. Wiley, E. R. Ames, C.
W. Ruter, A. Wood, A. Eddy, B. Weed, J. Sinclair, H. W. Reed,
J.T. Mitchell, P. Akers, J. Stamper, J. Vancleve, N. G. Berry-
man, W. W. Redman, J. C. Berryman, J. M. Jamieson, H. B.
Bascom, W. Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, E. Stevenson, B. T.
Crouch, G. W. Brush, E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, T. Stringfield,
R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin, G. W.
D. Harris, 8.8. Moody, W. McMahon, T. Joyner, J. C. Parker,
W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter, L. Fowler, J. Clarke, W. Winans,
B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M. Rogers, W. Murrah, J: Boring,
G. Garrett, J. Hamilton, L. Pierce, G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks,

~-J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet, W. Capers, W. M.
Wightman, C. Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker, J. Jamie-
son, P. Doub, B. T. Blake, J. Early, L. M. Lee, W. A. Smith, T.
Crowder, H. Slicer, N. J. B. Morgan, C. B. Tippett, T. B. Sar-.
gent, J. A. Collins, J. Davis, J. A. Gere, G. Hildt, J. P. Durbin,
T.J. Thompson, H. White, I. T. Cooper, L. Scott, W. Cooper,
J. S.Porter, T. Neal, T. Sovereign—135.
100 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Navs.—P. P. Sandford, 8. Martindale, J. Lovejoy, 8. Benton,
J. Hobart, H. Nickerson, A. D. Peck, J. M. Snyder, H. F. Row,
D. Holmes, J. H. Power, A. Poe, P. Cartwright, A. Griffith, J.
‘Bear—15. e _ i

The second resolution was adopted by one hundred and thir-
ty-nine affirmative to seventeen negative votes.»
» The third resolution was adopted by the following. vote:—

Yras.—N. Bangs, P. Rice, G. Peck, S. D. Ferguson, M. Rich-
ardson, F. Upham, P. Townsend, J. Porter, D. S. King, P.

*- Crandall, C. Adams, G. Pickering, M. Hill, E. Robinson, D. B.

Randall, C. W. Morse, G. Webber, E. Scott, S. Kelly, J. Per-
kins, J. G. Dow, C.D. Cahoon, W. D. Cass, T. Seymour, J. M.
Weever, J. Covel, T. Spicer, S. Coleman, J. B. Houghtaling, J.
T. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W. W. Ninde, N. Rounds, D.

A. Shepherd, E. Bowen, G. Filmore, 8. Luckey, PG. Hibbard, °°.

S.Seagre, A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson, J.J. Steadman,
G. W. Clarke, J. Robinson, W. Hunter, H. J. Clark, J. Spencer,
S. Elliott, R. Boyd, J.Drummond, C. Elliott, W.H. Raper, E.
W. Sehon, J. M. Trimble, J. B. Finley, Z. Connell, E. Thomp-~
son, E. Yocum, W. Runnells, G. Smith, A. Billings, J. A. Baugh-
man, M.Simpson, A. Wiley, E.R. Ames, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood,
A. Eddy, B. Weed, J. Sinclair, H. W. Reed, J. T. Mitchell, P.
Akers, J. Stamper, J. Vancleve, N. G. Berryman, W. W. Red-
man, J.C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson, H. B. Bascom, W. Gunn,
H. H. Kavanaugh, E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush,
E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, T. Stringfield, R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin,
A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin, G. W. D. Harris, 8.8. Moody, W.
M’Mahon, T. Joyner, J.C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter,
L. Fowler, J. Clark, W. Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M.
Rogers, W. Murrah, J. Boring, G. Garrett, J. Hamilton, L.
Pierce, G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans,
A. B. Longstreet, W. Capers, W. M. Wightman, C. Betts, S.
Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker, J. Jamieson, P. Doub, B. T. Blake,
J. Early, L. M. Lee, W. A. Smith, T. Crowder, H. Slicer, N.
J.B. Morgan, C. B. Tippett, T. B. Sargent, J. A. Collins, J.
Davis, J. A. Gere, G. Hildt, J. P. Durbin, T. J. Thompson, H.
White, I. T. Cooper, L. Scott, W. Cooper, J. 8.Porter, T. Neal,
T. Sovereign—l47. — om ;

Nays.—P. P. Sandford, J. Lovejoy, J. M. Snyder, S. Comfort,
H.F. Row, D. Holmes, J. Bain, J. H. Power, P. Cartwright,’
A. Griffith—10. " eee

The fifth resolution was adopted—ayes 153, noes 13. The
following is the vote:—

Yras.—N. Bangs, P. Rice, J. B. Stratten, F. Reed, S. D. Fer-
guson,.S. Martindale, F. Upham, P. Townsend, J. Porter, D. S.
King, P. Crandall, C. Adams, G. Pickering,.M. Hill, E. Robin-
son, D. B, Randall, C. W. Morse, J. Hobart, H. Nickerson, G.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 101

Webber, E. Scott, 8. Kelly, J. Perkins, J. G. Dow, J. Spaulding,

C. D. Cahoon, W. D. Cass,'T. Seymour, J. M. Wever, J. Co-
vel, T. Spicer,. J. B. Houghtaling, J. T. Peck, A. Adams, G.
Baker, W. W. Ninde, N. Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, E. Bowen, ’.
G. Filmore, S. Lucky, A. Steele, F. G. Hibbard, S. Seager, A,
Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson, J. J. Steadman, G. W.
Clark, J. Robinson, T. Goodwin, W. Hunter, H. J. Clark, J.
Spencer, S. Elliot, R. Boyd; S. Wakefield, J. Drummond, C.
Elliott, W. H. Raper, E. W. Séhon, J. M. Trimble, J. B. Finley.
Z. Connell, E. Thompson, A. Poe, E. Yocum, W. Runnells;
A. Billings, J. A. Baughman, M. Simpson, A. Wiley, E. R.
Ames, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood, A. Eddy, B. Weed, J. Sinclair,
H. W. Reed, J. T. Mitchell, P. Akers, J. Stamper, J. Vancleve,
N..G. Berryman, W. W. Redman, J. C. Berryman, J. M.
Jameson, H. B. Bascom, W. Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, E. Ste-
venson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush, E. F. Sevier, S. Patton,
T. Stringfield, R. Paine, J. B. M’Ferrin, A. L. P. Green, T.
Maddin, G. W. D. Harris, 8S. S. Moody, W. M’Mahon, T.
Joyner, J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter, L. Fowler,
J. Clark, W. Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M. Rogers, W.
Murrah, J. Boring, G. Garrett; J. Hamilton, L. Pierce, G. F.
Pierce, W. J. Parks, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Long-
street, W. Capers, W. M. Wightman, C. Betts, S. Dunwody,
H. A. C. Walker, J. Jamieson, P. Doub, J. Early, L. M. Lee,
W. A. Smith, T. Crowder, H. Slicer, N. J. B. Morgan, C. B.
Tippett, T. B. Sargent, J. A. Collins, J. Davis, J. A. Gere, G.
Hildt, J. P. Durbin, T. J. Thompson, H. White, I. T. Cooper,
L. Scott, W. Cooper, J. S. Porter, T. Neal, T. Sovereign—153.

Nays.—P. ,P. Sandford, J. Lovejoy, S. Benton, H. Nickerson,
S. Comfort, H. F. Row, D. Holmes, J: H. Power, P. Cartwright:
A. Griffith, J. Bear, J. M. Snyder, J. Bain—13. se

The other resolutions, preamble, &c., were adopted without
a division. .

Considering the novelty and great importance of the measure,
the great unanimity with which it was. adopted was very
remarkable; and at the same time highly creditable to the
justice, liberality, and Christian spirit of the parties concerned.
Throughout this protracted and most exciting discussion, but
little bitterness of spirit or unkindness of language was in-
dulged.. ‘A forbearing, dignified, and courteous manner char-
acterized nearly all the speakers engaged in the debate. :.

‘ On the 10th of June—the last day of the session—Dr. Dur-
bin introduced and read the Reply to the Protest of the mi-
nority. This document it is not deemed necessary to insert at
length in this history, as it occupied generally the same ground
with the leading speakers of the majority, and especially the
speech of Bishop Hamline, which seems to have been taken

g*
102 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

as the basis of the Reply, as well as—more recently—of Dr.
Peck’s book in reply to Dr. Bascom. The Reply sets out with
a professed intention to give a statement of the law and of the
facts in the case, but is almost wholly argumentative. Its
leading topics will be very briefly noted:—lIt is said the
proceeding against Bishop Andrew was not judicial nor puni-
tive—that it neither deposed nor supended him. Yet it-contain-
ed a direct intimation that if he violated the injunction laid on
him, that he would have it to account for at the next General
Conference. [This,’*however, was stricken out before it went
to record.] Much stress is laid on the fact, that the Church

‘ had never elected a slaveholding Bishop, as an argument not
only justifying, but requiring the action in the case of Bishop
Andrew. But the fact that the first Methodist Bishop was for
a time a slaveholder without censure, though he became such
by purchase, is not adverted to in the Reply, though certainly
as strong a case as that of Bishop Andrew.

It is said that should the law of Georgia on the subject of
emancipation become relaxed or repealed, the rule of the Dis-
cipline on .slavery applicable to traveling preachers, would
then “become imperative on Bishop Andrew.” And yet the
Reply contains an elaborate argument intended to prove that
this same law can have no application to a Bishop in any case,
whether considered in its letter or its reason. And in proof of
this, that the framers of the law “did not dream” that a Bishop
would ever become a slaveholder, (though there had been one
such, and though they “dreamed” that a Bishop might be guilty
of immorality, and provided for his trial on such an accusation,)
and, therefore, no law was made to cover a case not likely ever
to occur. And further, Bishops are liable to be called upon to
render service in both slaveholding and non-slaveholding
States, and should, therefore, be free from.an encumbrance
which would render them unacceptable to a portion of their.
people. [Seven or eight hundred other preachers, in the Con-
ferences of mixed territory are under the same liability, with- ©
out, however, exempting them from obligation to that law, or
excluding them from its protection.] .

To'show that the offence of Bishop Andrew was not a trivial
or venal one, it is said, “some believed—perhaps fewsdoubted
—that sufficient ground existed for an impeachment.”. The
compromise character of the slavery law, in any proper sense,
is denied in the Reply; Bishop Hamline’s doctrine that the six
restrictive rules are THE constitution, is fully endorsed, and it-is
even asserted that “the Church actually came together to form
a constitution” in 1808—a statement probably never before
made, and a fact, though so very important, probably never
before heard of in that form. e
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 103

It is argued that the Church is not placed.i in antagonism
with State laws by such action as that against Bishop Andrew,
because the laws of slaveholding States do not compel ministers
to become slaveholders, but only permit it, and that in like man-
ner, some of them permit gambling, theatres and grogshops.
The committee omit to state that the laws which permit a man
to attend theatres or keep a grogshop, also freely permit him
to cease from that course at any time, and that the law of.
Georgia, though it ordinarily compels no man to become a
slaveholder, (though it may make him such without his con-
sent, which is not true of the other case,) yet having become
such, it does not permit him to cease the relation without com-
mitting a penal offence, and effecting the re-enslavement of
the object of his benevolent action. It is also denied that the
episcopacy is a co-ordimate department of the government.
And following Bishop Hamline as the committee do, they
could reach no other conclusion; for as he gives supremacy to
the General Conference in all the departments of government,
the idea of a co-ordinate department in any other hands is
utterly excluded. Along with this reduction.of ,episcopacy,
we have of course, a proportionate elevation of the powers of
the General Conference, giving full control of the episcopal
office to the extent of ‘suspending or deposing without trial or
other formality merely by the will of a majority of that body.

Such, briefly, are the doctrines of the Reply. There were
others also, but so obviously niietiiodistioal | that the commit-
tee consented to strike them from the document before going
to record.

The Reply caused some excitement, and especially the mo-

- tion to adopt it. The whole affair was new: a Reply to a Pro-
test was without precedent,—the doctrines of the Reply were
heard at that. Conference for the first time, and the idea of

‘adopting as the act of the Conference a Reply to a Protest of
the minority, which it was their right to make and have re-
corded without any vote in the case, was entirely novel. But
while some of the Southern delegates opposed the adoption,
with views such as are alluded to above, others were desirous
that if such were really the doctrines of the North, they should
be officially avowed by such an act: The motion, however,
was varied, and it was proposed to spread the Reply'on the
Journal and print it, and this motion was carried by a vote of
116 ayes to 26 noes.

Here ended General Conference action on the subject, and

‘the Conference immediately adjourned sine die.
104 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

CHAPTER III.

From the adjournment of the General Conference of 1844, to the
meeting of the Louisville Convention, in May, 1845.

Tue General Conference had provided for the organizing of
the Conferences in the slaveholding States into a separate
ecclesiastical connection, under the jurisdiction of a Southern
General Conference, provided those Conferences should find
such jurisdictional severance of the general connection neces-
sary. It was, therefore, necessary that the sense of those
Conferences should be taken on this important question, and
to this end some mode of action had to be devised whereby
the object might best be attained. Accordingly, as the most
eligible manner of proceeding in this conjuncture of affairs,
the delegates from the Southern Conferences met together
after the adjournment of the General Conference, for consul-
tation. At that meeting, they adopted the following: plan of
action as proper to be recommended to the. Conferences repre-
sented by them:—

“ With a view to promote uniformity of action in the premises,
we beg leave to submit to your consideration the expediency
of concurring in the following plan of procuring the judgment

of the Church within the slaveholding States, as to the pro- —

priety of organizing a Southern division of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church in the United States, and of effecting such an
organization should it be deemed necessary:—

“1, There shall be a Convention held in Louisville, Ken-

tucky, to commence the Ist May, 1845,—composed of dele-:
gates from the several Annual Conferences within the slave-.

holding States, appointed i in the ratio of one for every eleven
members.

“2. These delegates shall be appointed at the ensuing ses-

sion of the several Annual Conferences enumerated, each.

Conference providing for the expenses of its own. delegates..
-“3. These several Annual Conferences shall instruct their
delegates to the proposed Convention on the points on which
action is contemplated—conforming their instructions, as far
as possible, to the opinions and wishes of the membership _
within their several Conference bounds.”
» They also sent abroad the following address:—

ROR)
‘a

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 105

ADDRESS

To the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Dhureh,
in the Slaveholding States and Territories:

“The undersigned, delegates in the late General Conference
ofthe Methodist Episcopal Church, from thirteen Annual Con-
ferences in slaveholding States and Territories, would most
respectfully represent—that the various action of the majority
of the General Conference, at its recent session, on the subject |
of slavery and abolition, has been such as to render it necessary,
in the judgment of those addressing you, to call attention to
the proscription and disability under which the Southern portion
of the Church must of necessity labor in view of the action
alluded to, unless some measures are adopted to free the mi-
nority of the South ffom the oppressive’ jurisdiction of the
majority in the North, in this respect. _

“The proceedings of the majority, in several cases, involv-
ing the question of slavery, have been such as indicate most
conclusively that the legislative, judicial and administrative
action of thé General Conference, as now organized, will al-
ways be extremely hurtful, if not finally ruinous, to the inter-
ests of the Southern portion of the Church; and must neces-
sarily produce a state of conviction and feeling in the slave-
holding States, entirely inconsistent with either the peace or
prosperity of the Church.

“The opinions and purposes of the Church in the North on
the subject of slavery, are in direct conflict with those of the
South, and unless the South will submit to the dictation and
interference of the North, greatly beyond what the existing
law of the Church on slavery and abolition authorizes, there
is no hope of any thing like union or harmony. The debate
and action.of the General Conference in the case of the Rev.
Mr. Harding, of the Baltimore Conference; the debate and
action in the case of Bishop Andrew; and the opinions and
purposes avowed and indicated in a manifesto of the majority,

in reply to a protest from the minority against the proceedings
complained of,—together with hundreds of petitions from the
"East, North and West, demanding that slavery, in all its pos-

sible forms, be separated from the Church;—these, and similar
demonstrations, have convinced the undersigned, that they
cannot remain silent or inactive without hazard and injustice
to the different portions of the Church they represent.
“They have, therefore, thought proper to invoke the atten-
tion of ‘the Church in the South to a state of things they are

compelled to regard as worthy the immediate notice and action

of the Church throughout all the slaveholding States and Ter-
ritories. The subject of slavery and abolition, notwithstanding
106 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ~
the plain law of the Discipline on the subject, was agitated

and debated in the late General Conference, for five successive

weeks; and even at the very close of the session, the aspect of
things was less satisfactory and more threatening to the South

than at any former period; and under such circumstances of
mutual distrust and disagreement, the General Conference @d-

journed. a

“Some time before the adjournment, however, upon a decla-
tion made by the Southern delegations, setting forth the impos-
sibility of enduring such a state of things much longer, the’
General Conferenve, by a very large and decided majority,
agreed to a -plan of formal and pacific separation, by which the
Southern Conferences are to have a distinct and independent
organization of their own, in no way subject to Northern juris- «
diction. It affords us pleasure to state that there were those
found among the majority who met this proposition with every
manifestation of justice and liberality. And should a similar
spirit be exhibited by the ‘Annual Conferences in the North,
when submitted to them, as provided for in the plan itself,
there will remain nolegal impediment to its peaceful consum-
mation.

“This plan is approved by the undersigned as the best, and,
indeed, all that cam be done at present, in remedy of the great
evil under which we labor. Provision is made for a peaceable
and constitutional division of Church property of every
kind. The plan doesnot decide that division shall take place;
but simply, and it is thought securely, provides that it may, if
it be found necessary. Of this necessity, you are to be the
judges, after a careful survey and comparison of all the rea-
sons for and against it.

“ As the undersigned have had opportunity and advantages
which those at a distance could not possess, to form a correct
judgment in the premises, and it may be expected of them

hat they express their views fully on the subject, they do not

hesitate to say, that they regard a separation at no distant

day as inevitable; and farther, that the plan of separation

agreed upon is as eligible as the Southern Conferences have

any right to expect at any time. We most respectfully, there-

fore, and with no common solicitude, beseech our brethren of
the ministry and membership in the slaveholding States, to

examine this matter carefully, and, weighing it well in all its

bearings, try to reach the conclusion most proper under the
circumstances. Shall that which, in all moral likelihood must:
take place soon, be attempted now, or are there reasons why
it should be postponed ? :

“We deprecate all excitement; we ask you to be calm and
collected, and to approach and dispose of the subject, with all:
@ METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 107
. €

the candor and forbearance the occasion demands. The sep-
aration proposed is not schism, it is not secession. It is a State
or family, separating into two different States or families, by
mutual consent. As the ‘Methodist Episcopal Church’ will be
found North of the dividing line, so the ‘ Methodist Episcopal
Church’ will be found South of the same line.

“The undersigned have clung to the cherished unity of the
Church with a firmness of purpose and force of feeling which
nothing but invincible necessity could subdue. If, however,
nominal unity must co-exist with unceasing strife and alienated
feeling, what is likely to be gained by its perpetuation? Every
minister and member of the Church in slaveholding States
must perceive at once, that the constant, not to say intermin-
able, agitation of the glavery and abolition question in the
councils: of the Church, and elsewhere, must terminate in in-
calculable injury to all the Southern Conferences. Our access
to slave and master is to a great extent cut off. The legisla-
tion of the Church in conflict with that of the State—Church
policy attempting to control public opinion and social order—
must generate an amount of hostility to the Church, impossible
to be overcome, and slowly but certainly to diminish both the
means and the hope of usefulness and extension on the part.
of the Church.

“ Disposed, however, to defer to the judgment of the Church,
we leave this subject with you. Our first and most direct ob-
ject has been to bring it fully before you, and giving you an
opportunity to judge and determine for yourselves, await your
decision. The minority from the South in the late General
Conference, were most anxious to adjourn the decision in the
case of Bishop Andrew, with all its attendant results, to the
Annual Conferences and to the Church at large, to consider
and decide upon during the next four years—as no charge was
presented against the Bishop, and especially as this measure
was urgently recommended by the whole bench of Bishops, al-.
though Bishop Hedding subsequently withdrew his name.
The proposition, however, to refer the whole subject to the
Church, was promptly rejected by the majority, and immediate
action demanded and had. But as all the facts connected ,
with the equivocal suspension of Bishop Andrew, will come
before you in other forms, it is unnecessary to detail them in
this brief address, the main object of which is to place before
you, in a summary way, the principal facts and reasons con-
nected with the proposed separation of the Southern Con-
ferences into a distinct organization.

“ Adopted at a meeting of the Southern delegations, held in
New York, at the close of the General Conference, June 11th,.
1844, and ordered to be published.
108 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ‘
« Signed on behalf of the Kentucky, Missouri, Holston, Ten-
nessee, North Carolina, Memphis, Arkansas, Virginia, Missis-
sippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina Annual
Conferences.
- “ Kentucky —H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H. H. Kava-
naugh, E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush.
“ Missouri—W. W. Redman, W. Patton, J. C. Berryman,
J.M. Jameson.
“ Holston.—E. F. Sevier, 8. Patton, T. Stringfield. '
“ Tennessee-—R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T.
Maddin.
“ North Carolina.—B. T. Blake, J. Jamieson, P. Doub.
“ Memphis —G. W. D. Harris, 8. S, Moody, W. McMahon,
Thomas Joyner. | ae
« Arkansas —J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter.
“ Virginia —J. Early, T. Crowder, W. A. Smith, L. M. Lee.
“ Mississippi—W. Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M.
Rogers.
“ Texas. —Littleton Fowler.
« Alabama.—J. Boring, J. Hamilton, W. Murrah, G. Garrett.
“ Georgia.—G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks, L. Pierce, J. W. Glenn,
J, E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet.
» South Carolina—W. Capers, W. M. Wightman, C. Betts,
S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.”
Immediately after the adjournment of the General Confer-
ence, the central organ of the Church at New York openeda spir-
ited attack on the South, which has been perseveringly sustain-
ed with consistent uncharitableness to the present time. One
cause of this may or may not have been, that the Southern
delegates sought to supercede the editor of that paper, by the
election of one who, though less consistent and dignified, has
since been no less bitter in his opposition to the rights. and in-
terests of the South. The Church papers in the South of
course repelled these attacks, and gave free expression of their
opinions with regard to the proceedings of the General Con-
ference. The membership, too, in many places in the South,
met in primary assemblies and uttered their disapprobation of
those proceedings in strong language. And doubtless it is but
a concession of candor, to admit that in many cases quite too
much uncharitableness and even severity were indulged in.
It is but just, at the same time, toremark, that before the time
arrived for the Southern Conferences to take official action on
the subject of division, the popular excitement had very much
abated; and it is believed that in the action of those Confer-
ences but little is to be found, to which, under all the circum-
stances, just censure can attach. And it is by the official ac-
tion of the Southern Annual Conferences, and not by the ex-
a METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 109
cited expressions of individuals or unofficial assemblies, that
the true temper of the South, at the time of acting on the
question of division, should be judged of. The Resolutions
and Reports or Addresses, therefore, of the Conferences in the
slaveholding States, on the subject of a separate jurisdiction,
properly constitute a part of the history of the Southern or-
ganization; and they are accordingly inserted.

The Kentucky Conference was the first in the Southern di-
vision,of the Church to meet after the adjournment of the.
General Conference. It convened on the 11th of September,
1844, and adopted the following Resolutions, with but one dis-
senting vote:— oat |

REPORT OF TYE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION.

“ «The committee to whom was referred the subject of the
. division of the Church into two separate General Conference
jurisdictions and kindred subjects, have had the same under
serious consideration, and beg leave to report:

“That enlightened as the Conference is presumed to be, on
the merits of the very important subject upon which your
committee have been called to act, it was not deemed expe-
dient to delay this report by.an elaborate and argumentative
investigation of the matters committed to them, in their va-
rious relations, principles and bearings; they, therefore, present
the result of their deliberations to the Conference by offering
for adoption the following resolutions:—

“1; ‘Resolved, That it is the deliberate judgment of this Con-
ference that the action of the late General Conference, virtu-
ally deposing Bishop Andrew, and also their action in confirm-
ing the decision of the Baltimore Conference, in the case of
the Rev. F. A. Harding, are not sustained by the Discipline of
our Church, and that we consider those proceedings as con-
stituting a highly dangerous precedent.

“2. Resolved, That we deeply regret the prospect of division
growing out of these proceedings, and that we do most sin-
cerely hope.and pray that some effectual means, not inconsis-
tent with the interests and honor of all concerned, may be
suggested and devised by which so great a calamity may be
averted, and to this end we recommend that our societies be
freely consulted on the subject.

“3. Resolved, That we approve the holding of a Convention
of delegates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States,
in the city of Louisville, on the first day of May next, agree-
ably to the recommendation of the Southern and South-wes-
tern delegates in the late General Conference; and that the
ratio of representation proposed by said delegates, to wit, one
delegate for every eleven members of Conference, be and the

10
110 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE a
same is hereby adopted; and that this Conference will elect
delegates to the proposed Convention upon said basis.

“4. Resolved, That should a division be" found to be indis-
pensable, the delegates of this Conference are hereby required
to act under the following instructions, to wit: that the South-
ern and South-western Conferences shall not be regarded asa
secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they
shall be recognized in law, and to all intents and purposes, as
a co-ordinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
‘United States of America, simply acting under a separate ju-
risdiction. And further, that being well satisfied with the
Discipliné of the Church as it is, this Conference instruct its
delegates not to support or favor any. change in said Discip-
line by said Convention. t,

“5. Resolved, That unless we can be assured that the rights
of our ministry and membership can be effectually secured
according to Discipline, against future aggressions, and re-
paration be made for past injury, we shall deem the contem-
plated division unavoidable.

“6. Resolved, That we approve the course of our delegates
in the late General Conference in the premises, and that we
tender them our thanks for their faithful and independent dis-
charge of duty in a trying crisis. :

“7, Resolved, That the secretary of this Conference be di-
rected to have these resolutions published in such of our
Church papers as may be willing to insert them.

“All of which is respectfully submitted.

“M. M. Henxie, Chairman.”

FURTHER ACTION IN REFERENCE TO THE CONTEMPLATED CONVENTION.

“Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That should
the proposed. Convention, representing the Annual Conferences
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the slaveholding States,
appointed to assemble in the city of Louisville, the first of
‘May, 1845, proceed to a separate organization, as contingently
provided for in the resolutions of this body on yesterday, then
and in that event, the Convention shall be regarded as the
regular General Conference, authorized and appointed by the
several Annual Conferences of the Southern division of the
Church, and as possessing all the rights, powers and privileges
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the United States, and subject to the same restrictions, lim-
itations and restraints. :

“Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional char-
acter and action of the Convention as a General. Conference
proper, should a separate organization take place, the ratio of
representation as now found in the 2d restrictive rule, one for,

}

he
is
’ METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 111
every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine:the rumber of
constitutional delegates, taking and accrediting as such the
proper number from each Annual Conference first elected in
order, and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as
members of the. Convention to deliberate, etc., but not mem-
bers of the General Conference proper, should the Convention
proceed to a separate organization in the South—Provided,
nevertheless, that should any delegate or delegates, who
would not be excluded from the General Conference proper,
by the operation of the above regulation be absent, then any
delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said regulation
as member or members of the constitutional General Con-
ference, may lawfully take the seat or seats of such absent
delegates, upon the principle of the selection named above.

- “Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That we re-
spectfully invite the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Chureh, who may feel themselves disposed to do so, to be in
attendance at the contemplated Convention, to be held in the
city of Louisville, Ky., in May, 1845.

“Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That we ap-
point the Friday immediately preceding the day fixed for the
meeting of the proposed General Convention of the delegates
of the Conferences, as a day of fasting and prayer for the
blessing of Almighty God on the said Convention.” ~

Before its final adjournment, the Conference also appointed
a committee to address the members of the Methodist Episco-

al Church within the bounds of the Kentucky Conference.
The following is their address:—
: ADDRESS .
To the Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church within the
bounds of the Kentucky Annual Conference.

“Dear Brethren,—The Kentucky Annual-Conference was
called on at its late session to take action relative to the doings
of the late General Conference. That action has been. pub-
lished, and with its character you are presumed to be acquaint-
ed. But as the resolutions of the Conference have gone forth
without any thing explanatory of the reasons or principles
upon which they are, based, it was deemed “advisable to ap-
point a committee, charged with the duty of addressing ‘the
Churches under our care on this very important subject; and
that responsible service was, by the Conference, committed to
the undersigned. In discharge of that trust, we address our-
selves at once to the task assigned us.

“From the first planting of Methodism in what are now the
Southern States of the American. Union, domestic slavery,
which was intimately incorporated in the constitution of South-

}
112 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE :

ern society, connected itself with the Church, and so continues.
A strong desire was early manifested by the authorities of the
Church, and repeated efforts were made, to*divorce this con-
nection, but without success. After varying the modes of ac-
tion, and changing the law into every form that might afford
hope of success, it was found utterly impracticable, and became
perfectly certain that so long as we had a Church in the South,
we must have slavery in the Church; for every day ministers
and members were becoming slaveholders—involuntarily, by
inheritance and bequest, and voluntarily, by matrimonial al-
liances, in the exercise of a freedom of choice which the
Church had no right, and generally no disposition, to contol or
intermeddle with. In this posture of affairs the relaxation of
the.early and more rigorous rules on the subject of slavery,
or the total abandonment of the South, became the alterna-
tives between which the Church had to select.

“Yielding to uncontrollable necessity, the North and South.
at length compromised their conflicting sentiments on a plan
which held ministers and official members legally responsible
for holding slaves, where State laws permitted their emanci-
pation, and repealed all laws subjecting private members to
penalties for a connection with slavery. This, however, did
not operate as a permanent adjustment of the controversy;
for many brethren of the North, regarding slavery under all
circumstances as sinful, sought its utter banishment from’ the
Church, in all possible forms, while those of the South believed
it impossible to go any farther than the ‘requirements of the
rule. The North felt aggrieved that slavery was permitted to
exist in the Church at all, and the South felt aggrieved in being
uniformly ‘proscribed with regard to offices in the gift of the
General Conference, on account of their connection with
slavery, even though they kept themselves strictly within the
law of the Church. :

“In this state of things, entire cordiality was not to be ex-
pected; and accordingly the meetings of General Conference
were looked to with unpleasant apprehension, if not actual
dread; and those meetings were generally attended with many
things of a disagreeable character, arising out of this standing
subject of contention and disagreement. ia i

“This irreconcilable disagreement of opinion, especially
when taken in connection with the vast and widening extent
of our field of operation, apart from any other cause, might
well have suggested the propriety of an attempt to prosecute
our great work under separate General Conference jurisdic-
tions, as being more favorable to the general harmony” and
tranquillity of the connection. Such a proposition, too, might
have received further countenance and support from the fact,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 113
that the popular construction of the rule on the ‘general itin-
erant superintendency’ of the Church, required our Bishops
sexerally ta travel over the whole extent of this vast country,
consuming in toilsome and expensive travel much time which
might otherwise be bestowed in more efficient and profitable
labor. There was, however, a disposition to submit to priva-
tions and make sacrifices to preserve the integrity of the
union—the unity of American Methodism. And it is probable
that the South would long have consented to be a subordinate
and proscribed division .ef.the connection, rather than separate
from their brethren of the North, had nothing more influential
and imperative than the general causes adverted to occurred
tochange that purpose. But circumstances transpired at the
late General Conference which hastened the crisis, and seemed
to point with -anerring truth to the necessity of immediate and
decisive action on this subject.

“ The law regulating the connection of traveling preachers
with slavery, evidently contemplated their special liability to be-
come so connected by bequest, inheritance, and marriage. In
these several ways had a Bishop of the Church become involved
imslavery; in the first two, without any violation or concurrence
on his part, and in the third, by following his judgment and
affections in selecting the wife of his bosom. The law of the
Church recognized his right to make the acquisition, the law
of the State bound the incumbrance upon him, and in that
contingency the law of the Church had no farther demands
upon him, but legalized the holding. This would have been
the view of every one, and here would propably have been a
perpetual end of the matter, but for one fact; that was, that
though the Church law was satisfied and complied with, the
proscriptive usage of the North towards ministers of the South,
was impinged, and in danger of becoming unsettled by the
circumstance. That usage was, to put no man into high office,
especially the episcopacy, who was in any way connected
with slavery, no matter how involuntarily. But here was a
Bishop who had become involved in slavery after elevation to
the episcopate; and to suffer him to remain in office in this
state of things might have operated to place Southern minis-
ters on a ground of equality with those of the North, almost
as: effectually as if he had been elected under the circum-
stances providentially thrown around him subsequently. To
put Bishop Andrew out of the episcopate, therefore, or in
some way to punish him for this act, became the all-absorbing
concern.of the dominant party in the General Conference.
But how this was to be done, was a question of great difficulty.
Three several plans were suggested—‘ direct impeachment,’
an official request to resign, and such a request to suspend the

10*
114 HISTORY .OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

exercise of his episcopal functions-until the obstaclein question
should be removed. ~ ‘It was believed, and with good reason,
that‘ a direct impeachment? could have been sustained ,; because
the votes were there: in numbers sufficient:to do it, with: or
without law, but it was not by any means so clear that! the
measure would-be sustained by the Church at large and:by
the sense ofthe general community, and it was accordingly
notattempted. The:plan of requesting the-Bishop, by General
Conference resolution, to resign, was therefore. brought into
Conference-as the most eligible one; but was finally abandoned
by its originators and original advocates, and the party threw
themselves on the’ third alternative, that:ef requesting the
Bishop not to exercise the functions of his office, while con-
nected with slavery. Perhaps this last measure was preferred
because it would put the Bishop quite as effectually, and a tittle
more directly, into their power, than the preceding'one. «
« “But an obstacle stood in the way of) inflicting punishment
on Bishop Andrew for his providential connection with slavery.
The only law by which Bishop Andrew could:be punished was
the law applying to itinerant ministers; but with:that he: had
strictly complied, and of course was-entitled to its: protection.
It. was:then indispensably necessary to take him:from under the
protection of the law by which they had just then punished-an
itinerant minister, and this could be ‘only:done by. denying that
a Bishop is an ‘itinerant minister. This astonishingiposition
was clearly taken, and attempted: to be maintained;:by:the
majority of the General Conference. That a Bishop: is+an
itinerant minister in fact:cannot be deniediby any man enjoying
right reason, and that he is so in law is nearly asidélear: - For
more than fifty ‘years from the: organization of the:-Church,
Bishops received their compensation under the law’ making
provision for traveling preachers; but: because the General
Conference of.1836—probably to:meet a cavil, or to gratifyia
whim—added the word ‘bishops’ to-traveling..and super-
annuated preachers,’ in the salary law;:the. majority Reply to
the Southern Protest maintains, that therefore a Bishop is not
an ‘itinerant preacher. -The argument would: prove with
stronger reason, that superannuated preachers are not in law
itinerant; for they, as well as Bishops, are separately named
in the salary law; and besides, they do not. actually itinerate,
which Bishops do. an cog te
_“ But if the Bishop was removed by the power of this:strange
argument, from under the protection of the law in question,
then there is no other law that can apply to the casey he is
under no law whatever with regard to this matter... And for
so remarkable a relation some cause must be:shown, and:this
the dominant party have attempted in their Reply to the Protest,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURG€H, SOUTH. 115

‘by assuming: that at the time the law was enaeted, ‘the North
and South did not dream.that slavery would ever find its way
into the episcopacy, and accordingly no provision:was made
for such a contingency!’ The law then enacted, supposed that
Bishops might be. guilty of immorality of every grade, and it
made provision for their punishment on conviction .of.such
offences; and: yet, though Bishop Hamline informs us that the
offence of Bishop.Andrew was ‘a:shade less than imprudence,’
our fathers, we are. to be told, ‘never dreamed that a Bishop
could be guilty of such an offence!’ |The first Bishop ‘of: the
Methodist Episcopal Church hadibeen publicly charged: with
being the purchaser and :holder-of slaves, for a time; and he
himself did not deny, Dut rather confessed the fact; and yetin
view of .this:fact, our fathers could not dream: that a Bishop
could ever be guilty-of such an offence! Mee

The more. effectually to.exclude the Bishop the pale :and
protection of the traveling preachers’ law, we are told in the
‘Reply’ that ‘In the case of ordinary: traveling preachers there
appeared tobe: a necessity. for some'indulgence. .They. might
heeome. owners of slaves in the-providence of God, the laws
of the States might not-allow emancipation, and they had no
power to‘choose their own place.of residence. But no such
reason could apply to a Bishop, who has-always been allowed
to reside:where he pleased.’ But may not a Bishop also become
the.owner of slaves in the providence of God? Was not this
the ease with Bishop Andrew? And. may not State laws
prevent a Bishop:from emancipating his slaves as effectually
as any other ‘preacher or any other man? We cannot there-
fore, see the .foree of this argument. And though ‘a Bishop
may reside where he:pleases,’ yet they are selected with more
or less reference to locality, and they would not promote their
usefulness or increase their influence by abandoning the locality
from which they were.selected, with a view to accommodate
some: popular or loeal prejudice.. And this doctrine, to have
any weight at all, must imply. an obligation: on-all our Bishops,
not residing in -the North, to remove there immediately ‘on
their election. .Jt isthe doctrine of expatriation,; which should
be repudiated by: every:‘man.of correct principles and feeling.
But even suppose this were done by a Southern Bishop, this
would. mot: prevent the law «from devolving slaves on him by
inheritance, nor prevent his old friends in the South from
bequeathing them to him; nor should it prevent him from going
among‘ the friends.of! his youth to select a companion.

« But farther to prove that the law for traveling preachers is
not’ severe enough for Bishops, :the majority Reply says,
‘Preachers incumbered with.slavery labor among people simi-
larly situated, and: who would notbe likely to object to them on
{
116 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

thataceount. But a Bishop is required to labor in every part of
the connection, (i. e..in slaveholding and non-slaveholding dis,
tricts,] and in by far the larger part the services of a slaveholding:
Bishop would be unacceptable.’ But it is not true that Bishops:
are. tle only preachers who:have to labor in both slaveholding
and non-slaveholding portions of the work. More than seven
hundred of our preachers labor in Conferences embracing both.
classes of territory, and are quite as liable to have work among
the two classes referred to as Bishops are. What, therefore,
is assigned as a reason why Bishops:should be exchaded from
the provisions and protection of the law, applies with equal
foree to more than seven hundred other preachers.

“Tn this way the Bishop is taken out of the statute, and by.
arguments no more cogent and conclusive than these, a deeree
of ecclesiastical outlawry is attempted to be justified.

“ But having with strong arm, taken the Bishop from under
the law, the next measure to be provided for—and a very
important one—was to show right, or justification for inflicting
punishment without law. The exercise ef such a power is one
of the distinguishing attributes of despotism. And whether it
be exercised by one man or an hundred, the principle is: the
same: the will of the ruling authority unrestricted is the law of
action; and that will is liable to be biassed by interest, prejudice,
or passion, and especially in times of high excitement.

“It was not to be expected that so fearful a prerogative, now
for the first time asserted, would be quite tamely acquiesced in
by the Church at large, unless strongly fortified | by: conclusive
reasoning. To defend this position, then; became a prominent
link in the strong chain of power forged by the dominant party
in the last General Conference. To this end two processes are
resorted to; the episcopal office is degraded, beyond all prece-
dent of friend or foe, and the powers of the General Conference
magnified in equal ratio. It is accordingly held that.a Bishop
is the mere creature and servant of the General Conferenee, and
ng the officer of. the whole Church, as every body up to this
time had supposed. He is not appointed during life. or good
behavior, as has always been held by the whole Church and
the whole world, but simply during the arbitrary pleasure of

.the General Conference; who in the true spirit of the old-con-
tinental despots, appoint him durante bene placito. He contiinmes
in office not in virtue of his election or ordination, of talents,
faithfulness, or piety, but in virtue of pleasing-—-we may addy.
humoring—the majority of the General Conference! And so
trivial a matter is the deposing of a Bishop now considered by
the dominant party, that: Mr. Hamline, a leader and now:a
Bisheprof that party,;places it on the same ground with the
changing of a class leader, an act provided for by express law,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 117

and required in certain cases as a part of the pastor’s regular’
duty. If our Northern brethren are opposed to our episcopacy,
let them. avow that opposition frankly and independently, but
let them not murder it by inches, under professions of. friendli-
ness to the office. i

“But while the episcopacy is thus degraded, the General
Conference is exalted into an enormous irresponsible aristoc-
racy, at whose feet the episcopacy must bow in submissive, not
to say abject,dependence. The General Conference claims not
only the possession of supreme legislative and judicial power,
but in the language of Bishop Hamline ‘executive functions,
supreme and all controlling.’ And the same high authority
asserts, with the apparent concurrence of the Northern party,
that the General Confesence may at any time, ‘in ten minutes,
constitutionally alter or abrogate any or every. part of the
economy of Methodism, save only the very few things protected
by the six restrictions. Itinerancy, love feasts, class meetings,
and every thing time-honored, venerable, and sacred in Meth-
odism, is at the mercy and caprice of that body. When the
leading doctors of the Churcn claim for the General Conference,
powers more monstrous and despotic than any opposers of our
economy have ever dared to charge that body with holding, how
can the Church be defended against the attacks of her friends?
‘Well may she say ‘Defend me against my friends, and I will
defend myself against my enemies.’

“This dangerous claim to irresponsible power appears to be
chiefly based on the novel and astonishing assumption, that the
six restrictive regulations adopted by the General Conference
of 1808, is ‘the constitution of the Church,’ and that, therefore,
whatever they do not prohibit, the General Conference has full
and rightful power to do.

“Jt is not material whether we call any specified part of our
system a constitution or not. Until recently, no part was so
designated in Methodist parlance—and it is well known that
at the time the six restrictions were adopted, and for many

ears afterwards, they were not spoken of as a constitution.

hey have been respected, and properly so, as of constitutional
force, though lacking in some of the elements of constitutional
character. But ‘the constitution of the Church’ they are not.
The Reply to the Protest,, however, asserts, ‘that the Church.
actually did come together [in 1808] to frame a constitution;
and these six very short paragraphs are pointed to as the grand
result of their constitutional labors. That General Conference
was constituted in all respects as its immediate predecessor of
1804, with no other or different powers, and for no different
purposes; save that some expectation was entertained in certain
quarters, that the Conference of that year, as a matter of
118 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE Z
‘convenience, in view of the,extent of the connection, would
provide for a reduction of the members in subsequent General
Conferences, by giving them a delegated character. This
they did, and out of it grew the six restrictions. And this is
the sole ground upon which is based the bold and unsupported :
declaration just quoted from the ‘Reply.’ ;

“The truth is, if we employ the term constitution to signify
a regular written frame work of government, then we have no
Church constitution; for not only truth, but respect for the dead
and living patriarchs of the Church would restrain us from
asserting or admitting that ‘the Church actually came together
to frame [such] a constitution,’ and produced nothing but the
few lines dignified by our Northern brethren with the title of
‘the constitution, but which our fathers of that time ‘never
dreamed’ of calling by such a name or investing with such
attributes.

“But if we employ the term in its more legitimate sense,
as implying the permanent ground work and fundamental
elements of a system, upon which, and by which it is constituted,
then we can boast a constitution of solid base and ample pro-
visions. The grand constitutional elements of our Methodism
consist not chiefly of ‘restrictions, but of regulations long and

‘well approved, usages permanently settled, and whatever
essentially constitutes the system, such as itinerancy, class
meetings, and so forth. These, though not guarded by the
restrictive rules, the General Conference has no power, moral
or constitutional, to destroy; for they are essential to the exist-
ence of the system, and therefore constitutional in it.

“ Doctrines such as we have been reviewing, we cannot but
regard as dangerous, and calculated to unsettle the foundations
of the Church. With these high powers claimed by the General
Conference, what assurance can we have that at the next ‘meet-
ing of that body, some other high functionary, will-not, under
some other excitement, or the same, be dragged down from his
elevation, to bend before the General Conference supremacy, or
be crushed by its giant power? And what assurance can iwe.
have that from pulling down great officers, they will not, under
the power of some new impulse, no more unexpected than
the,last, proceed to pulling up the great pillars of Wesleyan
Methodism? .

“Our brethren of the North, we are aware, deny, in their
‘Reply, that any punishment whatever has been inflicted on
Bishop Andrew; but it is a strange denial. The action in his
case, they assert, ‘ was neither judicial nor punitive. It neither
achieves nor intends a deposition, nor so much as a legal suspen-
sion.’ ‘ Bishop Andrew, they say, ‘has been subjected to no trial,
and no penalty has been inflicted.’ That he has been punished,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 119

is a plain matter of fact, which no subtilty of abstract speculation
can change or disprove, and we do not suppose the rigors of that
infliction will find much mitigation in the fact here asserted, that
it was done without trial. Has not-the General Conference
inflicted a deep wound on the reputation and feelings of Bishop
Andrew in officially requesting him not to exercise the functions
of his office, and in refusing to authorize the episcopal board to
assign him work? And had they expelled him from the Church,
they could have inflicted no other kinds of punishment than
those he has been subjected to, though it would have differed in
degree. Is nota mode of punishing a preacher for some dere-
liction of duty, or commission of misdemeanor, to ‘leave him
without an appointment for one year’? This isdone avowedly
as a punishment; and how can our brethren assert that it was
no punishment to a Bishop to be ‘left without an appointment’
‘virtually for life? But it is assumed that he is yet a Bishop,
and therefore is unpunished. It is true he is a Bishop in name,
but so far as they are concerned, in nothing else. So the allied
powers were willing that Napoleon should still wear the empty
title of Emperor, while they carefully divested him of all
imperial power, and sent him to pine and die in desolate ban-
ishment, on the dreary rock of St. Helena, as a state prisoner.

“ With such action taken, and such doctrines avowed, it had
not been astonishing if the Southern delegates had given up
all for lost. Yet even thus situated they sought peace, and
proposed every honorable compromise. They offered a pledge
that Bishop Andrew should free himself from slavery as soon
as the law of the State would permit it. This was promptly
rejected. They proposed that Bishop Andrew should labor
only where it was known that he would be acceptable. This,
too, was rejected, though immediately afterwards they elected
a man to the same office, in whose case they of course knew
they would be, as they have been, compelled to make the same
arrangement. The episcopal board unanimously recom:
mended that the case be laid over for four years, until the
Conferences and the Church could have time to pass action
upon it; in the mean time allowing Bishop Andrew to exercise
the functions of his office. And the same proposition had
previously come from the South, limited to one year. But both
were unceremoniously rejected by a vast majority. After the
vote inflicting punishment on Bishop Andrew had been passed,
the Bishops virtually asked permission to employ him in the field
of episcopal labor; but this the General’Conference refused, as
it did every proposition looking towardscompromise or amica-
ble adjustment of the difficulty. .

“It was algo well known to the Southern delegates, that a
very general determination in the North was, never to allow
120 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ‘
this subject to rest, until they had, to use their own language,
‘entirely purged, not only the episcopacy, but the ministry and
membership from the last vestige of slavery.’ They knew |
that the action in the case of Bishop Andrew, oppressive as it
‘was, was only designed as an entering wedge, and that so far
as human foresight could go, aided by nearly infallible indica-
tions, if the action in that case had been tamely acquiesced in,
or submitted to, that at each succeeding General Conference
the proceedings against the South would become more and
more oppressive and proscriptive, until that portion of the
Church would be compelled to separate from the North, or
submit to proceedings which must utterly exterminate the
Church in the South.

“ So cireumstanced, it would seem impossible for the Southern
delegates to have pursued any other course than that of
declaring for a peaceablé separation and an organization under
a Southern Conference jurisdiction. This they did, and have
requested the Kentucky Annual Conference, with others in the
South, to take action on the subject, which we have done.

“To such a division, there is in our feelings a strong and
natural aversion. This we experience in the division of an
Annual Conference, a circuit, a station, or even a class, and
of course much more in a General Conference division. But
our sober judgment with regard to. the good of the whole, and
not our feelings, should be the guide of our action. i
“ «Tf division can be avoided safely and honorably, it should
by all means be done. But how is it to be done? Will the
South consent, will Kentucky Conference consent, after the
unla‘wful degradation of Bishop Andrew, and after the avowal
of doctrines and claim of powers by the last General Confer-
ence so new, dangerous and unmethodistical, to submit to all,
remaining in our present humbled position, and wait four years
in agitation and suspense in the vain and groundless hope that
the next General Conference will act any more favorably to
the South than the last,—and that with the certain assurance
that that General Conference will act more proscriptively than
any one that has preceded it? Probably no one will contend
for this. But compromise is suggested. Pending:the action
in the case of Bishop Andrew the South proposed every form
of compromise not dishonorable, and were met with prompt
repulse. Now,that they have taken action in a form and under

‘circumstances which make it imply a power and right to destroy
the character and:standing of any minister in the South at
pleasure, they are probably willing to compromise on their own
terms; that is, they may consent to receive our unconditional
submission; but we fear this is all. , a

“But it is conjectured that the Conferences and people of
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 121
the North may be more liberal in their views than the members
of the late General Conference, and that they may favor an
honorable compromise, and open the way for a perpetuation of
ourunion. This is, we fear, a more groundless hope. Several
of the Northern Conferences and primary assemblies of the
Po have already spoken out on this subject, and all who

ave, approve in the strongest terms the doings of the General
Conference, save where those proceedings were not sufficiently
severe against the, South, to suit their views. The Church
papers of the North afford no better hope. By far the most
mild and conciliatory of them, has commenced an elaborate
and wholesale justification and defence of the doings of the
General Conference. The great central organ of the Church,
which has in the South a circulation of thousands, not only
fully justifies the General Conference, but has labored to make
the impression that its proceedings were extremely lenient, and
that Bishop Andrew might in justice have been much more
severely dealt with; while the paper at Boston is still more
ultra and violent against the South. Where then:is hope for
a compromise, short of unconditional submission? There have,
it is true, appeared a few individual propositions and one or
two from Church meetings, suggesting plans of compromise;
but none of these are at all asreasonable in themselves, or as
favorable or acceptable to the North, as those they so promptly
rejected.

“There then appears no just and honorable alternative Icft,
but a peaceable organization of two General Conferences.
This is called a division of the Church; but it is not so in the
offensive and repulsive sense in which it is frequently used.—
The same doctrines, ordinances, means of gracc, modes of
operating, and even the same disciplinary rules probably—
save wherein the North may depart from our present system
—will govern both, only like Abram and Lot, and from the
same motives, we propose, if compelled, to turn the one to the
right and the other to the left; that separated farther asunder
we may enjoy closer union. Already we have several Meth-
odist Churches, or divisions of the great Methodist family
existing in separated union, in divided harmony, which are by
no, means as nearly related to each other as the Northern and
Southern divisions of the Methodist Episcopal Church would be.
The British Methodist connection,. that of Canada,’ and our
own in, the United States, are entirely separate and indepen-
dent, holding, to be sure, the same doctrines, but operating
under different systems of Church polity, widely varying from
each other in many things, yet constituting one great and
perfectly harmonious brotherhood. :

«“ But we find many of our Northern brethren, and some of

11
122 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE:

the- Northern Conferences, protesting against a division on the
ground that there is no legal provision for such division. This
objection comes not with the very best grace from the men who
had neither legal nor moral scruples about degrading.a Bishop
without law and against law,—who claim for the General
Conference the legal power to change or destroy every thing
in Methodism not embraced in the restrictions. This measure
is not there prohibited, and therefore, agreeably to their own
doctrine, the General Conference has ‘full power’ to do this
very thing.

“But we have a still stronger precedent, and one as full, in
point as we could ask for our purpose. The Canadian Meth-
odists were for a great number of years a part of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. In 1828, they applied to the General
Conference to be set off into a separate Church organization,
and the General Conference granted their request; but not in
the indirect manner proposed in the present case. The resolu-

tion dissolving the union between the Church and the Canada

Conference is as follows:—

«+ Resolved, &c., That the compact existing between the
Canada Annual Conference and the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States, be, and hereby is, dissolved by
mutual consent.’

' «The second resolution advises arid requests our Bishops to
ordain a Bishop for the Canada connection. The third advises
or recommends to the Canada connection to adopt the form of
government of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
States, ‘with such modifications as their particular relations
may render necessary.’ The fourth expresses a desire for the
maintenance of friendly relations with the new organization.
The fifth leaves open the claim of the Canada brethren on the
Book Concern and Chartered Fund for future adjustment. But
it was afterwards closed by agreeing to pay them an-annuity
of $700. Here is the direct exercise of powers greater than
are called for or proposed to be exercised in the present case.
A portion of the Church is set off by a formal vote into a new
connection, and their dividend is given them without any
change in the sixth restriction, or any thing but a simple resolve
of the General Conference. They either then had full powers
to do this thing, or they assumed the exercise of powers not
belonging to them, which has not been charged. And if they
possessed the power then, why have they it not now? One
only plea is urged in favor of that action as giving a preference
over the present in point of legality. It is that in sending
preachers to Canada the Bishop usually got the supply by calling
tor volunteers, instead of appointing them in the ordinary way.
But could the exercise of this prudent lenity on the part of the

ui
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 123

Bishop, in filling a new and arduous field, have any bearing on
the constitutionality of dividing that field off into a separate
connection? But if it could, then it will apply to all parts of
our work whfch were once new and difficult; for it has been
the constant practice to supply new fields of labor by volun-
teers. New England was so supplied in early times, and so
was all the South below Virginia, or at most North Carolina;
the entire West and Southwest were so supplied, and this mode
of supply is yet going on in our still far West, Arkansas, Texas.
Oregon, &c. Nearly the whole, then, of the Southern portion
of the proposed division, comes within this rule, if it were
even possible to allow it any force.

“Tn view of all the facts and circumstances in the case, the
Kentucky Annual Conference have felt compelled to declare,
that devotedly as we are attached to the union, unless our
Northern brethren shall show a respect for our rights and cir-
~ cumstances and the interests of the Church in the South very
different from that shown at the late General Conference, in
self-defence, and to save the Church in the South from utter
extermination, we shall be obliged, though reluctantly, to place
ourselves under a General Conference jurisdiction, distinct from
that of the North, but strictly on the Discipline and within the
constitution iri all things.

“ And now, brethren, having presented this grave matter to
you in such manner as appeared to be just and proper, we
call upon you to bestow on the subject the serious and candid
attention its importance demands. But in that consideration,
be careful to avoid on the one hand, the influence of an anxious
desire for division, and on the other a vague and terrifying
dread of it. The onc tends to improper rashness and precipi-
taney, the other to a tame surrender of sacred rights, and
a degrading unconditional submission. This fearful crisis has
been brought upon us, not by ourselves, but by the unbridled
ultraism of our Northern brethren; and it is for us to do the
best we canin this emergency. Theirs is the onerous respon-
sibility, before heaven and earth, of bringing us into most
trying difficulties—ours the responsibility of conducting our-
selves worthy our Christian profession and our cause, under
those difficulties.

“To us it does appear, that the delegates from the Southern
and South-western Conferences could not have done less thap
they did, without sacrificing the best religious interests of the
South, and most of all, those of the slave, the professed object
of Northern sympathy. — os

“ After the majority of the General Conference, in the
opinion of the Southern delegates, had violated not only the
settled usage of the Church, but the unambiguous letter of the
124 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

law, in the case of Mr. Hatding—after they had refused to
Bishop Andrew the protection of all Church law, and assumed
and exercised the power of inflicting punishment without law,
—had the Southern delegates tamely submitted to all, what
must have been the result? In the first place, doubtless multi-
tudes of the Southern membership would have felt themselves
compelled to secede from the Church immediately.

“The next would inevitably have been, that Methodist
preachers would have been promptly excluded front all access
to the slave population. of the South, and this great open door of
usefulness would have been firmly closed. And beside, it would
have invited to further aggressions on the part of the North.

“ Now if our Northern brethren will make suitable reparation
for the past, and afford satisfactory security for the future, as
expressed in our fifth Conference resolution, then will we gladly
hail them as brethren beloved, with whom we will hold it a privi-
lege to live and die; but short of this, the union as it now is,
could only be a bond of discord.

“But whatever may be our action or the final result, let us
exhibit the gentleness and moderation of Christianity through-
out; and let us neither say nor do any thing in relation to the
subject, upon which we cannot devoutly implore the blessing
of God.

“We believe our Northern brethren seriously in error in this
matter. We do know assuredly, that the measures they seem
so solicitous to adopt in relation to the South, would effect the
ruin of the Church in the South, and blight forever the best
hopes of the slaves who look to us for help in the way of
salvation.

“Yet we accord to them honesty and sincerity—ask of them
the same liberality, or rath€r justice. We wish to live with
them under a common jurisdiction; butif they will not permit
this but on terms involving the ruin of the Church in the South,
then we ask to remain as brethren still, but under separate
jurisdictions.

“We invite them to join us, at least, in humbly asking the
blessing of God on the South and North, and his direction and
gracious guidance in the present trials, that all may result in
the promotion of his glory, and the great good of the Church.

“M. M. Henxtz,
‘ : “TN. Razston,
“B, H.M’Cown.”

The Missouri Conference adopted the following report and
resolutions from the Committee on division:—
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION.
“The committee to whom was referred the subject of a
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 125

division of the Church into two separate General Conference
jurisdictions, together with the causes and circumstances con-
nected with the same, have bestowed upon it, in the most
prayerful and religious manner, all the time and attention they
could command for the purpose, and beg leave to present the
following as their report:—

“That inasmuch as the Conference is presumed to'be well
informed on the merits of the very important subject upon
which the committee has been called to act, it was not deemed
necessary to delay this report by an extended and argumenta-
tive investigation of the matters committed to them, in their
various relations, principles, and bearings; they would, therefore,
present the result of their deliberations to the Conference by
offering for adoption the following resolutions: — j

“ Resolved, That we have looked for many years, with pain-
ful apprehension and disapproval upon the agitation of the
slavery and abolition subject in our General Conference, and
now behold with sorrow and regret, the disastrous results which
it has brought about.

* Resolved, That while we accord to the great majority of
our Northern brethren the utmost purity of intention, and while

‘ we would carefully refrain from all harsh denunciations, we
are compelled to pronounce the proceedings of the late General
Conference against Bishop Andrew, extra-judicial and op-
pressive.

“ Resolved, That we deeply regret the prospect of separation
growing out of these proceedings, and that we do most sincerely
hope and pray that some effectual means not inconsistent with
the interests and honor of all concerned, may be suggested
and devised, by which so great a calamity may be averted;
and to this end we recommend that our societies be frecly
consulted on this subject.

‘« Resolved, That we approve the holding of a convention of
delegates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in
the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on the lst day of May next,
agreeably to the recommendation of the delegates from the
Southern and South-western Conferences, in the late General
Conference; and that the ratio of representation proposed by
said delegates, to wit, one delegate for every eleven members
of the Conference, be, and the same is hereby adopted; and
that this Conference will elect delegates to the proposed con-
vention upon said basis. :

“ Resolved, That our delegates act under ‘the following in-
structions, to wit: to oppose the division of the Church, unless
such division, under all the circumstances of the case, be found to
be indispensable, (and consequently unavoidable;) and should
such necessity be found to exist, and the division be determined

Lit 34
126 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

on, then and in that event, that the Southern and South-western
Conferences shall not be regarded as a secession from the
Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they shall be recognised
in law, and to all intents and purposes, as a co-ordinate branch
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of
America, simply acting under a separate jurisdiction. And
further, that being well satisfied with the Discipline of the
Church as it is, this Conference instruct its delegates not to
support or favor any change in said Discipline by said con-
vention.

“ Resolved, That unless we can be assured that the rights of
our ministry and membership can be effectually secured accord-
ing to the Discipline, against future aggressions, we shall deem
the contemplated division as unavoidable.

“ Resolved, That should the proposed convention, represent-
ing the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the slaveholding States, appointed to assemble at the city of
Louisville, Kentucy, the 1st of May, 1845, proceed to a separate
organization, as contingently provided for in the foregoing
resolutions, then in that event, the Convention shall be regarded
as the regular General Conference, authorized and appointed
by the several Annual Conferences of the Southern division of
the Church, and as possessing all. the rights, powers, and
privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church in the United States of America, and subject to
the same restrictions, limitations, and restraints.

“ Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional char-
acter and action of the convention as a General Conference
proper, should a separate organization take place, the ratio
of representation as now found in the ‘second restrictive
rule, one for every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine
the constitutional delegates, taking and accrediting as such
the proper number from each Annual Conference, first elected
in order, and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as
members of the convention to deliberate, but not members of
the General Conference proper, should the convention proceed
to a separate organization in the South. Provided, neverthe-
less, that should any delegate or delegates who would not be
excluded from the General Conference proper, by the operation
of the above regulation, be absent, then any delegate or
delegates present, not admitted by said regulations as a mem-
ber or members of the constitutional General Conference, may
lawfully take the seat or seats of such absent delegates, upon
the principle of selection named above. :

“ Resolved, That we have read with deep regret the violent
proccedings of some of our Southern brethren, in their primary
meetings, against some of our Bishops and others; and that
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 127

we do most cordially invite to our pulpits and firesides all our
Bishops and Northern brethren, who, in the event of a division,
shall belong to the Northern Methodist Episcopal Church.

“ Resolved, That the preachers shall take up public collections
in all their circuits and stations, some time before the first day
of March next, for the purpose defraying the expenses of the
delegates to the above named convention, and pay over the
same to the delegates, or the respective presiding elders, so
that the delegates may receive the same before starting to the
convention. “Ww. Parren,

“ Anprew Monroe,
“J. Boyz,
“W.W. Repman,
*  “Joun GLANNVILLE, Committee.”
“KE. Perkins,
“TT, W. CHanpier,
“Jas. G.T. Dunzzavy, |
“Joun THatcuer,

The following resolutions were offered, and immediately
adopted by the Conference:—

“ Resolved, That we approve the course of our delegates in
their action at the late General Conference, in the case of
Bishop Andrew, and the part they took in the subsequent acts
of the Southern delegates, growing out of the proceedings of
the majority, and they are hereby entitled to our hearty thanks
for their manly course in a trying crisis.

“ Resolved, That we invite the Bishops of our Church, who
may feel free to do so, and they are hereby invited, to attend
the contemplated convention at Louisville, Ky.

“J. H. Livy,
“R. Bovp.”

The Holston Conference adopted the following report and

resolutions from the Committee on Separation:—
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The committee to whom was referred the subject of Church
separation and other matters connected therewith, would
respectfully submit the following report:—

“Tn common with our brethren all over our widely extended
Zion, our hearts are exceedingly pained at the prospect of
disunion, growing out of the action of the late General
Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew. Your committee
believe this action to be extra-judicial, and forming a highly
dangerous precedent. The aspect of affairs at the close
of the General Conference, was indeed gloomy; and while
we have sought for light from every possible source, we
cannot believe that our Church papers are the true expo-
128 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

nents of the views and feelings of the whole South, or of the
whole North. We would respect the opinions of our brethren
every where, but we feel that we shall not be doing justice to
ourselves, the Church, or the world, if we do not express inde-
pendently and in the fear of God, our own sentiments on this
important subject. We are not prepared to see the Church of
our love and choice, which has been so signally blessed of God,
and cherished by the tears, prayers, and untiring efforts of our
fathers, lacerated and torn asunder, without one more effort
to bind up and heal her bleeding wounds. Therefore,

“ Resolved, That we approve of the proposed convention to
be holden at Louisville, Ky., May 1st; 1845; and will elect
delegates to said convention, according to the ratio agreed upon
at the last. General Conference by the Southern delegates.

“ Resolved, That the Conferences in the non-slaveholding
States and Territories, be, and they are hereby respectfully
requested to elect one delegate from each Annual Conference,
(either in Conference ‘capacity or by the presiding elders,) to
meet with one delegate from each of the slaveholding Confer-
ences, in the city of Louisville, Ky., on the first day of May,
1845, to devise some plan of compromise. And, in the event
that the non-slaveholding Conferences, or any number of them,
which, with the slaveholding Conferences, shall make a respect-
able majority of all the Annual Conferences, shall so elect
delegates,—then, and in that case, the delegates which we will
elect from this Conference to the Louisville convention, shall
appoint one of their number on said committee of compromise.
And the Southern and South-western Conferences are respect-
fully requested to agree to and act upon this plan.

“ Resolved, That if nothing can be effected on the foregoing
plan, then the delegates from this Conference are instructed to
propose to the Louisville convention the following or some
similar plan, as the basis of connection between the two Gen-
eral Conferences—proposed in case of separate organization:
—The said General Conferences shall appoint an equal number
of delegates, (say ten,) who shall meet together in the interim
of the General Conferences, to whom shall be referred for
adjustment all matters of difference between the two General
Conferences, or those ‘Churches over which they exercise juris-
diction, their decisions or propositions for adjustment to be
referred for ultimate action to the General Conferences before
mentioned; and, when both General Conferences have confirmed
their decision, it shall be final and binding on both parties.

-“ Resolved, That if both the foregoing propositions should
fail, then the delegates from this Conference are instructed to
support the plan of separation proposed by the late General
Conference. And in so doing, we positively disavow secession,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 129

but declare ourselves, by the act of the General Conference, a
co-ordinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And
in the event of either the second or third proposition obtaining,
the delegates from this Conference are instructed not to favor
any—even the least—alteration of our excellent Book of Dis:
cipline, except in so far as may be necessary te form a separate
organization. ‘

“ Resolved, That our delegates to the late General Conference
merit the warmest expression of our thanks, for their prudent,
ye firm course in sustaining the interests of our beloved

ethodism in the South.

“Resolved, That we warmly commend the truly Christian
and impartial course of our Bishops at the late General Con-
ference, and we affectionately invite all our superintendents
to attend the cgnvention to be holden at Louisville, Ky.

“ All which is respectfully submitted.

“TK. Carierr,

- “T. Suniis,
“ A. H. Matus,
“ Epum. E. Wiey,
“ Davip Fiemme,
“C, Furron,
“R. M. Srevens,
“ Jas. Cummine,
“ O. F. Cunntncuam.”

The following report and resolutions, from the Committee on

Separation, were adopted by the Tennessee Conference.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The: committee to whom was referred the proposed division
of the Methodist Episcopal Church into.two separate and
distinct General Conference jurisdictions, and kindred subjects,
having had the same under mature consideration, beg leave to
submit the following:— :

“ Apprised as we are, that the actions of the late General
Conference, together with the entire merits of the proceedings
of that body, leading to the contemplated separation of the
Church, have been fully and fairly presented to our people, and

.that both the ministry and membership within our bounds have,
with great solicitude and prayerful anxiety, investigated the sub-
ject in its various relations, principles, and bearings, we deem it
entirely inexpedient at present to enter into detail or to prepare
an elaborate investigation of the very important matters com-
mitted to us; therefore your committee present the result of
their deliberations to the Conference, by the offering for your
consideration and adoption the following resolutions:—
“1, Resolved, That it is the candid and deliberate judgment
130 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

of this Conference, that the action of the late General Confer-
ence, by which Bishop Andrew was virtually deposed, as
well as their action in confirming the decision of the Baltimore
Conference in the case of the Rev. F. A. Harding, is not sus-
tained by the Discipline of our Church, and that we consider
such extra-judicial proceeding as constituting a highly danger-
ous precedent.

“2, That under the great affliction caused by these unfortu-
nate proceedings, we did most ardently hope and pray that the
calamitous consequences might have been averted. But since
the only plausible plan of reconciliation, the proposition unani-
mously recommended by our beloved superintendents, was put
down by the majority in the late General Conference, we
honestly confess we see at present no prospect to avoid a
separation. ° \

“3. That we approve the holding a convention of delegates
from all the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city
of Louisville, on the first day of May next, agreeably to the
recommendation of the Southern and South-western delegates
in the late General Conference; and that the ratio of repre-
sentation proposed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for
every eleven members of Conference—be, and the same is
hereby adopted; and this Conference will elect delegates to the
proposed convention upon said basis. .

“4. That should a division be found to be indispensable, the
delegates of this Conference are réquired to act under the
following instruction—to wit, that the Southern and South-
western Conferences shall not be regarded as a secession from
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they shall be recog-
nised in law, and to all intents and purposes, as a co-ordinate
branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States
of America, simply acting under a separate jurisdiction. And
furthermore, as we are well satisfied with the Discipline of our
Church as it is, this Conference instruct its delegates not to
support or favor any change in said Discipline by said conven-
‘tion; except in so far as may be necessary to conform .it in its
economical arrangements to the new organization.

“5. That unless we can be well assured that the rights of
_ our ministry and ‘membership can be effectually secured ac+

cording to Discipline against future aggression, and full repara-
tion be made for past injury, we shall deem the contemplated
division unavoidable.

“6, That should the proposed convention, representing the
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
slaveholding States, appointed to assemble in the city of Lou-
isville, the first of May next, proceed to a separate organization,
as contingently provided for in the foregoing resolutions, then

t
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 131

and in that event the convention shall be regarded as the regular
General Conference, authorized and appointed by the several
Annual Conferences of the Southern division of the Church in
the United States, and as possessing all the rights and privi-
_ leges of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States of America, and subject to the same
constitutional limitations and restrictions. .

“7, That in order to secure the constitutional character and
action of the Convention, as a General Conference proper,
should a separate organization take place, the ratio of repre-
sentation, as now found in the second restrictive rule, one for
every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the number of
constitutional delegates, taking and accrediting as such the
proper number from the Annual Conference first elected in
order; and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as
members of the Convention to deliberate, but not members of
the General Conference proper, should the convention proceed
to a separate organization in the South. Provided, neverthe-
less, that should any delegate or delegates who would not be
excluded from the General Conference proper, by the operation,
of the above regulation, be absent, then any delegate or dele-
gates present, not admitted by said regulation as member@r
members of the constitutional General Conference, may law-
fully take the seat or seats of such absent delegates, upon the
principle of selection named above. ‘
® “8, That we do most cordially approve the course of our,
delegates in the late Genergl Conference, in the premises, and
that we tender them our sincere thanks for their faithful and
independent discharge of duty in a trying crisis.

“9, That the Secretary of this Conference be directed to have
the foregoing preamble and resolutions published in the South- '
western Christian Advocate. \

“ All which is respectfully submitted.

, “FF. E. Pirrs,

“ Josuua Boucuer,
“FF. G. Frereuson,
“G. W. Dys,
«Pp. P. Nery,
“W. D. F. Sawer,
“Jno. W. Hanner,

« “A.F, Driski1u,

~ «RL. Anprews.”

The following resolutions were adopted by the Conference:—

“ Resolved, That this Conference invitesthe Bishops of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, to attend the convention at
Louisville, Ky. ; ; :

“ Resolved, That the preacher in charge of each circuit and /
132 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

station, shall lift a collection before the first day of April next,
to defray the expenses of our delegates to the convention at
Louisville, Kentucky. The funds so collected shall be handed
over to the nearest delegate or forwarded to the Editor of the
South-western Christian Advocate, and shall be equally dis-
tributed among the delegates in proportion to their expenses;
and should any surplus accrue, it shall-be returned to the Cen-
ference at.itsnext session, and shall be applied as the other Con-
ference funds, in making up the deficiency of our preachers, &c.

_On the resolution of the Holston Conference suggesting.a
plan of compromise, it was unanimously

“ Resolved, That sympathizing as we do with our brethren of
the Holston Conference in the feeling of deep regret for the ne-
cessity of aseparation of the Southern portion of our Church from
the Northern, and willing as we would be to preserve the union
of our beloved Church, upon principles safe and just to our-
selves and conservative of the Discipline; yet inasmuch as any
proposition for a compromise of existing difficulties, which
might be proposed with any probability of success, should come
in an authoritative manner from the Northern section of the
Church and -believing the plan proposed by the Holston Con-
ference, would, if generally adopted by the South, utterly fail
to meet the object contemplated, therefore we cannot agree to
the proposition.”

The following report and resolutions were submitted to the
Memphis Conference, by their Committee on Separation, and
was unanimously adopted:—

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The committee to whom was referred the subject of the
division of the Church into two separate General Conference
jurisdictions, and all matters connected therewith, after solemn-
ly and prayerfully deliberating upon the same, present the
following report. Inasmuch as the Conference is presumed to
be well informed on the merits of the subject, we deem it
unnecessary to consume time, by entering into an extended and
argumentative investigation of the various relations, principles,
and bearings of the same, but proceed at once to offer the
following resolutions for the action of the Conference.

“ Resolved, 1. That it is the deliberate judgment of this Con-
ference, that the action of the late General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, virtually deposing Bishop Andrew,
and also their action in affirming the decision of the Baltimore
Annual Conference in the case of the Rev. F. A. Harding, are
not sustained by the Discipline of our Church, and that we
consider these proceedings as constituting a highly dangerous

precedent.
'
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 133

“2, That we deeply regret the prospect of division growing
out of these proceedings, and do most sincerely and devoutly
pray to the great Head of the Church, that some effectual _
means, not inconsistent with the interests of the cause of Christ,
or the honor of all concerned, may be suggested and devised,
by which so great a calamity may be averted, and our. long
cherished union preserved and perpetuated.

“3. That we approve the holding a convention of delegates
from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of
Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May next, agreeably
to the recommendation of the Southern and South-western
delegates in the late General Conference; and that the ratio of
representation proposed by said delegates, to wit, one delegate
for every eleven members of Conference, be, and the same is
hereby adopted; and that this Conference will elect delegates
to the proposed convention on said basis.

“4, That should a division be found to be indispensable, the
delegates of this Conference are hereby required to act under
the following instructions, to wit: That the Southern and
South-western Conferences shall not be regarded as having by
such division seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church; but
they shall be recognised in law, and to all intents and purposes,
as a co-ordinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States of America, simply acting under a separate
jurisdiction. And further, that being well satisfied with the
Discipline of the Church as it now is, this Conference instructs
its delegates not to support or favor any change in said Discip-
line, by said convention, only so far as is necessary to perfect
a Southern organization.

“5, That unless we can be assured that the rights of our minis-
try and membership will be effectually secured, according to Dis-
cipline,against future aggressions,and full reparation be made for
pastinjury,we shall deem the contemplated division unavoidable.

“6. That should the proposed convention, representing the
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
slaveholding States, appointed to assemble at the city of Louis-
ville, on the first day of May, 1845, proceed to a separate
organization, as contingently provided for in the foregoing
resolutions; then, and in that event, the convention shall be
regarded as the regular General Conference, authorized and
appointed by the several Annual Conferences of the Southern
division of the Church, and as possessing all the rights, powers,
and privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and subject
to the same restrictions, limitations, and restraints.

“7, That in order to secure the constitutional character and
action of the convention, as a General Conference proper, should
a separate organization take place, the ratio of representation

12
134 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

as it now stands in the second restrictive rule, one for every
twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the constitutional
delegates, taking as such, the proper number from each Annual
Conference, first elected in order, and that the remaining
delegates be regarded as members of the convention to delib-
erate, but not members of the General Conference proper, should
the convention proceed to a separate organization in the South.
Provided, nevertheless, that should any delegate or delegates
who would not be excluded from the General Conference
proper, by the operation of the foregoing regulation, be absent,
then, any delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said
regulation asa member or members of the constitutional Gen-
eral Conference, may lawfully take the seat or seats of: such
absent delegates upon the principles of selection before named.

“8. That we have witnessed with sorrow and disapproba-
tion, alike ‘the violence manifested by some at the South, and
the ultraism displayed by others at the North, and that we regret
exceedingly that any Annual Conference should have deemed
it necessary to refuse to concur in the recommendation of the
late General Conference to alter the sixth restrictive article—
nevertheless, we shall entertain for our brethren of the North,
the feelings of Christian kindness and brotherly love.

' “9. That we heartily'‘approve the entire course pursued by
our delegates at the late General Conference.

“10. That we cordially invite such of our Bishops, as may
deem it proper, to be present at the contemplated convention
in Louisville.

“11. That it be made the duty of each preacher to take up
a public collection in every congregation under his charge, for
the purpose of defraying#the expenses of the delegates to the
convention, and that such collections be taken up previous to
the first Sabbath in April next, and immediately transmitted
to some one of the delegates. And that the delegates. be
required to report to the next Annual Conference the sums
received by them for this purpose, together with the amount
expended by them in attending said convention.

“12. That the Secretary of this Conference be instructed to
forward the foregoing to the South-western Christian Advocate
for publication, with a request that all other Church papers
copy. “ Moses Brock,

“ Josrrn Travis,
“Tomas Surru,
“M. J. Buackweut,
“J. T. Baskervitte,
“D. J. Avian,

“B. H. Hunparp,

“ Wiuiam Pearson,

“A.T. Scoruees.”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SUUTH. 135

The Mississippi Conference adopted the following preamble
and resolutions:—

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION.

“The committee to whom was referred the subject of the
contemplated division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have
endeavored to examine the subject carefully, and in a spirit of
reliance upon the teachings of the word of God for direction.

“Your committee can but deplore the existence of such
causes as compel the Church of our choice to meditate a
severance of that union which has so long existed, and which,
under God, has contributed so efficiently to the spread of
Scriptural holiness through these lands. But we are fully
convinced that justice to ourselves, as well as compassion for
the slaves, demand an unqualified disapproval of the action
of the late General Conference; first, in confirming the de-
cision of the Baltimore Conference, in the case of Rev. F. A.
. Harding; and secondly, in virtually suspending Bishop Andréw
from the episcopacy, not only without law or usage, but in
direct contravention of all law, and in defiance of a resolution
adopted by the General Conference of 1840, which provides, |
‘that under the provisional exception of the general rule of
the Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of
slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in the States or
Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation and
pot the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no

egal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the

various grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and cannot therefore be considered as
operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election and
ordination.’ ©

“With the abstract question of slavery we are not now
concerned, nor do we regard it as a subject on which the
Church has a right to legislate; neither are we disposed in this
report to state the full extent of our grievances, or to investi-
gate the reasons which impose upon us the necessity of
planning an amicable separation. Your committee deeply
regret the injury which may be inflicted upon our beloved Zion
by the intemperate and unjust denunciation of the whole North
by those who have occasion to complain of the illegal and
oppressive tourse pursued by the majority of the late General ©
Conference, and most earnestly recommend the exercise of
that charity which ‘suffereth long and is kind.’ As the result
of our prayerful examination of the subject in all its bearings,
we offer the following resolutions for your consideration and
adoption:—

“ Resolved, 1. That the decision of the late General Con-
ference in the cases of Rev. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew,
136 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

was unauthorized by the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and that a tame submission to them upon the part of
the Church in the slaveholding States, would prevent our access
to the slaves, and expose us to suspicions destructive to our
general usefulness.

“ Resolved, 2. That as no authorized plan of compromise
has been suggested by the North, and as all the propositions
made by the Southern delegates were rejected, we regard
a separation as inevitable, and approve the holding of a
convention, to meet in Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day
of May next, agreeably to the recommendation of the Southern
and South-western delegates to the late General Conference;
and that the ratio of representation proposed by said delegates,
to wit: one delegate for every eleven members of the Annual
Conferences, be and the same is hereby adopted, and that this
Conference will elect delegates to the proposed convention upon
said basis. Provided, however, that, if in the providence of
God, any plan of compromise, which in the judgment of our
delegates will redress our grievances and effectually secure to
us the full exercise and peaceable enjoyment of all our
Disciplinary rights, should be proposed in time to prevent
disunion, we will joyfully embrace it.

# Resolved, 8. That our delegates to said convention shall
be empowered to co-operate with the delegates to said con-
vention from the other Conferences, in adopting such measures
as they shall deem necessary for the complete organization of
a Southern Church, provided that it conform in all its essential
features to the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

“ Resolved, 4. That the course pursued by our immediate
representatives in the ldte General Conference, was and is
approved by us.

“ Resolved, 5. That the donciltaey spirit evinced by our
general superintendents entitles them to the unqualified ap-
probation of the whole Church, and that we do most cordially
invite them to attend the proposed convention.

“ All of which is respectfully submitted.

‘ “T). O. Suarrucr,
“Wn. H. Warkins,
“ Jno. G. Jonzs,
“B. Prexin, .
“L. Campse.t,
“ Jno. N. Hamit,
“A. T.M. Fry,
“Davin M. Wicerns,
“'W. G. Gounp.

Ke “Fighty-one voting, concurring in the change of the sixth
restrictive rule—none non- COncanraie:
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 137

" Resolved, That the first Friday in May next be set apart
as a day of special fasting and prayer for the superintendence
and direction of Divine Providence, with regard to our Chutch
difficulties, that the delegates may act so as to bring the
greatest glory to God and the most good to his Church.

“The committee to whom was referred the resolutions of
the Holston Conference, have had the same under consideration,
and although we hold ourselves in readiness to accept any

lan of pacification which obliterates the distinction between

orthern and Southern Methodists, we do not regard the reso-
lutions of the Holston Confcrence as sanctioned by the North,
or practicable in itself. Therefore,

“ Resolved, That this Conference do not concur.

“1D. O. Saarruck,

“Wm. Hamitton Warkins,
“Jno. G. Jones,

“B. Prexin,

“L,. CamMpBELL,

“J. N. Hamint,

“A. T. M. Fry,

“D. M. Wicerns,

“Wm. G. Goutp.
«Seventy-three non-concurring—none concurring.

.

The following report and resolutions from the Committee of
Seven, were adopted by the Arkansas Conference:—

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION. :

“The committee to whom was referred the several subjects
connected with the prospective division of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, have had the same uffider calm and prayerful
consideration, and beg leave to present the following as the
result of their honest deliberations.

“ Being well convinced that the members of this body have
not been inattentive to the proceedings of the late General
Conference, and that they have not failed to derive some
information from the numerous addresses and communications
that have appeared in our periodicals, your committee have
not been disposed to waste their time, nor insult your judgments
by detailing the many circumstances which, were you differ-
ently situated, would require amplification,—they, therefore,
present to your minds, for consideration and action, the sub-
joined resolutions:—

“1. Resolved, That it is the decided opinion of this Con-
ference, that the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church
does not sustain the action of the late General Conference in
the cases of Rev. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew.

“2. Resolved, That we approve the suggestions of the

12*
x

138 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Bishops, as well as the request of several Southern delegates,
which contemplated the postponing of the action of the Gen-
erAl Conference, until the wishes of the whole Church could be
consulted.

“3. Resolved, That, as we see no probability that repara-
tion will be made for past injuries, and no security given that
the rights and privileges of the ministry and membership in
the slaveholding Conferences will be equally respected, we
believe it is the imperative duty, if not the only alternative, of
the South, to form a separate organization. _Nevertheless,
should honorable and satisfactory propositions for pacification
be made by the North, we shall expect our delegates to favor
the perpetuation of the union. 5

“4, Resolved, That we approve the holding of a convention
of delegates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States,
in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May,
1845, agreeably to the recommendation of the delegates from:
the Southern and South-western Conferences, in the late Gen-
eral Conference. ‘

“5, Resolved, That should the proposed convention, repre-
senting the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding
States, appointed to assemble at Louisville, Kentucky, the
first day of May, 1845, proceed to a separate organization, as
contingently provided for in the foregoing resolutions, then, in
that event, the convention shall be regarded as the regular
General Conference, authorized and appointed by the several
Annual Conferences in the Southern division of the Church,
and as possessing all the rights, powers, and privileges of the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States of America, and subject to the same restrictions,
limitations, and restraints.

“6, Resolved, Thatin order to secure the constitutional char-
acter and action of the convention as a General Conference
proper, should a separate organization take place, the ratio of
representation, as now found in the second restrictive rule,
one for every twenty-one, shall prevail and determine the
constitutional delegates, taking and accrediting as such the
proper number from each Annual Conference, first elected in,
order; and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded as
members of the convention to deliberate, but not members of
the General Conference proper, should the convention proceed
to a separate organization in the South. Provided, neverthe-
less, that should any delegate or delegates who would not be
excluded from the General Conference proper, by the operation
of the above regulation, be absent, then any delegate or
delegates present, not admitted by said regulation as a member

_ or members of the constitutional General Conference, may
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 189

lawfully take the seats of such absent delegates, upon the
principle of selection named above.

“7. Resolved, That, as we are well satisfied with the Discipline
of the Methodist Episcopal Church as it is, we hereby instruct
our delegates to said convention not to favor any change
therein.

“8, Resolved, That, though we feel ourselves aggrieved, and
have been wounded, without cause, in the house of our friends,
we have no disposition to impute wrong motives to the majority
in the late General Conference, and no inclination to endorse
those vindictive proceedings had in some portions of the South,
believing it to be the duty of Christians, under all circumstances,
to exercise that charity which beareth all things.

“9, Resolved, That the-preachers take up collections on their
several circuits and stations, at an early period, and hand the
money collected to their presiding elders, that the delegates
may receive the whole amount collected before they shall be
required to start for Louisville.

“10. Resolved, That we tender our warmest thanks to our
representatives in the late General Conference, for the stand
which they took, with others, in defence of our Disciplinary
rights. ‘

“11. Resolved, That the Bishops generally be, and they hereby
are requested, if it be congenial with their feelings, to attend
the convention at Louisville.

“12, Resolved, That we recommend to our people the observ-
ance of the first of May next as a day of humiliation and
prayer, that the divine presence may attend the deliberations
of the convention. * “ Joun Harpe,

» “Founraw Brown,
“J. B. Annis,
“ Jacos Custer,
“ ADEXANDER AVERY,
. «J. F. Trustow.”

The Virginia Conference adopted the following preamble
and resolutions, as reported by the committee on separation:—
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The committee, to whom was referred the resolutions of
the late General Conference, recommending to all the Annual
Conferences at their {jrst approaching sessions, to authorize a
change of the sixth Restrictive Article, so that the first clause
shall read, ‘They shall not appropriate the produce of the
Book Concern nor of the Chartered Fund to any purpose,
other than the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and
worn-out Preachers, their wives, widows and children, and to
such other purposes as may be determined gn by the votes of
140 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION. OF. THE

two thirds of the members of the General Conference,’—and
to whom was also referred the Address of the Southern
delegates in the late General Conference, recommending a
Southern Convention, to be held in. Louisville, Kentucky, on
the first day of May, 1845; together with the proceedings of
various primary and quarterly conference meetings within the
bounds of the Virginia Conference on the subject of a separation
from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg leave to report,—

“That having maturely considered these subjects, they do
not deem it necessary to present an argument upon the
various topics submitted to them; but that the duty assigned
them will probably be more satisfactorily accomplished in the
following series of resolutions, viz:—

' “ Resolved, 1. That we concur in the recommendation of
the late General Conference to change the sixth restrictive
article of the Discipline of our Church. :

“ Resolved, 2. That, from the ample sources of information
before your committee, in numerous primary meetings, which
have been held in various charges within our pastoral limits,
and the proceedings of quarterly meeting conferences, which
we have the most sufficient reason to regard as a fair and full
exponent of the mind and will of the membership upon the
subject of the action of the recent General Conference, and
the propriety of division,—we are of opinion, that it is the
mind of the laity of the Church, with no exception sufficient
to be regarded as the basis of action, that, whilst they seriously
deprecate division, considered relatively, and most earnestly
wish that some ground of permanent union could have been
found, they see no alternative, and therefore approve of a
peaceable separation in the present circumstances of our
condition; and in this opinion and this determination your com-
mittee unanimously concur.

“ Resolved, 3. That we concur in the recommendation of the
Southern delegates in the late General Conference, that there
be a Southern Convention, to be held in Louisville, Kentucky,
on the lst day of May, 1845; and in the objects of this Convention,
as is contemplated in the address of the Southern delegates.

“ Resolved, 4. That while we do not propose to dissolve our

connection with thé Methodist Episcopal Church, but only | . .

with the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
we are, therefore, entitled to our full portion of all the rights
and privileges appertaining to the property of the Church.
Nevertheless, our delegates to the convention to be held in
Louisville, Kentucky, in May, 1845, are hereby instructed not
to allow the question of property to enter into the calculation
whether or not we shall exist as a separate. organization.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 141

“ Resolved, 5. That the action of the late General Conference
in the case of Bishop Andrew, was in violation of the pro-
visional rule of the Discipline on the subject of slavery, and
in derogation of the dignity and authority of the Episcopal
Office: It was, therefore, equally opposed to the rights of the
Southern portion of the Church, and of those of the incum-
bents of the Episcopal Office. But more than this; it was an
effort to accomplish, by legislative action, what it was only
competent for them to do, if at all, by regular judicial process;
the very attempt was an acknowledgment that there was no
rule of Discipline, under which he could either be deposed or
censured—and that the General Conference, being unrestrained
by the authority of law, was supreme. Thus, both the Episco-
pal Office and its incumbents were taken from under the pro-
tection of the constitutional restriction, and the provisional
rule of Discipline, by which it was made a co-ordinate branch
of the government, and placed at the caprice of a majority,
which claims that its mere will is the law of the Church.

“Bishop Andrew, therefore, in refusing to resign his office,
or otherwise yield to this unwarranted assumption of authority
on the part of the General Conference, has taken a noble
stand upon: the platform of constitutional law, in defence of
the Episcopal Office and the rights of the South, which entitles
him to the cordial approbation and support of every friend of
the Church; and we hereby tender him a unanimous ex-
‘pression of our admiration of his firmness in resisting the
‘misrule of a popular majority.

“ Resolved, 6. That we cordially approve the course of the
Southern and South-western delegates of the late General
Conference, in resisting with so much constancy and firmness
the encroachments of the majority upon the rights of the
South; and for so faithfully warning them against the tendency
of those measures, which we fear do inevitably draw after
them the dissolution of our ecclesiastical union.

“ Joun Harry,
“Tuomas CrowbeEr, jr.,
“Wn. A. Sura,

« Apram Penn,

“Gro. W. Notiey,

“ Antnony Drsrent,
“H. B. Cowzzs,

“DP. 8S. Doaeerr,
“Jos. H. Davis.

* The recommendation to change the sixth Restrictive Arti-
ale was concurred in—eighty-one in favor, and none against
it, and the whole Report of the committee was unanimousl
adopted by the Conference.
142 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The North Carolina Conference adopted the following report
and resolutions from the Committee on Division:—
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION.

“The committee to whom the resolution of the late General
€onference, respecting the alteration of the sixth restrictive
rule, the report of the select Committee of Nine, on the
declaration of the Southern delegates, and the reports of
numerous voluntary meetings, both of ministers and people,
within the bounds of North Carolina Conference, were referred,
beg leave to report:—

__ “Your committee deeply regret the division of the Methodist

Episcopal Church, which the course of the majority in the late
General Conference renders not only necessary but inevitable.
The unity of the Church, so long the boast and praise of Meth-
odism, was a feature greatly admired, and more than esteemed,
by Southern Methodists. For its promotion and preservation
they were willing to surrender any thing but principle—vital

rinciple. This they could not do!—this they dare not do!—

he course of the late General Conference demanded a sub-
mission on the part of the ministers in the slaveholding Con-
ferences, which the Discipline did notrequire and the institutions
of the South absolutely forbade. To have yielded, therefore,
would have opened a*breach in Methodism wholly subversive |
of the Church and greatly mischievous to the civil community
—to have yielded would have beenruin. This, therefore, they
refused to do; absolutely refused! With the Discipline in their
hands, sustained and upheld by it, they protested against the
proceedings of the majority, with an unfaltering and manly
voice, declaring them to be not only unauthorized but uncon-
stitutional. The protestation, however, just and legal as it was,
authorized and borne out by the Discipline, was altogether
unavailing. Nothing was left for the South to do, but to pass
from under the jurisdiction of so wayward a power, to the
regulations and government of our old, wholesome, and Scrip-
tural Discipline. This, we sorrow when we say it, has opened
a great gulf—we fear an impassable gulf—between the North
and the South. This consolation, however, if no other, they
have—the good Book of Discipline, containing the distinctive
features of the Methodist Episcopal Church, shall still lie on
the South side. Compelled by circumstances which could
neither be alleviated nor controlled—which neither the entrear
ties of kindness nor the force of truth could successfully resist,
we hesitate not to decide or being forever separate from those
whom we not only esteem but love. Better far that we should
suffer the loss of union, than that thousands, yea millions of
souls should perish.

“From the reports of quarterly meeting conferences and
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 143

numerous voluntary meetings within the bounds of ‘the North
Carolina Conference, both of ministers and people, we feel
assured that it is the mind of our people and preachers fully
to sustain the action of the Southern and South-western dele-
gates, as set forth in the Declaration and Protest: and therefore?

“1. Resolved, That the time has come for the ministers of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, to
refuse to act in union with the North.

“2. Resolved, That we concur in the proposed alteration of
the sixth Restrictive Rule of the Discipline.

3. Resolved, That we concur in the recommendation to
hold a Convention in Louisville, Kentucky, in May, 1845.

“4, Resolved, That this Conference elect delegates to said Con-
vention according to thesbasis of representation recommended.

“5, Resolved, That the action of the late General Conference,
in the case of Bishop Andrew, was a violation of the rule of Dis-
cipline on the subject of slavery, and derogatory to the dignity of
the Episcopal Office, by throwing it from under the protection of
law, and exposing it to the reproach and obloquy of misrule
and lawless power. The Bishop, therefore, acted justly and
honorably in resisting such action and declining obedience to
the resolution of said Conference; and for thus guarding and
respecting the rights of the South, both of ministers and people,
he is entitled to our highest regards.

“‘ All which is respectfully submitted.

“HH. G. Letes,

“S. 8S. Bryant,

“ Jas. JAMESON,

«“P. Dovs,

“ Benner T. Buaxe,
“ James Rup,

“D. B. Nicuorson,
“R,. J. Carson,
“Wm. Carrer.

“The above report was unanimously adopted by the Con-
ference. On the question of concurrence in altering the sixth
Restrictive Rule, the vote was ayes 58—nays none.

“S.S. Bryant,
* Sec’y. of NN. C. An. Conf.”

The following preamble and resolutions were adopted by
the South Carolina Conference, relative to the subject of
separation:—

THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The committee to whom was referred the general subject
of the difficulties growing out of the action of the late General
Conference on the cases of Bishop Andrew and brother Hard-
144 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ing; and, in particular, the report of the select committee on
the Declaration of the Southern and South-western delegates
of the General Conference, as adopted by the Conference; and
the proceedings of numerous quarterly conferences, and other
Wmeetings, in all parts of our Annual Conference district; re-
spectfully offer the following Reporti—

“Tt appears to your committee, on the evidence of numerous
documents, and the testimony of the preachers, in open Con-
ference, that in all the circuits and stations of this Conference
district, the people have expressed their minds with respect to
the action of the General Conference, and the measures proper
to be adopted in consequence of that action. Resolutions to
that effect have been adopted by the quarterly conferences of all
the circuits and stations, without any exception; and in many,
perhaps in most of them, by other meetings also, which have
been called expressly for the purpose; and in some of them,
by meetings held at every preaching-place where there was a
society. And on all these occasions, there has been but one
voice uttered—one opinion expressed—from the sea-board to
the mountains, as to the unconstitutionality and injurious
character of the action in the cases above named; the ne-
cessity which that action imposes for a separation of the
Southern from the Northern Conferences, and the expediency
and propriety of holding a convention at Louisville, Ken-
tucky, and of your sending delegates to it, agreeably to the
proposition of the Southern and South-western delegates of
the late General Conference. .

“ Your committee, also, have made diligent inquiry both out
of Conference and by calling openly in Conference for in-
formation from the preachers, as to the number, if any, of
local preachers, or other official members, or members of some
standing among us, who should have expressed, in the meet-
ings or in private, a different opinion from that which the
meetings have proclaimed. And the result of this inquiry has
been, that, in the whole field of our Conference district, one
individual only has been heard to express himself doubtfully,
as to the expediency of aseparate jurisdiction for the Southern
and South-western Conferences; not even one as to the char-
acter of the General Conference action. Nor does it appear
that this unanimity of the people has been brought about by
popular harangues, or any schismatic efforts of any of the
preachers, or other influential persons; but that it has been
as spontaneous as universal, and from the time that the final
action of the General Conference became known, at every
place.. Your committee state’ this fact thus formally, that it
may correct certain libelous imputations which have been cast
on some of our senior.ministers, in the Christian Advocate and
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 145

Journal; as well as for the evidence which it furnishes of the
necessity of the measures which are in progress for the relief
of the Church in the South and South-west.

“Your committee also consider it due to state, that® it does
not appear that the action of the General Conference in the
cases of the Bishop and of brother Harding, proceeded of ill-
will, as of purpose to oppress: us; nor of any intended disre-:
gard of the authority of the Scriptures or of the Discipline, as
if to effect the designs of a politico-religious faction, without
warrant of. the Scriptures, and against the Discipline and the
peace of the Church. But they consider that action as having
been produced out of causes which had their origin in the
fanatical abolitionism of Garrison and others;, and which,
being suffered to enter and agitate the Church, first in New
England and afterwards generally at the North, worked up
such a revival of the anti-slavery spirit as had grown too
strong for the restraints of either Scripture or Discipline, and
too general through the Eastern, Northern, and North-western
Conferences to be resisted any longer by the easy, good-na-
tured prudence of the brethren representing those Conferences
in the late General Conference. Pressed beyond their strength,
whether little or much, they had to give way; and reduced,
(by the force of principles which, whether by their own fault
or not, had obtained a controlling power,) to the alternative
of breaking up the Churches of their own Conference districts,
or adopting measures which they might hardly persuade
themselves could be endured by the South and South-west,
they determined on the latter.. The best of men may have
their judgments perverted; and it is not wonderful that under
such stress of circumstances, the majority should have adopted
anew construction of both Scripture and Discipline, and per-
suaded themselves that in pacifying the abolitionists, they
were not unjust to their Southern brethren. Such, however,
is unquestionably the character of the measures they adopted;
and which the Southern Churches cannot possibly submit to,
unless the majority who enacted them could also have brought
us to a conviction that we ought to be bound by their judg-
ment, against our consciences and calling of God, and the
warrant of Scripture, and the provisions of the Discipline.
But while we believe that our paramount duty in our calling
of God, positively forbids our yielding the Gospel in the
Southern States, to the pacification of abolitionism in the
Northern, and the conviction is strong and clear in our own
minds that we have both the warrant of Scripture and the
plain provisions of the Discipline to sustain us, we see no room
to entertain any proposition for compromise, under the late
action in the cases of Bishop Andrew and brother Harding,

13
146 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

and the principles avowed for the maintenance of that action,
short of what has been shadowed forth in the Report:of the
select committee which we have had under consideration, and
the medsures recommended by the Southern and South-western
delegates at their meeting after the General Conference ‘had
closed its session. ma

“Your committee do, therefore, recommend the adoption of
the following resolutions:— |

“1. Resolved, That it is necessary for the Annual Confer-
ences in the slaveholding States and Territories, and in Texas,
to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, agreeably to
the provisions of the Report of the Select Committee of Nine
of the late General Conference, adopted on the 8th day of
' June last. > ot

“2. Resolved, That we consider and esteem the adoption of
the Report of the aforesaid committee of Nine, by the General
Conference, (and the more for the unanimity with which it was
adopted) as involving the most solemn pledge which could
have been given by the majority to the minority and the
Churches represented by them, for the full and faithful execu-
tion of all the particulars specified and intended in that
Report.

“3. Resolved, That we approve of the recommendation of
the Southern delegates, to hold a convention in Louisville;
on the ist day of May next, and will elect delegates to the
same on the ratio recommended in the address of the delegates
to their constituents. e

“4, Resolved, That we earnestly request the Bishops, one
and all, to attend the said convention.

“5. Resolved, That while we do not consider the proposed
-convention competent to make any change or changes in the
rules of discipline, they may nevertheless indicate what
changes, if any, are deemed necessary under a separate ju-
risdiction of the Southern and South-western Conferences.
And that it ts necessary for the convention to resolve on, and
provide for, a separate organization of these Conferences
under a General Conference to be constituted and empowered
in all respects for the government of these Conferences, as the
General Conference hitherto has been with respect to ail the
Annual Conferences—according to the provisions and inten-
tion of the late General Conference. ;

“6. Resolved, That as, in common with all our brethren of
this Conference district, we have deeply sympathized. with
Bishop Andrew in his afilictions, and believe him to have been
blameless in the matter for which he has suffered, so, with
them, we affectionately assure him of our approbation of .his
course, and receive him as not the less worthy, or less to be

Vvvvyn
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. , 147
honored in his Episeopal character, for the action which has
been had in his case.

_ “1. Resolved, That we recognize ,in the wisdom and _-pru-
dence, the firmness and discretion, exhibited in the course of
Bishop Soule, during the General ‘Conference—as well as in
former instances wherein he has proved his devotion to the
great principles of constitutional right.in our Church,—noth-
ing more than was to be expected from the bosom friend of
Asbury and McKendree.

“8. Resolved, That in common with: the whole body of our
people, we approve of the conduct of our delegates, both
during the General Conference, and subsequently.

“9, Resolved, That we concur in the recommendation of the
late General Conference for the change of the Sixth Article
of the Restrictive Rules:in the book of Discipline, so as to
allow an equitable pro-rata division of the Book Concern.

“W. Capers, ,

! “OW. Situ,
“FH. Bass,
“N. Ta.ey,
“H. A. C. Warxer, + Committee.”
“C. Berrs, é
“S., W. Carers,
“S$. Dunwoopy,
“R. J. Boyn. J fe

The Indian Mission Conference adopted the following reso-
lutions relative to division:—

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The committee to whom was referred the action of the
late General Conference relating to an amicable division of
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, beg
leave to report the soTOwane peel uuons for adoption by the
Conference:

“1, Resolved, That we concur in the proposed alteration
of the sixth Restrictive Article of the Discipline.
“2, Resolved, That we approve the course pursued by the

minority of the late General Conference.

“3. Resolved, That we elect delegates to represent the
Indian Mission Conference in the contemplated convention to
be held in Louisville, Kentucky, in May next.

“'4, Resolved, That this Conference do deeply deplore the ne-
cessity for division of any kind in the Methodist. Episcopal
Church; and that we will ‘not cease to send up our prayers to

Almighty God for his gracious interposition, and that he may
guide the affairs of the Church toa noe issue.

Bs “J.C. Berryman, Cl’n
148 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

. «The above report having been read, was taken up section
by section, and disposed of as follows: The first résolution was
adopted;ayes 14; nays 1. Thesecond resolution was adopted,
ayes 11; nays 3; declined voting, 4. The third resolution was
adopted, ayes 17. The fourth resolution was adopted, ayes
17. The preamble and resolutions were then adopted by the
Conference as a whole. .

“ The Conference then proceeded, in accordance with the
third resolution, to elect delegates to attend the proposed con-
vention in Louisville, in May next. On counting the votes, it
appeared that the whole number of votes given was twenty-
one, of which number William H. Goode had received twenty,
Edward T. Peery eighteen, scattering four. Whereupon, W.
H. Goode and E, T. Peery having received a majority of all
the votes given, were declared duly elected. D. B. Cumming
was then elected reserve delegate. ' 2 Ms

“ The following resolutions were on the next day unaimously
adopted at the request of the delegates elect.

«Resolved, That in view of the condition of the Church at
the present trying crisis, the members of this Conference will,
when practicable, as near as may be, at the hour of twilight,
in the evening of each day, until the close of the approaching
convention at Louisville} meet each other at a throne of grace,
and devoutly implore the blessing of God’ upon our assembled
delegates in the discharge of their important duties.

“ Resolved, That the Friday preceding the opening of said
convention, be set apart as a day of fasting and supplication
to Almighty God for the continued unity, peace, and prosperity
of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and that our members
throughout this Conference be requested to join us in the de-
votions of that day. '« Wn. H. Goons,

_¢#. T. Perey.”

The following preamble and resolutions were unanimously

adopted by the Georgia Conference:— ~ _ :
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION.

“The committee appointed to take into consideration the
difficulties of the Church as growing out of the action of the
General Conference in the case of Bishop:Andrew, and to
submit some recommendations to the Annual Conference for
their adoption, beg leave to report:—

“The action of the majority in the last General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the cases of Bishop
Andrew and the Rev. Mr. Harding, has rendered it indispensable
that the Conferences, within whose limits slavery exists, should
cease to be under the jurisdiction of that body. They must
either abandon the people collected under their ministry, and
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 149

committed to their pastoral care, and the vast and widening
field of missionary labor among the slaves—a field to which
their attention is imperatively called by their sympathies as
Christians, their sense of ministerial obligation as preachers
of the gospel, and their interests and duties as citizens—or
they must live under the control of an ecclesiastical body,
separate and distinct from, and independent of the Conferences
lying within the States and Territories where slavery is not
allowed by law. In view of the relations before stated, that
distinct organization is required by a necessity strict and abso-
lute, and upon that issue we place it, before the Church and
the world. The exigence which brings it upon us, arose not
out of our acts, or-designs; no collateral considerations of ex-
pedience abated our zeal in withstanding it; no collateral
issues upon points involved, affected our determination to
maintain the unity of the Church under one organization as
heretofore existing; no pride of opinion, speculative differ-
ences, nor personal motives have conducted us to this conclu-
sion. We did not seek to effect any changes in the doctrine
or Discipline of our ‘Church; we did not ask any boon at
the hands of the General Conference, nor any exemption
from the operation of the laws which were common to the
whole connection; and whatever consequences affecting the
Church, or the civil community, may result from our move-
ment, we confidently look for acquittal to the judgment of
posterity, and the decision of the sober and unprejudiced
among our cotemporaries. The General Conference violated
the law of the Church, first, by confirming the decision of the
Baltimore Conference, suspending the Rev. Mr. Harding from
his connection with that Conference as a traveling preacher
therein, because he would not give freedom to slaves, which
by the laws of the land he could not manumit; and secondly,
by passing a resolution intended to inhibit Bishop Andrew
from the exercise of his Episcopal functions for the same rea-
sons; in both cases contrary to the express provisions of the
Discipline, which allow preachers to hold slaves wherever
they are not permitted by the laws of the land to enjoy free-
dom when manumitted, and in both cases striking an effective
blow at the fundamental principle of the economy of Meth-
odism, as it destroys that general itinerancy of the preachers
which is its most distinguished peculiarity; for- under their
decision, preachers holding slaves in Conferences, where by the
law of the Discipline they are allowed so to do, may not be
transferred to Conferences, whithin whose limits slavery does
not exist. By the same decision, both preachers and lay
members holding slaves, are thrown into an odious and dis-
honored caste, the first deprived of office therefor, and the re-

13*
we,

y

150 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ligious character of both impeached, and thrown under suspi-
cion thereby; to which must be added, as an evil not lightly |
to be regarded, nor slightly overlooked, that in connection
with the fanatical movements of abolitionists in the North,
East, and West, it is well fitted to excite slaves to disaffection
and rebellion, making it imperative upon governments and
citizens to prohibit all communication between slaves and:
preachers, who either teach such doctrine, or impliedly admit
it to be true by submitting to such dishonor and deprivation.
Secondly. That in the case of Bishop Andrew the General
Conference have violated the Discipline of the Church and
invaded personal rights, which are secured by the laws of
every enlightened nation, if not by the usages of every savage
people on earth. They tried, and sentenced Bishop Andrew
without charges preferred, or a cognizal offence stated. If it
is even admitted that they intended to charge him with ‘im-
proper conduct,’ as a phrase used in the Discipline to embrace
every class of offences for which a Bishop is amenable to the
General Conference, and on conviction liable to be expelled,
they did not formally prefer that charge; if they intended to
specify his ‘connection with slavery,’ as the substantive offence
under that charge, a ‘connection with slavery’ is not a cogni-
zable offence, under any law of our Church, written or un-
written, statutory or prescriptive, and the only ‘connection
with slavery’ attempted to be established in his case, is ex-
pressly permitted by the ‘Discipline in section 10th, part 2nd,
on slavery. If they claimed the right to declare in their le-
gislative capacity, that ‘such a connection with slavery’ was
an offence in a Bishop, they could only extend it to him retro-
actively by'expost facto enactment, and even then it was never pro-
mulgated until the very moment in which they pronounced his
sentence by a majority yote. But we cannot admit that the
framers of our Discipline ever intended to subject a Bishop to
the monstrous injustice of being liable to be expelled by the
General Conference, exercising original jurisdiction, for an
impropricty short of immorality, or official delinquency, whilst
they so cautiously secured his official and personal rights in
all cases where that body has appellate cognizance of charges
for positive immoralities; and we are confident that a fair
and rational construction of the 4th and 5th questions and
their answers in the 4th section of the 1st chapter of the
Discipline, will make ‘improper conduct, in the answer to the
4th question, and ‘immorality, in the 5th, descriptive of the
same class of offences in the:mind of the law-maker, who.
could never have intended to subject that venerable officer to
expulsion, for offences so light, that they could not be con-
sidered either immoralities or official delinquencies, and so
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 151

entirely dependent for their very existence upon the caprice
or varying notions of every General Conference, that they
could not either be classified or designated.

“The foregoing views we consider the embodyment of
public opinion throughout our Conference. The sentiments
of our people in primary meetings, in quarterly conferences,
as expressed in the most solemn forms, sustain the course of
our delegation in the General Conference, and approve and
even demand an organization which shall transfer: the slave-
holding Conferences from the jurisdiction of the North. The
unanimity of the people we verily believe to be withoutta
parallel in the history of Church action, and therefore feel our-
selves perfectly justified in recommending to your body the
adoption of the following resolutions, viz:—

“1, Resglved, That We will elect delegates to the Conven-
tion to be held in Louisville, in Kentucky, on the Ist of May
next, upon the basis of representation proposed and acted on
by the other Conferences; viz, one delegate for every eleven
members of our Conference.

“2. Resolved, That our delegates be instructed to co-operate
with the delegates from the other Southern and South-west-
ern Conferences, who shall be represented in the Convention,
in effecting the organization of a General Conference, which
shall embrace those Annual Conferences, and in making all
necessary arrangements for its going into operation, as soon
as the acts of the said Convention shall have been reported
by the several delegations to their constituents, and accepted
by them, according to such arrangements as may be made by
the Convention for carrying the same into effect.

“3. Resolved, That our delegates be instructed to use all
prudent pregautions to secure that portion of the Book Concern
and Chartered Fund, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to
which the Annual Conferences represented in the convention,
shall be unitedly entitled, and all the property to which the seve-
ral Annual Conferences are entitled, to them severally, and that
to this end, they be requested to obtain the written opinions of
one or more eminent Lawyers; but that in the event they must
either abandon the property, or remain under the jurisdiction
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
constituted as it now is, they be left to the exercise of a sound
discretion in the premises.

“4, Resolved, That our delegates make a report to this body
at its next session, of all their acts and doings in the aforesaid
Convention, and this body shall not be bound by any arrange-
ments theréin made, until after it shall have accepted and
approved them in Conference assembled.

“5. Resolved, That our delegates be, and they are hereby
é
152 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

instructed not to agree to any alterations in the Discipline of»
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that the Discipline adopted
under the new organization, shall be that known and recog-
nized as the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States, with such modifications only as are neces-
sary formally to adapt it to the new organization.

“6, Resolved, That we consider ourselves as an integral
part of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States,
and that we have done no act, nor do we authorize any act
to be done in our name, by which our title to be so considered
shall be forfeited, unless in the event contemplated in the last
clause of the third Resolution it becomes necessary so to do.

“7, Resolved, That we highly appreciate the devotion of our
venerable senior Bishop to the constitution and discipline of
the Church, and his uncompromising firmness in maintaining
both the one and the other, and hereby assure him of our in-
creased confidence and affection.

“8. Resolved, That our beloved Bishop Andrew has en-
deared himself to the preachers and people of the Southern
Church, by resisting the constitutional dictation of the majority
of the late General Conference, and that we cordially approve
his whole action in the case and welcome him to the unre-
stricted exercise of his episcopal functions among us.

“9. Resolved, That the course of our delegates in the trying
circumstances by which they were surrounded during the last
session of the General Conference, meets our entire approbation.

“10. Resolved, That we concur in the alteration of the sixth
Restrictive Rule, as recommended by the Resolution of the
General Conference.

“11. Resolved, That we do not concur with the’ Holston
Conference in the resolution proposed by them, regarding it
as tending only to embarrass the action of the convention,
without the slightest promise of good to either division of the

’ Church. “LL. Preece,

“ Tuomas Samrorp,.
“Jenativus A. Few,
“ Samue. ANTHONY,
“Isaac Borne,
“Gro. F. Prerce,' -
“ Joan W. Taey,
“W. D. Marruews,
“J.B. Payne,
“Jostan Lewis.

“It was further resolved, that the Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church be requested to attend the convention of
Southern delegates to be held at Louisville in May next.”

\
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHORCH, SOUTH: 153

Phe following Report of the Committte of Nine was unani-
mously adopted by the Florida Coriference:—

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION. t

“The committee 'to whom was referred the subject of the
action of the late General Conference in the cases of Bishop
Andrew and F. A. Harding; also the report of the Committee
of Nine in the late General Conference on the subject of a
fe separation of the Church; also the resolution of the

olston Conference on the same subject, submit the following
resolutions, to ‘wit:—

“1. Resolved, That we disapprove of the course of the late Gen+
eral Conference in the cases of Bishop Andrew and F.A.Harding.

“2. That we heartily approve the proposed plan of sepa-
ration as adopted by the General Conference, under which the
Southern and South-western Conferences are authorized to
uhite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion.

“3. That we are satisfied that the peace and success of the
Church in the South demand a separate and distinct organi-
zation.

“4. That we commend and admire the firm and manly
course pursued by Bishop Andrew under the trials he has had
to encounter, and that we still regard him’as possessing all
his Episcopal functions.

“5, That the course pursued by our venerable senior super-
intendent, Bishop Soule, in defending the Discipline of our
Church, has served but to endear him to us more and more,
and we heartily approve his course in inviting Bishop Andrew
to assist him in his Episcopal visitations. 4

“6. That we tender our warmest thanks to all those breth-
ren who voted in the minority in Bishop Andrew’s case.

“7, That we approve of the proposed convention to be
held in Louisville the first of May next, and will proceed to
elect delegates to said convention.

“8. That we do not concur in the resolutions of the Holston
‘Conference, proposing the election of Delegates for forming a

lan of compromise.

“9, That:we do concur in the recommendation of the late Gen-
eral Conference for the change of the sixth article in the restric-
tive rules in the Book of Discipline, allowing an equitable pro
rata division of the Book Concern. «Pp, P. Surra,

«“T., C. Bennine,

“R. H. Luckey,

«J. W. Yarskoven, ’
“R. H. Howrany,
“W. W. Grirrin,.
“A. PEELER, 3
«A, Martin, “thi 4
“S. P. Ricnarpson.”
154 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The Texas Conference adopted the following report and

resolutions, presented by the Committee on Separation:—
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEPARATION.

“The committee to whom were referred certain acts of the
late General Conference, causing and providing for a division
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or the General Conference
thereof, and sundry communications pertaining thereto, have
had the same under solemn and prayerful consideration, and
beg leave to present the following report:—_. 2

“In view of the numerous expositions and arguments, pro
and con, with which the Christian Advocates have teemed for
some months, on the merits of the highly important subject
upon which your committee have been called to act, they
presume that the Conference is too well enlightened to need
an elaborate and argumentative investigation of them, in their
multifarious relations and bearings; they therefore respectfully
present the following resolutions, as the result of their delib-
erations: — Click :

“ Resolved, 1. That we approve of the course of the Southern
and South-western delegates in the late General Conference;
and that their independent and faithful.discharge of duty, ina
trying crisis, commands our admiration and merits our thanks.

“2. That we deeply deplore the increasingly fearful contro-
versy between the Northern and Southern -divisions of the
Methodist Episcopal Church on the institution of ‘domestic
slavery, and that we will not:cease to pray most fervently to
the great Head of the Church for his gracious interposition in
guiding this controversy to a happy issue.

“3, That we approve the appointment of a convention of
delegates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in
the city of Louisville, on the first of May next, by the Southern
and South-western delegates in the late General Conference;
and also the ratio of-representation proposed by said delegates,
to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of the Conference,
and that we will elect delegates to the proposed convention
upon said basis, to act under the following instructions, to wit:
To endeavor to secure a compromise between the North and
South—to oppose a formal division of the Church before: the
General Conference of 1848, or a general convention can be
convened to decide the present controversy. But should a di-
vision be deemed unavoidable, and be determined on by the
convention, then, being well satisfied with the Discipline of the
Church, as itis, we instruct our delegates not to support or
favor any change in-said Discipline, by said convention, other
than to adapt its.fiscal economy to the Southern organization.

“4, That we approve of the dignified and prudent course of the

ench of Bishops, who presided in the late General Conference.

S
venus

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 155

“5, That it is the sense of this Conference, that, the Rev.
John Clarke, one of our delegates to the late General Confer-
ence, entirely misrepresented our views and sentiments in his
votes, in the cases of Rev. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew.

“6. That we appoint the Friday immediately preceding the
meeting of the proposed general convention of the delegates
of the Southern and South-western Conferences, as a day
of fasting and prayer for the blessing of Almighty God on
said convention—that it may be favored with the healthful
influence of his grace, and the guidance of his wisdom.

, “ Caauncey Ricuarpson,
“Ropert ALEXANDER,
* Samuet A. Wiis.”

:

The Alabama Conference adopted the following preamble
and resolutions in relation to separation:—

. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DIVISION.

“The committee appointed by the Conference to take into
consideration the subject of a separate jurisdiction for the
Southern Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg
leave to report, That they have meditated with prayerful so-
licitude on this important matter, and have solemnly concluded
on the necessity of the measure. They suppose it to be
superfluous to review formally all the proceedings which con-
stitute the unhappy controversy between the Northern and
Southern portions of our Church, inasmuch as their sentiments
can be expressed.in one sentence,—They endorse the unan-
answerable Protest of the Minority in the late General Con-
ference. They believe that the doctrines of that imperishable
document cannot: be successfully assailed. They are firm in
the conviction that the action of the majority in the case of
Bishop Andrew was unconstitutional, Being but a delegated
body, the General Conference has no legitimate right to'tamper
with the office of a General Superintendent—his amenableness
to that body and liability to expulsion by it, having exclusive
reference to mal-administration, ceasing to travel, and immoral
conduct. They are of opinion that Bishop Andrew’s con-
nection with slavery can come. under none of these heads.—
If the. entire eldership of the: Church, in a conventional ca-
pacity, were to constitute non-slaveholding or even abolition-
ism a tenure by which the Hpiscopal office should be held, or
if they were to abolish the office, they doubtless could plead
the abstract right thus to modify or revolutionize the Church
in its supreme executive administration. But before the
General Conference can justly plead this right, it must show
when and where such plenary power was delegated to it by
the only fountain :of authority, the entire Pastorate of the Church.
156 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Your committee are therefore of opinion, that the General

Conference has no more power over a Bishop, except in the

specified cases of mal-administration, ceasing to travel, and

immorality, than over the Episcopacy, as an integral part of
our ecclesiastical polity. It can no more depose a Bishop for

_ slaveholding than it can create a new Church.
“Your committee deeply regret that these ‘conservative’
sentiments did not occur to the majority in the late General

Conference, and that the apologists of that body, since its

session, have given them no place in their ecclesiastical creed,

but on the contrary have given fearful evidence that the pro-
ceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew are but the incipiency
of a course, which when finished, will leave not a solitary
slaveholder in the communion which shall be unfortuntely
under their control. The foregoing sentiments and opinions
embody the general views expressed most unequivocally
throughout the Conference district since the late General Con-
ference, by the large body of the membership, both in primary
meetings and quarterly conferences.
“The committee, therefore, offer to the calm consideration
_and mature action of the Alabama Annual Conference, the
following series of resolutions:—

“1, Resolved, That this Conference deeply deplores the
action of the late General Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church in the case of our venerable Superintendent,
Bishop Andrew, believing it to be unconstitutional, being as
totally destitute of warrant from the Discipline as from the
Word of God.

“2, That the almost unanimous agreement of Northern
Methodists with ‘the majority, and Southern Methodists with
the minority of the late General Conférence, shows the. wis-
dom of that body in suggesting a duality of jurisdiction to
meet the present emergency.

“3. That this Conference agrees to the proposition for the
alteration of the sixth Restrictive Rule of the Discipline.

“4, That this Conference approves of the projected con-
vention at Louisville in May next..

“5, That this Conference most respectfully invites all the
Bishops to attend the proposed convention at Louisville.

“6, That this Conference is decided in its attachment to
Methodism as it exists in the Book of Discipline, and hopes
that the Louisville Convention will not make the slightest
alteration, except so far as may be absolutely necessary for
the formation of a separate jurisdiction.

“7. That every preacher of this Conference shall take up a
collection in his station or circuit, as soon as practicable, to
defray the expenses of the delegates to the Convention, and
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 157

the proceeds of such callection shall be immediately paid over
to the nearest delegate or Presiding Elder; and-the excess, or
deficit of the collection for the said expenses shall be reported
to the next Conference, which shall take action on the same.

“8, That the Friday immediately preceding the session of
the convention, shall be observed in all our circuits and stations,

as a day of fasting and prayer for the blessings of God upon
its deliberations. es

“9, That whilst this Conference fully appreciates the com-
mendable motives which induced the Holston Conference to
suggest another expedient to compromise the differences exist-
ing between the Northern and Southern divisions of the Church,
it nevertheless cannot concur in the proposition of that Con-
ference concerning thag matter.

“10. That this Conference fully recognizes the right of our
excellent superintendent, Bishop Soule, to invite Bishop Andrew
to share with him the responsibilities of the episcopal office,
and while the Conference regrets the absence of the ‘former, it
rejoices in being favored with the efficient services of the /atter
—it respectfully tenders these ‘ true yokefellows’ in the super-
intendency the fullest approbation, the most fervent prayers,
and the most cordial sympathies. “Tos. O. Summers,

“ A. H. Mrrenext,
“i. V. Levert,

“ J. Hammtron,
“K. Hearn,

“W. Murran,
“J. Borine,

“ Gro. SHAEFFER,

“C. McLeop.”

Such was the action of the different Annual Conferences in
the slaveholding States, with regard to the proceedings of the
General Conference, on the subject of slavery. From these
it will be perceived that great unanimity prevailed in disap-
proving the proscription of Bishop Andrew, and in the opinion
that the General Conference action had imposed on the-South
the necessity of falling upon the plan of separation as a mea-
sure of peace and self-defence. It is from these official pro-
ceedings that the real opinions and temper of the South are
to be gathered, and not from some unguarded expression, or
ebullition of transient feeling, on the part of individuals. If
this latter rule were to govern the case, the North would fall
under heavy condemnation,.at least equally with the South;
for there the truth and honor of the whole Southern ministry.
have been impeached, and the utmost uncharitableness been
manifested in the language.of those appointed to speak the

14
158 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

sentiments of that portion of the Church. In the official action
of the Southern Conferences a commendable moderation
generally prevails, and even in those in the extreme South we
find them seeking motives the most charitable to which the
action of their Northern brethren might be ascribed.

But we must now go back and briefly notice another branch
of this history.
_ We have seen in the former part of this work, that while
the General Conference declared it their “sense” that Bishop
Andrew should cease to exercise Episcopal functions, while
encumbered with slavery, they declared him still a Bishop of
the Church,—that he should be so published in the Discipline,
Hymn Book, &c., and should be so supported; but that his
taking or not taking Episcopal labor, should depend on his
own decision with reference to the previous action of that
body. In this state of things the plan of Episcopal visitation
was made out for the succeeding four years, and published,
without embracing the name of Bishop Andrew,—he having
left the seat of the Conference before its final adjournment.

The fact was this, the board of Bishops agreed that Bishop
Andrew should be taken into the plan of Episcopal visitation,
provided he should apply for work, and to meet that contin-
gency they prepared a second plan of visitation including
Bishop Andrew, which plan was to be published in place of
the first, in case he made such application. This reserved plan
was committed to the hands of Bishop Soule, to be published
if Bishop Andrew should make application, in writing, for
Episcopal work. But of all this arrangement Bishop Andrew
had no notice whatever, except in vague rumor. In this con-
dition matters remained for some months. For a time ‘the
general current of opinion among the Bishop’s friends seemed
to be against his performing any Episcopal labor; for it was
more than intimated that if he did so, he would be impeached for
a violation of the expressed will or “sense” of the General
Conference. When, however, it appeared to be settled that
the Bishop would not take work, there were not wanting among
those who favored his suspension, men who urged the propriety
and even duty of his performing Episcopal labor. The mea-
sure was urged in one or more.of the Northern Church papers,
and in amore private way, it was said that as the Bishop was
supported by the Church, he had no right to withhold his labors,
and it was strongly suggested that such neglect of official duty
might very properly constitute just ground of impeachment.

At this crisis, Bishop Andrew received a letter from Bishop
Soule, inviting him into the field. The letter and response are
given below, and they sufficiently explain themselves. This
was the first authentic information Bishop Andrew received. of
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 159

the arrangement entered into by the, Bishops at the close of
the General Conference.
“ Cyarueston, S. C., Nov. 4, 1844.

“My Dear Broruer,—I perceive from the resolutions passed
at the various Church meetings in the South, that there isa
very general expression of opinion in favor of my taking my
appropriate share of ‘Episcopal labor; and as I have received,
both from public meetings and individual correspondents, from
ministers and laymen, the most earnest and affectionate invi-
tations to attend the sessions of most of the Southern and
South-western Conferences, I deem it due to all concerned to
state definitely the course I have pursued, and had resolved
to pursue, till the meeting of the convention at Louisville,
Kentucky. Immediately after the passing of the memorable
resolution in my case in the late General Conference, I left
the city of New York and spent the next day, which was the
Sabbath, at Newark, New Jersey, to fulfill an engagement pre-
viously made; after which I returned to the bosom of my
family in Georgia. From Newark I addressed a letter to
Bishop Soule, assigning the reasons for my departure, and
stating in substance to the following effect, viz.: That I did
not know whether the Bishops would feel authorized, in view
of the recent action of the General Conference, to assign me
a place among them for the next four years, unless that body
should condescend to explain its action more definitely; but
that if the Bishops should see proper to assign me my share
in the Episcopal visitations, I should beglad that they would
let my work commence as late in the season as convenient,
inasmuch as I had been absent from my family most of the
time for the last twelve months; but that if they did not feel
authorized, in view of the actionof the General Conference, to
give me work, I should not feel hurt with them. It will be
remembered that there was subsequently introduced into the
Conference a resolution intended to explain the meaning of
the former one as being simply advisory; this was promptly
laid on the table, which left no doubt of the correctness of the
opinion | had previously formed, that the General Conference
designed the action. as mandatory. 1 understand that the
Southern delegates afterwards notified the Bishops in due
form, that if they should give me my portion of the Episcopal
work, I would attend to it. The plan of Episcopal visitation,
however, was drawn up and subsequently published without
my name, as is wellknown. I have heard it rumored, indeed,
that*this plan was so arranged that | could be taken into it at
any time when I should signify a wish to be so introduced; and
some anonymous correspondents of the Western and South-
western Christian Advocates have expressed themselves in a
160 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

manner which indicated some surprise that I had not availed
myself of this kind provision of the Episcopal Board. Now,
in reply to all this I have only to say, that I presume those
gentlemen are mistaken entirely as to the practicability of any
such arrangement; for if the Bishops had contemplated the
possibility of any such change in their plan, it is but fair to
infer that either they would have appended to their published
arrangement some note to that effect, or else that they would
have informed me of it by letter; and forasmuch as they have
done neither, I presume that the aforementioned rumor is alto-
gether without foundation. However, I may be mistaken in
this judgment, as I know nothing of the plans of the Bishops,
other than what is published, not having received a line from
one of them since the General Conference, save the accompa-
nying letter from Bishop Soule. In view of all these facts, I,
came deliberately to the conclusion that the Bishops thought
it most prudent, under the circumstances, not'to invite me to
perform any official action; and as I wished to be the cause
of no unpleasant feeling to the Bishops or preachers, | deter-
mined not to visit any of the Annual Conferences at their
respective sessions. At the urgent solicitation, however, of
many of the preachers of the Kentucky Conference, I so far
changed my determination as to make an effort to reach that
Conference about the last day or two of the session; but a
very unexpected detention on the road prevented the accom-
plishment of my purpose. Further reflection brought me
back to my original purpose; and I abstained from visiting
Holston and Missouri. On the important questions which now
agitate us, I wished the Conferences to act in view of the
great facts and principlesyinvolved, apart from any influence
which my personal presence among them might produce. : I
had laid out my plan of work for the winter: I designed to
visit different portions of the Church in the slaveholding States,
and publish among them, as I was able, the unsearchable
riches of Christ. The following communication from Bishop
Soule furnishes me a sufficient reason to change my arrange-
ments, and to attend, in connection with him, the Conferences
allotted to him during the winter, in the distribution of
Episcopal labor.

“« And now permit me, in conclusion, to tender to my breth-
ren both of the South and South-west, my most cordial and
grateful acknowledgments for their kind expressions of sym-
pathy for me in the storm through which I have been passing,
and to invoke their most fervent and continued prayers for me
and mine, and especially for the Church of God. I thank
them for the many affectionate invitations to attend their Con-
ferences, and most joyfully would I have been with them but
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 161

for the reasons indicated above. May God abundantly bless
us and guide us all into the way of truth and peace.
“James O. ANDREW.”

“To the Rev. James O. Andrew, D. D., Bishop of the Methodist
Episcopal Church: ;
“ Lupanon, Onto, Sept. 26, 1844.

“My Dear Bisnor,—Since the close of the recent eventful
session of the General Conference I have been watching, with
deep solicitude, the ‘signs of the times, and tracing causes, as
far as I was able, to their ultimate issues. Some general results,
growing out of the action of the Conference, it required no
prophetic vision to foresee. To prevent the measures which,
in my judgment, would lead to these results with demonstra-
tive certainty, I labored day and night with- prayers and
tears, till the deed was done,—the eventful resolution passed.
From that perilous hour my hands hung down, discourage-
ment filled my heart, and the last hope of the unity of our be-
loved Zion well nigh fled from carth to heaven. My last effort
to avert the threatening storm appears in the joint recom-
mendation of all the Bishops to suspend all action in the case
until the ensuing General Conference. At the presentation of
this document some brethren perceived that instead of light
the darkness around them was increased tenfold. Others will
judge, have judged already. And those who come after us
will examine the history of our acts. The document was re-
spectfully laid upon the table, probably under the infuence of
deep regret that ‘our Bishops should enter the arena of con-
troversy in the General Conference.’ But it cannot,—does not
sleep there. I have heard many excellent ministers, and dis-
tinguished laymen in our own communion, not in the slave
States, réfer to it as a measure of sound Christian policy, and
with deep regret that the Conference had not adopted it.
Many of our Northern brethren seem now deeply to deplore
the division of the Church. Oh! that there had been fore-
thought as well as afterthought. I have seen various plans of
compromise for the adjustment of our difficulties and pre-
servation of the unity of the Church. The most prominent
lan provides that a fundamental article in the treaty shall be,
That no abolitionist or slaveholder shall be eligible to the
otlice of a Bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Alas
for us;—Where are our men of wisdom, of experience? Where
are our fathers and brethren who have analyzed the elements
of civil or ecclesiastical compacts? who have studied man in
his social relations? Who are the ‘high contracting parties,
and will they create a caste in the constitutional eldership in
the Church of Christ? Will this tend to harmonize and con-

14*
162 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

solidate the body? Brethren North and S@uth will know that
the cause must be removed that the effect may cease. That
the fountain must be dried up before the stream will cease to
flow. But I must pause on this subject. The time has not
fully arrived for me to define my position in regard to the
causes and remedies of the evils which now agitate and dis-
tract our once united and peaceful body. Still I trust I have
given such ‘proofs, at different times, and under different cir-
cumstances, as not to render my position doubtful in the judg:
ment of sober discriminating men, either North or South—
The General Conference spaké in the language of wisdom and
sound Christian policy when, in the pastoral address of 1836,
it solemnly and affectionately advised the ministers and mem-
bers of the Church to abstain from all agitation of the exciting
subject of slavery and its abolition. Nor was the adoption of
the Report of the committee on the memorial of our brethren
from a portion of Virginia, within the bounds of. the Baltimore
Conference, less distinguished by the same characteristics of
our holy Christianity, and the sound policy of our Discipline in
providing for the case. ‘
“Jt has often been asked through the public Journals, and
otherwise, ‘why Bishop Andrew was not assigned his regular
‘ portion of the Episcopal work for the four ensuing years, on
the plan of visitation formed by the Bishops and published in
the official papers?’ It devolves on the majority of my col-
leagues in the Episcopacy, (if indeed we have an Episcopacy)
rather than on me, to answer this question. Our difference of
opinion in the premises, I have no doubt, was in Christian hon-
esty and sincerity. Dismissing all further reference to the
painful past till I see you in the South, let me now most cordially
invite you to meet me at the Virginia Conference at Lynch-
burg, November 18th, 1844, should it please a gracious Provi-
dence to gnable me to be there. And I earnestly desire that
you would, if practicable, make your arrangements to be with
me at all the Southern Conferences in my division of the work
for the present year, where I am sure your services will not be
‘unacceptable. Iam the more solicitous that you should be
at Lynchburg from the fact that my present state of health
creates a doubt whether [shall be able toreachit. Iam now
laboring, and have been for nearly three weeks, under the most
severe attack of asthma which I have had for six: or seven
years,—some nights unable to lie down for a moment. Great
prostration of the vital functions, and indeed of the whole
hysical system, is the consequence. But no effort of mine shall
te wanting to meet my work; and the inducements to effort
are greatly increased by the present position of the Church,
and the hope of relief from my present affliction by the in-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 163

fluence of a milder and more congenial climate. I cannot
conclude without an expression of my sincere sympathy for
you, and the second of your joys and sorrows, in the deep
afflictions through which you have been called to pass. May
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ sustain you both.
“ Yours with sentiments of affection and esteem,
“ Josuua Soute.

* This invitation of Bishop Soule called down on him severe
censure from the North. Dr. Elliott, Dr. Bond, Dr. Bangs,
and others denounced the measure as not only unauthorized,
but high-handed and in contravention of the decision of the
General Conference and the Board of Bishops. That it con-
travened no action of the General Conference is very clear,
from the fact, that whether the Bishop should labor or not was
to depend on his own decision. That decision was now had,
and as the General Conference had prescribed no particular
mode in which it should be obtained or given, there could have
been no infraction of the law or expressed will of that body
in the proceeding.

As regards the Board of Bishops, the spirit of their decision
was, that if Bishop Andrew should signify a willingness to take
work on the Episcopal plan, it should be given him; and the
letter of that decision was, that he should have work assigned
him when he should make written application for it. That the
spirit of the decision was fully met when he accepted Bishop
Soule’s invitation to aid him in his circuit of Conferences, can
hardly be doubted; and as that acceptance was a written
one, and as the Bishops had not prohibited the making of an
inquiry or the giving of an invitation, which might call forth
an expression of willingness to labor, or an application for
work, both the spirit and the letter of the decision appear to
have been sufficiently fulfilled.

' But we will allow Bishop Soule to explain and defend his
own course in this matter, in the following letter published in
the Southern Christian Advocate, dated :

: “ Aucusta, Ga., January 4, 1845.

- ©Drar Brorner,—In the editorial of the Christian Advocate
and Journal of the 18th ultimo, I find the following assertion
with special reference to myself: « He, therefore, claims for the
Episcopacy—nay, for any one of the Bishops, a right to decide
on the legality of any act of the General Conference, and to
veto it, if, in. his judgment, it is not in accordance with the
Discipline of the Church. Thus a new issue is added to the
oné which has agitated the Church so fearfully, and one on
which-it is not possible to come to any compromise, without
changing the cardinal principles of our ecclesiastical economy.’
164 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THB

This is a plain and positive assertion of Dr. Bond, relative to
what I claim as the right of Bishops or any one of them. The
Doctor must permit me, as plainly and positively, to assert
the direct converse of his position, and thus:change the ‘new
issue’ from the Northern and Southern departments of the
Church, to him and myself, with the hope that he may enjoy
the happiness of still believing that ‘there willbe no division,’
and yet shout‘ glory to God’ over propositions for compromis®
without ‘changing the cardinal principles of our ecclesi-
astical economy.’ And I assure the Doctor, and all con-
cemed, that I will heartily join with him in the shout, when
a plan of compromise shall be proposed which does not invade
chartered rights and privileges of any ‘grade’ of our ministry
or membership. But that the Doctor should attempt to make
me the author of a ‘new issue’ in this controversy, and that
issue of such anature as to preclude all compromise without a
change of the fundamental principles of our Church polity,
and thus transfer the responsibility of the results of the contro-
versy from the parties concerned to me, I cannot but regard as
at variance with those principles which I have been taught to
believe should govern the actions of Christian ministers to-
ward each other. , The Doctor must not, he cannot, make me
the ‘scapegoat,’ to bear away this responsibility from those to
whom it justly belongs.

“J assert, without fear of contradiction, that I do not claim,
and that I never have claimed, either for myself, or any one of
the Bishops, or all of them conjointly, the‘ right’? which Dr. Bond
charges on me as claiming. And now I cannot but sincerely
and ardently desire that this ‘ new issue’ being thus fairly made
so far as I am concerned, exclusively between the Doctor and
myself, it may not be made a matter of exciting agitation in
the Church, in addition to all which has ‘so fearfully’ agitated
her before, at least till the point is settled between us, on which
the ‘new issue’ is now made.

“Tt is very possible that in writing my letter of invitation to
Bishop Andrew to meet me at the Virginia Conference, and
accompany me to the others in my Southern tour, with a view
to his affording me.aid in the superintendency, I may have
traveled out of the record of the official instructions of the
General Conference for the government of the ‘action’ of the
superintendents in the Bishop’s case, according to Dr. Bond's
‘ sense’: of those instructions. But according to my best judgment
of those instructions, given to the Bishops, not to Dr. Bond, 1
have done nothing but what is fully provided for, and covered
by the record. And I trust I may presume, without ostentation,
that I have as good a ‘right’ to judge of the meaning and im-
port of such instructions as my good friend of the Christian
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 165

Advocate and Journal; especially as I am amenable, not to
him, but to the General Conference. And I confess I should
hesitate to charge Dr. Bond before the Church and the com-
munity, with ‘claiming a right to veto the acts of the General
Conference,’ or of disregarding official instructions relating to
his office, because in my judgment he had not kept within the
official record. But it may be the Doctor thinks that his office
requires him to keep us all right.

“T might have thought that the Doctor’s office required him
to take a more decided and active position in sustaining and
carrying out the plan adopted by the General Conference for
the amicable separation of the Church, and equitable division
of the funds; and to have guarded ‘his columns against the
hostile attacks which were made both upon the Conference
and the measure. But doubtless he acted in strict conformity
to his sense of the duties of his office, in regard both to the
Conference and their action in the premises. It certainly
could not have been the sense of the General Conference, that
any of their editors should pursue a course which was either
designed or calculated to defeat their own official acts; espe-
cially one which was adopted with so great unanimity, and
truly Christian sympathy and kindness, as the one here alluded
to. Butit does not belong to my office to accuse Doctor Bond
before the Church or the public, however I might differ from
him in judgment with regard to his course. He and myself
are both strictly ‘amenable’ to a constitutional tribunal; and
with all deference to the Doctor’s age, and talents, and office,
and high respectability, both in the civil and religious commu-
nity, I must be permitted to question his ‘right’ te pre-judge me,
either by virtue of his office, or otherwisc, and that too before
I can be heard in my own defence. If the Doctor thinks,
under all these circumstances, that such a course is calculated to
_effect the unity and peace of the Church, an object which he
so ardently desires, and at the first dawning prospect of which
he shouts ‘glory to God; I can only say that in this as well as
in regard to the high probability of the division of the Church,
on which we have freely expressed our opinions before, we
differ widely in judgment, and future events will show which
of us is in error. Very respectfully,

“ Josnua Soute.”

After Bishop Andrew had been laboring with Bishop Soule
for some months, in attending the Southern Conferences, a
portion of the Bishops made the following publication, which,
as it properly belongs to this history, is here inserted:—

“ Dear Breraren,—The time has arrived, when, in the judg-
ment of the undersigned, it is proper they should respond to
166 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

calls which have been made, both privately and publicly, for
authentic information in regard to the action of a majority of
the Superintendents, by which the name of Bishop Andrew
was omitted from the Plan of Episcopal Visitation, which
was arranged at the close of the late General Conference, and
published in the Christian Advocate and other official Journals
of the Church. The statements which follow, will, it is be-
lieved, place that action and the grounds thereof in a view
intelligible to all; and beyond this, they have neither desire
nor intention to go in this communication.

“On the first day of June last, the following preamble and
resolution were adopted by the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church:—

“Wuereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing
any thing calculated to destroy our itinerant general Super-
intendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has become connected
with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having
drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the
General Conference, greatly embarrass the exercise of his
office as an itinerant general Superintendent, if not in some
places entirely prevent it; therefore,—

“ Resolved, That it is the sense of the General Conference,
that he desist from the exercise of his office so long as this
impediment remains.

“On the 6th of June the following note was presented to
the General Conference:—

“ Reverend and Dear Brethren,—As the case of Bishop An-
drew unavoidably involves the future action of the Superin-
tendents, which, in their judgment, in the present position of
the Bishop, they have no discretion to decide upon; they
respectfully request from this General Conference official in-
struction in answer to the following questions:—

“1, Shall Bishop Andrew’s name remain as it now stands
in the Minutes, Hymn Book, and Discipline, or shall it, be
struck off of these official records?

“2. How shall the Bishop obtain his support? As provided
for in the form of Discipline, or in some other way?

“3. What work, if any, may the Bishop perform; and how
shall he be appointed to his work?

“ Josnua Sous,
“Euan Hepprve,

“ Brverty Waueu,

. “Tuomas A. Morris.

“To which the General Conference responded:—

“1, Resolved, as the sense of this Conference, That Bishop
Andrew’s hame stand in the Minutes, Hymn-Book, and Dis-
cipline, as formerly.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 167

“2, That the rule in relation to the support of a Bishop and
his family, applies to Bishop Andrew.

“3. That whether in any, and if in any, in what work,
Bishop Andrew be employed, is to be determined by his own
decision and action, in relation to the previous action of this
Conference in his case.

“In view of the aforesaid proceedings of the General Con-
ference, the undersigned, on the 11th of June, appended their
names to a paper written in the words which follow:— °

“Jt is our opinion in regard to the action of the late General
Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew, that it was designed
by that body to devolve the responsibility of the exercise of
the functions of his office exclusively on himself. In the ab-
sence of Bishop Andrew at the time of arranging the Plan of
Episcopal Visitation for the ensuing four years, and he not
having notified us of his desire, or purpose, with respect to it,
we should regard ourselves as acting in contravention of the
expressed will of the General Conference, if we apportioned
to Bishop Andrew any definite portion thereof. But if he
shall hereafter make a written application for a portion of the
general oversight, we should feel ourselves justified in assign-
ing it to him. -

“ After this paper was signed, and before the parting of the
Superintendents, it was agreed to make out a reserved Plan
of Episeopal Visitation, including Bishop Andrew in the ap-
portionment, of the work thereof, which was done, and in-
trusted to the safe keeping of Bishop Soule, with an explicit
understanding, that if he should receive from Bishop Andreve
a written application for his portion of the general Superin-
tendence, he was then, and in that event, to publish the
second or reserved plan in immediate connection with the
said application, that the reason for the substitution of the
second plan might accompany its publication. Such was the
action of the undersigned in the case presented, and such the
ground on which it was based. At present, this is all that
they feel themselves called to make public.

“ Eiuag Heppine,

“ B. Waueu,
“THomas A. Mornis.
1. L. Hamuwe.”

\ . é
The last General Conference had provided in the plan of.
separation, for taking the sense of the Annual Conferences on
the subject of so changing the sixth “Restrictive Rule” as to
authorize an equitable division of the Book Concern with the
168 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION, OF THE

Southern organization, in case the South should find such or-
ganization necessary. That body had itself recommended
such a change by a vote of 147 to 12, and it only remained
for the constitutional number of votes to be given in the An-
nual Conferences, to give the arrangement full legal effect.
And asso very large a proportion of the delegates had ap-
proved the change, it was not doubted that the Conferences
would readily do the same,—especially as it was a measure
demanded by moral equity and common justice. This rea-
sonable expectation was fully met by several of the Confer-
ences which convened first after the adjourment of the Gene-
ral Conference, and especially the Northern Conferences, from
which the South expected least; but in most of the Conferences
calling themselves conservative, the proposition was rejected
by a strong vote,—even the delegates who voted in its favor
in the General Conference, opposing it in the Annual Con-
ferences of which they were members. And before the
meeting of the General Convention, in May, it was understood
that the Annual Conferences had refused, so far as their votes
could go to that effect, to allow to the South an equitable and
just division of the property of the Book Concern.

For this course various reasons were given, such as, that it
was ill-timed to vote the South their portion of the property
before they had assumed a separate organization; that it had
the appearance of inviting the South to separate, which they
desired rather to discourage than promote, &c. It is sufficient
for our present purpose that we state the fact, without specu-

ating relative to the true cause of it. Subsequent events
ee cast more light on the subject than previous professions.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 169

CHAPTER IV.
Embracing the Proceedings of the Convention at Louisville, May,1845.

4

Tue Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States having,
as ,we have seen in the foregoing chapter, acted with great
_ unanimity in approving the course of the minority in the Gen-
eral Conference,—in expressing the opinion that separation .
was necessary, under“the circumstances, and in approving the
holding of a Convention at Louisville in May, 1845, and
electing delegates to represent them in that body, the meeting
of that Convention was looked to with deep and universal in-
terest. Hundreds of ministers and members from remote
points attended the Convention to witness the result of its de-
liberations, and the entire Church, North and South, waited
with painful solicitude the final issue.

The official proccedings of that Convention, we now pro-
ceed to record, as constituting a very important part of this
history.

The Convention of Delegates from the Southern and Sauth-
western Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, viz:
Kentucky, Missouri, Holston, Tennessee, North Carolina, Me
phis, Arkansas, Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Geor-
gia, South Carolina, Florida, and Indian Mission,—elected on
the basis of the Plan of Separation adopted by the General
Conference, on the 8th June, 1844, assembled in the city of
Louisville, Kentucky, on the Ist day of May, A. D., 1845.

The meeting was called to order at 9 o’clock, A. M., by Dr.
William Capers, and Dr. Lovick Pierce,,of the Georgia Con-
ference, was elected President, pro tem. This venerable
Minister opened the Convention by reading the second chapter
of the Epistle to the Philippians; by singing the 129th Hymn,
containing an appropriate invocation of the Holy Spirit, and
by offering a suitable and impressive prayer to the Throne of
Grace:—__.

Thomas N. Ralston, of the Kentucky Conference, was then
chosen Secretary, pro tem. The Conferences represented in
the Convention were then called over in the order in which
they stand in the General Minutes; and the delegates pre-
sented their certificates of election —the Convention having
decided that those members who are not furnished with cer-
tificates of election ‘shall, nevertheless, take their seats; pro-

15
170 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

vided that the Presiding Officer of their respective Conferences
or some member present, attest their election. -

The following brethren having furnished the necessary
. vouchers, took their seats as members of the Convention, to
wit:— ‘

Kenrucxy Conrrrencr.—Henry B. Bascom, Edward Steven-
son, Hubbard H. Kavanaugh, Benjamin T. Crouch, William
Gunn, George W. Taylor, George W. Brush, John C. Harrison,
Burr H. McCown, James King, John James, Thomas N.
Ralston.

Missourt Conrerznce.—Andrew Monroe, Jesse Green, John
Glanville, Wesley Browning, William Patton, John H. Lynn,
Joseph Boyle, Thomas Johnson.

Ho sron Conrerence.—Thomas K. Catlett, Thomas String-
field, Rufus M. Stevens, Timothy Sullins, Creed Fulton.

TennessEE Conrerence.—Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin,
Alexander'L. P. Greén, Fountain E. Pitts, Ambrose F. Driskill,
John W. Hanner, Joshua Boucher, Thomas Maddin, Frede-
tick G. Ferguson, Robert L. Andrews.

Norra Carona Conrerrnce.—Samuel. 8. Bryant, Hezekiah
G. Leigh, Bennet T. Blake, Robert J. Carson, Peter Daub,
John T. Brame.

Memruts Conrerenct.—Moses Brock, George W. D. Harris,
William McMahon, Thomas Joyner, Asbury Davidson, Wilson
L. McAlister, Thomas Smith.

Arkansas Conrerence.—John Harrell, John F. Truslow.

Vireinta Cowrerenct.—John Early, Thomas Crowder, Wil-
liam A. Smith, Leroy M. Lee, Abraham Penn, David S. Dog-
gett, Henry B. Cowles, Anthony Dibrell.

- Mississiee1 Conrerence.—Lowell (ampbell.

Texas Conrerence.—Littleton, Fowler, Francis Wilson.

AuaBamMa ConrerEnce.—Jefferson Hamilton, Jesse Boring,
Thomas H. Capers, Eugene V. Levert, Elisha Calloway,
Thomas O. Summers.

Gerorcia Conrerence.—Lovick Pierce, James E. Evans, John
W. Glenn, Samuel Anthony, Augustus B. Longstreet, Isaac
Boring, James B. Payne.

Soutu Carotiwa Conrerence.— William Capers, William M.
Wightman, Hugh A. C. Walker, Samuel Dunwody, Bond
English, Samuel W. Capers.

Fiorwa Conrerence.—Peyton P. Smith, Thomas C. Benning.

Ivpran Misston Conrerencr.—Edward T. Peery, David B.
Cumming. ~
On motion of Augustus B. Longstreet and’ William Capers,
it was

Resolved, That the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
now in attendance, be requested to preside over the meeting,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 171

under such arrangements as they may make from day to day
among themselves. This Resolution was adopted unani-
mously, by a standing vote.

Bishop Soule being present, informed the Convention that he
would express his ylews on the subject of this Resolution, both
on behalf of himself and his colleague, Bishop Andrew (who
was also present,) on to-morrow morning.

On motion of John Early, it was

Resolved, That all elections for officers be by ballot, when
more than one is nominated; otherwise by nomination and
election.

An election of Secretary then took place, and Thomas O.
Summers was, on the first balloting, duly elected. Thomas
N. Ralston was, in likeymanner, duly elected assistant Secretary -

On motion of John Early the following Resolutions were
adopted:—

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to ascertain wheth-
er or not a Reporter for the Convention can be procured, and to
report on to-morrow morning.

Brothers Early, Bascom, R. Paine, Hamilton, English, Wight-
man, L. M. Lee, McFerrin, and George W. Brush were ap-
pointed said committee.

Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to purchase a
suitable Book in which to record the proceedings of this body.

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to draft rules tor
the government of the Convention.

Brothers Longstreet, W. Capers, and W. A. Smith were ap-
pointed said committee.

On motion of Edward Stevenson, it was

Resolved, That the Presiding Elder of tle Louisville District,
in connection with the Preachers in the several Charges of
this city, be requested to supply the pulpits and superintend
public worship in the different Churches that may be tendered
to our use during the session of the Convention.

On motion of H. H. Kavanaugh, the Convention appointed
half past eight o’clock, to-morrow morning, as the next hour
of meeting, and then adjourned with prayer, by Samuel
Dunwody.

FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 2.
}

Convention met according to adjournment. The devotional
exercises were conducted by William Capers. The roll was
called, and the names of Whiteford Smith, Robert J. Boyd,
George F. Pierce and Greenbury Garrett were duly entered,
they having furnished the necessary vouchers. The Minutes
were then read, corrected, and approved.
\

172. HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The committee appointed to ascertain whether or not.a Re-
porter can be procured for the Convention, reported as follows:—

The committee appointed to consider the propriety of em-
ploying a Reporter, beg to offer the following Resolution as
embodying their views on the subject:—

Resolved, That William M. Wightman, Leroy M. Lee, and
John B. McFerrin be a committee to prepare a full and correct
synopsis of the proceedings of the Convention, and furnish the
Editors of the Louisville Journal with a copy each day, at 9
o’clock, P. M., for publication the next morning, and that they
be authorized to employ any assistance they may deem meet,
at the expense of the Convention;—it being understood that
the cost will not exceed twenty-five dollars.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Joun Earzy, Ch’n.

The committee’s Report was adopted. The committee ap-
pointed to frame Rules for the government of the Convention,
made the following Report, which was adopted:—

1. The Convention shall meet at half past eight o’clock, A.
M., and adjourn at half past twelve o’clock, P. M., but may
alter the times of meeting and adjournment at their discretion.

2. The President shall take the Chair precisely at the hour
to which the Convention stood adjourned, and cause the same
to be opened by reading the Scriptures, singing, and -prayer;
and on the appearance of a quorum, shall have the Journals
of the preceding day read and approved, when the business of
the Convention shall proceed in the following order, viz:—

1, Reports, first of the standing and then of the select
committees.

2. Petitions and memorials.

3. The President shall decide all questions of. order, arising
under these Rules, subject to an appeal to the Convention; but
in case of such appeal, the question shall be taken without
debate.

4. He shall appoint all committees not otherwise specially
ordered by the Convention; but any member may decline serv-
ing on more than one committee at the same time. .

5. All motions or resolutions introduced by any member,
shall be reduced to writing, if the President, Secretary, or any
two members request it. a

6. When a motion or resolution is made and seconded, or a
report presented, and is read by the Secretary or stated by the
President, it shall be deemed in possession of the Convention;
but any motion or resolution may be withdrawn by the mover
at any time before decision or amendment.

7. No new motion or resolution shall be made until the one
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 173

under consideration is disposed of; which may be done by
adoption or rejection, unless one of the following motions
should intervene, which motion shall have precedence in the
order in which they are placed, viz: For indefinite postpone-
ment; a lying on the table; reference to a committee; post-
ponement to a given time; amendment, or a substitute—but
an amendment to an amendment, and an amendment of a
substitute, shall be disposed of before the original amendment
or substitute.

8. No member shal] be interrupted when speaking, except
by the President, to call him to order when he departs from
the question—uses personalities or disrespectful language; but
any member may call the attention of the President to the
subject, when he deems a speaker out of order; and any mem-
ber may explain if he thinks himself misrepresented. *

9. When any member is about to speak in debate, or to
deliver any matter to the Convention, he shall rise from his
seat and respectfully address himself to the President.

40. No person shall speak more than twice on the same
question, nor more than fifteen minutes at one time without
leave of the Convention; nor shall any person speak more than
once until every member choosing to speak shall have spoken;
but any one entitled to the floor may resign his place, if he
choose, to one who has spoken; in which case he will be con-
sidered as having availed himself of his privilege to speak.

11. When any motion or resolution shall have passed, it
shall be in order for any member who voted in the majority
to move for a re-consideration.

12. No member shall absent himself from the service of the
Convention without leave, unless he be sick or unable to attend.

13. No member shall be allowed to vote on any question,
who is not within the bar at the time when such question is
put by the President, except by leave of the Convention, when
such member has been necessarily absent.

14. Every member who shall be within the bar at the time
the question is put, shall give his vote; unless the Convention,
for special reason, excuse him.

15. A motion to adjourn shall always be in order, and shall
be decided without debate.

Bishop Soule then rose and addressed the Convention, as
follows:—

“] rise on the present occasion to offer a few remarks to this
Convention of ministers, under the influence of feelings more
solemn and impressive than I reeollect ever to have expe-
rienced before. The occasion is certainly one of no ordinary
interest and solemnity. I am deeply impressed with a con-

15*
'
174 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

viction of the important results of your deliberations and
decisions in relation to that numerous body of Christians and
Christian ministers you here represent, and to the country at
large. And knowing, as I do, the relative condition of the
vast community where your acts must be extensively felt, I
cannot but feel a deep interest in the business of the Conven-
tion, both as it respects yourselves, and the millions who must
be affected’ by your decisions. With such views and feel-
ings, you will indulge me in an expression of confident hope
that all your business will be conducted with the greatest de-
liberation, and with that purity of heart, and moderation of
temper suitable to yourselves, as a body of Christian ministers,
and to the important concerns which have called you together
in this city.

“The opinion which I formed at the close of the late General
Conference, that the proceedings of that body would result.in a
division of the Church, was not induced by the impulse of excite-
ment; but was predicated of principles and facts, after the most
deliberate and mature consideration. That opinion I have
freely expressed. And however deeply I have regretted such
a result, believing it to be inevitable, my efforts have been
made, not to prevent it, but rather that it might be-attended
with the least injury, and the greatest amount. of good which
the case would admit. I was not alone in this opinion. A
number of aged and influential ministers entertained the same
views. And, indeed, it is not easy to conceive how any one,
intimately acquainted with the facts in the case, and the rela-
tive position of the North and South, could arrive at any other
conclusion. Nothing has transpired since the close of the
General Conference to change the opinion I then formed; but
subsequent events have rather confirmed it. In view of’ the
certainty of the issue, and at the same time ardently desirous
that the two great divisions of the Church might be in peace
and harmony within their own respective bounds, and cultivate
the ‘spirit of Christian fellowship, brotherly kindness, and
charity for each other, 1 cannot but consider it an auspicious
event that the sixteen Annual Conferences, represented in this
Convention, have acted with such extraordinary unanimity in
the measures they have taken in the premises. In the South-
ern Conferences which I have attended, I do not recollect that
there has been a dissenting voice with respect to the neccssity
of a separate organization; and although their official acts in
deciding the important question, have been marked with that
clearness, and decision which should afford satisfactory evi-
dence that they have acted under a solemn conviction of duty
to Christ, and to the people of their charge, they have been
equally distinguished by moderation and candor. And as far

©
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 175

as I have been informed, all:the other Conferences have pursued
a similar course. |

“It is ardently to be desired that the same unanimity may
prevail in the counsels of this Convention as distinguished, in
such a remarkable manner, the views, and deliberations, and
decisions of your constituents. When it is recollected that it
is not only for yourselves, and the present ministry and mem-
bership of the Conferences you represent, that you are as-
sembled on this occasion; but that millions of the present race,
and generations yet unborn, may be aftected, in their most
essential interests, by the results of your deliberations, it will
occur to you how importaut it is that you should “ do all things
as in the immediate presence of God.” Let all your acts,
dear brethren, be acgompanied with much prayer for that
wisdom which is from above.

“While you are thus impressed with the importance and so-
lemnity of the subject which has occasioned the Convention,
and of the high responsibility under which you act, I am con-
fident you will cultivate the spirit of Christian moderation and
forbearance; and that in all your acts you will keep strictly
within the limits and provisions of the “ plan of separation”
adopted by the General Conference with great unanimity and
apparent Christian kindness. I can have no doubt of the firm
adherence of the ministers and members of the Church in the
Conferences you represent, to the doctrines, rules, order of
government, and forms of worship contained in our excellent
book of discipline. For myself, I stand upon the basis of
Methodism as contained in this book, and from it I intend
never to beremoved. 1 cannot be insensible to the expression
of your confidence in the resolution you have unanimously
adopted, requesting me to preside over the Convention in cbn-
junction with my colleagues. And after having weighed the
subject with careful deliberation, 1 have resolved to accept
your invitation, and discharge the duties of the important
trust to the best of my ability. My excellent colleague, Bishop
Andrew, is of the same mind, and will cordially participate in
the duties of the Chair.

“T am requested to state to the Convention, that our worthy
and excellent colleague, Bishop Morris, believes it to be his
duty to decline a participation in the presidential duties. He
assigns such reasons for so doing as are, in the judgment of
his colleagues, perfectly satisfactary; and it is presumed they
would be considered in the same light by the Convention. In
conclusion, I trust that all things will be done in that spirit
which will be approved of God. And devoutly pray that your
acts may result in the advancement of the Redeemer’s kind-
dom, and the salvation of the souls of men.”
176 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Bishop Soule then took the Chair, which was courteously
vacated by Dr. Pierce.

On motion of John Early, it was

Resolved, ‘That the business of committees be transacted in
the absence of all other persons than the members of the
Convention. ;

On motion of Dr. Capers, it was

Resolved, That a committee of fifteen delegates be appointed
to prepare a Plan to be recommended to the several Annual
Conferences represented in this Convention, for the manage-
ment and support of Missions connected with said Conferences;
and that this committee report within the next eight days.

John G. Jones, Green M. Rogers, Benjamin M. Drake,
Samuel W. Speer, and William H. Watkins presented their
certificates of election to the Convention,—their names were
enrolled,—and took their seats accordingly.

The Convention then designated the third pillar from the
altar the bar of the House.

On motion of J. Early and W. A. Smith, it was

Resolved, That a committee of two members, from each An-
nual Conference represented in this Convention, be appointed,
whose duty it shall be to take into consideration the propriety
and necessity of a Southern organization, according to the
plan of separation adopted by the late General Conference;
together with the acts of the several Annual Conferences on
this subject, and report the best method of securing the objects
contemplated in the appointment of this Convention.

On motion of John Early and Thomas Crowder the forego-
ing committee was chosen by the respective delegation, and
arg as follows:—

Kentucky Conference —Henry B. Bascom and Edward Ste-

venson.
Missouri—William Patton and Andrew Monroe.
Holston.—Thomas K. Catlett and Thomas Stringfield.
Tennessce.—Robert Paine and Fountain E. Pitts.
North Carolina.—Hezekiah G. Leigh and Peter Daub.
Memphis —George W. D. Harris and Moses Brock.
Arkansas.—John Harrell and John F. Truslow.
Virginia.—John Early and William A. Smith.
Mississippi—William Winans and Benjamin M. Drake.
Texas.—Francis Wilson and Littleton Fowler.
Alabama.—Jefferson Hamilton and Jesse Boring.
Georgia.—Lovick Pierce and Augustus B. Longstreet.
South Carolina.— William Capers and William M. Wightman.
Florida.—Thomas C. Benning and Peyton P. Smith.
Indian Mission —Kdward T. Peery and David B. Cumming.

{
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 177

Certain documents were presented by John Early and Leroy
M. Lee; also communications from members of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church on the Lexington District and in New-
port station, Kentucky Conference, all of which were referred
to the Committee on Organization—as also a communication
from the Rev. Stephen Chipley.

On motion of John Early, it was

Resolved, That all memorials on Church Organization be re-
ferred without vote to the same committee.

On motion of Dr. William Capers, it was a

Resolved, That the committee on Missions be constituted of
fifteen delegates, one from each Annual Conference.

A communication from the Young Men’s Mercantile Library
Association of Louisville, inviting the members of the Conven-
tion to the use of their Library and Reading Room, having been
received and read, on motion of Dr. Lovick Pierce, it was

Resolved, That the thanks of the Convention be tendered,
through the Secretary, to the Association for their polite
invitation.

Religious exercises then ensued, in which Dr. William Ca-
pers, father William Burke, Bishop Morris, and Bishop Soule
took the lead. _ The Convention then adjourned.

SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 3.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew inthe chair. The devo-
tional exercises were conducted by the venerable John Early,
of the Virginia Conference.

The roll was then called, and the names of William Winans,
.of the Mississippi Conference, and Thomas Sanford, of the
Georgia Conference, were duly entered—they having produced
the necessary vouchers. :

Certain communications, on organization, were received
.-from the Rev. William Burke, of Cincinnati, J. H. Moore of
Lexington, Missouri, from Shelbyville station, Kentucky Con-
ference, by Edward Stevenson—also from Lexington district;
from Good Hope, No Creek Society, Yelvington circuit, Hardins-
burg district; from Minerva and Flemingsburg circuits, Au-
gusta and Hardinsburg districts, Kentucky : Conference—and’
from Batesville station, Arkansas Conference. These were all
‘referred to the Committee on Organization.

On motion of Dr. A. B. Longstreet, it was

Resolved, That after Tuesday, the sixth instant, no new
Memorial, or Petition, will be referred to the Committee on
Organization. = ‘

On motion of Alexander L. P. Green, Bishop Soule was re-
178 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

quested to furnish for publication the remarks which he sub-
mitted to the Convention on yesterday.

The Bishop then presented the list of members of ‘the Mis-
sion committee—it is as follows:—

South Carolina Conference.—Dr. William Capers.
Georgia.—James E..Evans.
Virginia.—Thomas Crowder.
Texas.—Littleton Fowler.
Missouri—Thomas Johnson.
Kentucky. Hubbard H. Kavanaugh.
Holston. Creed Fulton.
Tennessee.—Alexander L. P. Green.
North Carolina.—Bennet T. Blake.
Memphis.—William McMahon.
MississippicSamuel W. Speer.
Alabama.—Elisha Callaway.

Florida —Peyton P. Smith.

Indian Mission.—Edward T. Peery.
Arkansas.—John Harrell.

The Convention then adjourned with the benediction, by the
Presiding Bishop—giving the remainder of the morning to the
committee on organization.

MONDAY MORNING, MAY 5.

Convention met. Opened with the tsual devotions by Dr.
William Winans, of the Mississippi Conference. The roll
was called, and the name of Robert Alexander duly entered—
he having presented his certificate of election by the Texas
Conference. Minutesread and approved.

Certain communications were received and referred to the
Committee on Organization, to wit:—

Twoby William A. Smith, from J.Stewart, Kanawha district,
Ohio Conference. :

Two by Benjamin T. Crouch, from Hardinsburg district, and
one from Millersburg circuit, Lexington district, Kentucky Con-
ference.

One by John Harrell, from Fayetteville circuit, Arkansas
Conference. _ : .

One by Edward Stevenson, from Jeffersontown and Cane-
run Classes, Jeffersontown circuit.

On motion of Dr. William Winans, it was

Resolved, That the Committee on Organization be instructed
to inquire whether or not anything has transpired, during the
past year, to render it possible to maintain the unity of the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 179

Methodist Episcopal Church, under the same General Confer-
ence jurisdiction, without the ruin of Southern Methodism.

On motion of Benjamin M. Drake, it was

Resolved, That the Coramittee on Organization be, and are
hereby instructed to inquire into the propriety of reporting
resolutions in case a division should take place, leaving the
way open for re-union on terms which shall not. compromise
the interest of the Southern, and which shall meet, as far as
may be, the views of the Northern portion of the Church.

Dr. William A. Smith and Dr. Lovick Pierce presented the
following resolution, which at their request was laid on the
table, to be taken up on to-morrow morning.

Resolved, By the delegates of the several Annual Confer-
ences in the Southern .and South-western States, in General
Convention assembled, That we cannot sanction the action
of the late General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, on the subject of slavery, by remaining under the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that body, without deep and last-
ing injury to the interests of the Church and the country; we,
therefore, hereby instruct the committee on organization, that
if upon .a careful examination of the whole subject, they find
that there is no reasonable ground to hope that the Northern
majority will recede from their position and give some safe
guaranty for the future security of our civil and ecclesiastical
rights, that they report in favor of a separation from the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the said General Conference.

On motion of Thomas Crowder the Convention then ad-
journed, with the benediction, by Bishop Soule, the presiding
Bishop,

TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 6.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the chair. The ses-
sion was opened with the usual devotions by George W. D.
Harris, of the Memphis Conference. The reading of the roll
was dispensed with. The Minutes were read and approved.

Certain communications were received and referred to the
Committee on Organization, to wit:-—

Three by Dr. Henry B. Bascom, viz: one from Brook Street
station, Louisville; one from Hartford circuit, Hardinsburg
District; and one from Bowling Green station, Kentucky Con-
ference.

One by William Gunn, from Louisville circuit, Kentucky
Conference. \

Ohe by Hubbard H. Kavanaugh, from Brook Street station,
Louisville, Kentucky Conference.

Dr. William A. Smith then delivered an elaborate speech
180 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

in support of the resolution which he laid on the table on yes-
terday.

On motion of Dr. Augustus B. Longstreet, the Convention
then adjourned, with the benediction by the presiding Bishop.

WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 7.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the Chair. The ses-
sion was opened with the usual devotions by- Thomas Crow.
der, of the Virginia Conference. The Minutes were read and
approved. Bishop Andrew then vacated. the Chair, which
was taken by Bishop Soule.

The resolution under discussion was read and supported by
Dr. Lovick Pierce, in an able speech of the length of an hour
and ahalf. Dr. William Capers followed in support of the
resolution, and spoke with great pathos for three quarters of
an hour. ’

On motion of James E.. Evans, the Convention then ad-
journed, with the Benediction by the Bishop; giving the re-
mainder of the morning to the Committee on Organization. |

THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 8.

Convention met. The Bishops not being present, Dr. Lovick
‘Pierce was called to the Chair, and the session was opened
with the usual devotions by Benjamin T. Crouch, of the Ken-
tucky Conference. Bishop Soule then appeared and took the
Chair. The Minutes were read and approved. -

The name of Jacob Custer was entered on the roll of the
Convention; he having furnished his certificate of election by
the Arkansas Conference. _

A communication from J. Cobb, Dean of the Faculty of the
Medical Institute of Louisville, was received and read by the
Secretary. On motion of William M. Wightman, the Secre-
tary was instructed to write a letter of thanks in recognition
of the courtesy.

On motion of Bennet T. Blake, the resolution under discus-
sion was laid on the table for the present.

Dn motion of John Early,

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to be called the
Committee on Education, whose duty it shall be to take into
consideration the condition of our schools and colleges, and
recommend the best method of improving them. "

On motion of John Early, ae

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to be called the
Committee on Finance, whose duty shall be to consider the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 181

best method of securing a just portion of the Book Concern
and Chartered Fund, and recommend the best financial system
for our future operation.

The resolution of Dr. William A. Smith was then taken up,
on motion of Lewell Campbell, and sustained by him in a few
earnest and appropriate remarks. He was followed, in an
eloquent speech of an hour’s length, by George F. Pierce, of
the Georgia Conference.

On motion of Thomas C. Benning, the Convention then ad-
journed, to meet at 104 o’clock on to-morrow morning; the
Bishop pronouncing the benediction.

FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 9.

Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Bishop Andrew
inthe chair. The usual devotions were conducted by Andrew
Monroe, of the Missouri Conference. The Minutes were read
and approved.

Reports being called for, the Committee on Missions not
being ready to make their report, asked longer time, which
was granted them.

The Bishop announced the Committee on Finance. It is
composed of the following members:—John Early, Lovick
Pierce, William Winans, Alexander L. P. Green, Benjamin T.
Crouch.

He announced, also, the Committee on Education. The
folowing members constitute that committee:—Robert Paine,
Augustus B. Longstreet, David S. Doggett, Burr H. McCown,
Benjamin M. Drake, Creed Fulton, Wesley Browning, Little-
ton Fowler, Samuel S. Bryant.

On motion of John B. McFerrin,

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to
devise ways and means to defray the expenses incurred by
Bishops Soule and Andrew in attending this Convention, and
report accordingly.

‘The resolution of Dr. William A. Smith was then called up,
and supported by Dr. Augustus B. Longstreet, in a speech that
ran beyond the hour of adjournment, which took place, with
the benediction by the Bishop.

SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 10.

Convention met. Bishop Andrewin the chair. The usual
religious exercises were conducted by James E. Evans, of the
Georgia Conference. The Minutes were read and approved.

A communication from W. F. Bullock, President of the
Kentucky Institution of the Blind, inviting the members of the

16
182 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Sonvention to visit the Institution, was received and read by
the Secretary, who, on motion of Thomas Crowder, was in-
structed to returh the thanks of the Convention to the President
of said Institution for the polite invitation.

A communication from the members of Durrett’s class, Rock
circuit, Missouri Conference, signed by Charles Carthra and
Mortimer D. Gaines, praying for a separate organization, was
handed in by Jesse Green, and read by the Secretary. _

On motion of John Early, the Secretary was instructed to
forward a certain communication from the Ministers of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in Louisville, Kentucky, to the
Rev. Dr. Elliott, editor of the Western Christian Advocate,
correcting certain misstatements which occurred in his paper
of May 9th, in regard to alleged movements in this city in
opposition to the Southern organization.

John B. McFerrin asked leave to go home, for reasons which
he assigned. The Convention could not grant his request.

Littleton Fowler asked leave to absent himself until Monday
next—-it was granted him. .

The resolution of Dr. William A. Smith was then taken up,
and Dr. Augustus B. Longstreet continued his:speech for one
hour. He was followed by the venerable Samuel Dunwody;
of the South Carolina Conference, who reasoned well on the
resolution for more than an hour. Dr. William Capers made
a few explanatory remarks, after which Dr. Robert Paine
claimed the floor, and on motion of Thomas C. Benning, the
Convention adjourned, with the benediction by Dr. Lovick
Pierce, who, for the time being, was filling the Chair.

MONDAY MORNING, MAY 12.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the chair. The usual
devotions were conducted by Dr. Lovick Pierce, of the Georgia
Conference. The Minutes were read and approved.

Certain Petitions from the citizens of Memphis, asking the
location of the Southern Book Concern in that city, were pre-
sented by Moses Brock—read and laid on the table. On mo-
tion of Edward Stevenson, a committee was ordered, to whom
such memorials may be referred.

A similar Petition from the Brook-street Charge, Louisville,
Kentucky, was received, read, and placed with the foregoing.

The resolution of Dr. William A. Smith was.then taken up,
and its merits discussed, most ably and patiently, in a speech,
by Dr. Robert Paine. The Bishop then announced the com-
mittee on the Book Concern and Periodicals,—it consists of
the following members:—Dr. William Winans, Edward Ste-
venson, Moses Brock, Hugh A. C. Walker, Thomas Crowder,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 183

and on motion of Andrew Monroe, Thomas Johnson was
added to the foregoing. , -

William Winans asked to be released from serving on the
Committee on Finance. At his nomination, John G. Jones
was chosen to supply his place.

Thomas Crowder, of the Virginia Conference, claimed the
floor, and, on motion of Hezekiah G. Leigh, the Convention
adjourned with the benediction by the Bishop.

TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 13.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the chair. Opencd
with the usual services by Thomas Johnson, of the Missouri
Conference. The Minutes were read and approved.

The resolution of Dr. William A.Smith was then taken up
and sustained for about one hour, in a speech by Thomas
Crowder, of the Virginia Conferénce.

On motion of George W. Brush, the discussion of the Reso-
lution was suspended to give him an opportunity to present
certain communications from the stations of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in Louisville, Kentucky, praying for the lo-
cation of the Book Concern and Newspaper in said city. One
of the documents was read, and all were referred to the ap-
propriate committee.

James E. Evans offered the following resolution:—

Resolved, That in the judgment of the Convention, it is not
necessary that the general causes and necessities for a sepa-
rate organization should be discussed any longer—unless some
members from the border Conferences should think it neces-
sary to do so, in order to represent their portion of the Church
correctly.

George W. Brush, of the Kentucky Conference, made a fuw
felicitous remarks, and was followed by Hubbard H. Kava-
naugh of the same Conference, who favored the Convention
with an excellent speech. Thomas Stringfield, of the Holston
Conference, made a few remarks, and was succeeded by
William Patton and Andrew Monroe, of the Missouri Confer-
ence, and William Gunn of the Kentucky Conference. On
motion of Fountain E. Pitts, of the Tennessee Conference, the
session was extended fifteen minutes, in favor of the last
speaker, who concluded before the time expired, and John C.
Harrison, of the Kentucky Conference, followed and spoke
beyond the hour of adjournment, which took place with the
benediction by the Bishop.
184 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 14.

Convention met. Bishop Soule in the chair. The usual
religious exercises were conducted by Hezekiah G. Leigh, of
the North Carolina Conference. The Minutes were read and
approved.

The Committee on Finance made their report, which, on
motion of Hezekiah G. Leigh, was laid on the table.

On motion of Leroy M. Lee, the Report was ordered to be
printed.

On motion of John Early, the Publication Committee were
instructed not to print it in the newspaper of to-morrow.

The Committee on Missions made their report, which, on
motion of the chairman of said committee, was laid on the
table.

A Petition from Nashville;Tennessee, praying the establish-
ment of the Book Concern, and the holding of the first Southern
General Conference in that city, was presented by Messrs.
McFerrin, Harris, Hanner, and Pitts; it was read and referred
to the appropriate committee,

On motion of John Early, the resolution of James E. Evans
was taken up; whereupon, Fountain E. Pitts, of the Tennessee
Conference, occupied half an hour in a speech. He was fol-
lowed by Moses Brock, of the Memphis Conference, who paved
the way for William McMahon, of the same Conference, who
entertained the Convention for halfan hour. He was followed
by William Gunn and Benjamin T. Crouch of the Kentucky
Conference, William A. Smith, of the Virginia Conference,
George W. D. Harris of the Memphis Conference, and Thomas
K. Catlett, of the Holston Conference.

The resolution of James E. Evans was then withdrawn.

The resolution of Dr. Smith was then taken up, and after a
few remarks in its support by Joseph Boyle and Jesse Green,
of the Missouri Conference, and Littleton Fowler, of the
Texas Conference, was adopted, with one dissenting vote.

On motion of Hezekiah G. Leigh; the Convention then ad-
journed, with the benediction by the Bishop.

THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 15.
Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the chair. The usual
devotions were conducted by Jonathan Stamper, of the Illinois
Conference. The Minutes were read and approved.
A memorial from the Mayor and City Council, one from
upwards of 250 citizens, and another from 51 lawyers, of the
city of Louisville, Ky., praying for the location of the Book
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 185

Concern and newspaper in said city, were presented by George
W. Brush, of the Kentucky Conference; read and referred to
the appropriate committee.

On motion of Dr. William A. Smith, the Convention resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole, to take under considera-
tion the report of the Committee on Missions.

In about an hour, the Committee of the Whole rose, and,
the Convention being resumed, the chairman reported that the
committee had, according to order, had under consideration
the report in question, and had made progress therein; but not
having time to go through the same, had directed him to ask
leave to sit again. On motion of Thomas Crowder, of the
Virginia Conference, the request was granted.

It was then announced that the Committee on Organization
were prepared to make their report. Nearly two hours were
occupied by Dr. Bascom, the chairman of the committee, in
reading that elaborate document.

On motion of Drs. William A. Smith and William Capers,
the report was accepted, and the Publishing Committee were
instructed to print one hundred copies for the use of the con-
vention.

Dr. Winans was excused from serving on the Book Con-
cern, and, on his motion, Alexander L. P. Green was chosen
to fill his place.

Dr. Paine was excused from serving on the Committee on
Education. George.F. Pierce was chosen in his place.

On motion of Leroy M. Lee, the Convention then adjourned,
with the benediction by the Bishop.

FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 16.

Convention met. Bishop Soule in the chair. The usual
devotions were conducted by Jefferson Hamilton, of the Ala-
bama Conference. The Minutes were read an approved.

On motion of* Samuel S. Bryant, of the North Carolina, and
Thomas Crowder, of the Virginia Conference, the Convention
resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, to take under
further consideration the report of the Committee on Missions.
John James, of*the Kentucky Conference, was called to the
chair.

At 12 o’clock the committee rose, and, the Convention being
resumed, the chairman presented the report of the committee;
which, on motion, was laid on the table.

On motion of Leroy M. Lee, the Convention then adjourned,
with the benediction by the Bishop.

16*
186 HISTORY OF, THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 17.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the chair. Religious
exercises were conducted by Joshtia Boucher, of the Tennes-
see Conference. The Minutes were read and approved.

A communication from certain persons in Frankfort, Ken-
tucky, praying for the location of a newspaper in said city,
was presented by Dr. Bascom, and, on motion of Dr. Capers,
referred to the Committee on the Book Concern and Periodicals.

On motion of John Early, of the Virginia Conference, the
report of the Committee on Organization was taken up, and
the Convention resolved to act on it by yeas and nays—sick and
absent members being permitted to enter their votes at some
subsequent period during the session.

The first resolution was read, and, on motion of John Early,
was adopted, as follows:—

Be it resolved, by the Delegilles of the several Annual Confer-
ences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Slaveholding States,
in General Convention assembled, That it is right, expedient,
and necessary to erect the Annual Conferences represented in
this Convention, into a distinct ecclesiastical connexion,
separate from the jurisdiction of the General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at present constituted;
and accordingly, we, the delegates of said Annual Conferences,
acting under the provisional plan of separation adopted by
the General Conference of 1844, do solemnly declare the juris-
diction hitherto exercised over said Annual Conferences, by
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
entirely dissolved; and that said Annual Conferences shall be,
and they hereby are constituted, a separate ecclesiastical con-
nexion, under the provisional plan of separation aforesaid,
and based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, comprehending the doctrines and‘entire moral, eccle-
siastical, and economical rules and regulations of said Discip-
line, except only, in so far as verbal alterations may be ne-
cessary to a distinct organization, and to be known by the style
and title of the Meruovisr Errscoran Caurcu, Souru.

Yeas.-—Henry B. Bascom, Edward Stevenson, Hubbard H.
Kavanaugh, Benjamin T. Crouch; George W. Brush, Burr H.
McCown, James King, John James, Thontas N. Ralston,
Andrew Monroe, Jesse Green, John Glanville, Wesley Brown-
ing, William Patton, John H. Linn, Joseph Boyle, Thomas
Johnson, Thomas K. Catlett, Thomas Stringfield, Rufus M.
Stevens, Timothy Sullins, Creed Fulton, Robert Paine, John B.
McFerrin, Alexander L. P. Green, Fountain E. Pitts, Ambrose
F. Driskill, John W. Hanner, Joshua Boucher, Thomas Maddin;.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 187

Frederick G. Ferguson, Robert L. Andrews, Samuel S. Bryant,
Hezekiah G. Leigh, Bennet T. Blake, Robert J. Carson, Peter
Doub, John T. Brame, Moses Brock, George W. D. Harris,
Wm. McMahon, Thomas Joyner, Asbury Davidson, Wilson L.
McAlister, Thomas Smith, John Harrell, John F. Truslow,
Jacob Custer, John Early, Thomas Crowder, William A. Smith,
Leroy M. Lee, Abraham Penn, David S. Doggett, Henry B.
Cowles, Anthony Dibrell, Lewell Campbell, John G. Jones,
Green M. Rogers, Benjamin M. Drake, Samuel W. Speer,
William H. Watkins, William Winans, Littleton Fowler,
Francis Wilson, Robert Alexander, Jefferson Hamilton, Jesse
Boring, Thomas H. Capers, Eugene V. Levert, Elisha Cal-
loway, Thomas O. Summers, Greenbury Garrett, Lovick
Pierce, James E. Evang, John W. Glenn, Samuel Anthony,
Augustus B. Longstreet, lsaac Boring, James B. Payne, George
F. Pierce, Thomas Samford, William Capers, William M.
Wightman, Hugh A. C. Walker, Samuel Dunwody, Bond
English, Samuel W. Capers, Whiteford Smith, Robert J. Boyd,
Peyton P. Smith, Thomas C. Benning, Edward T. Peery,
David B. Cumming—94.

.Nays—William Gunn, George W. Taylor, John C. -Harri-
son—3. ;

The second resolution was then read, and on motion of
Thomas Crowder, of the Virginia Conference, adopted, as
follows:—

Resolved, That we cannot abandon or compromise. the prin-
ciples of action, upon which we proceed to a separate or-
ganization in the South; nevertheless, cherishing a sincere
desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intergourse
with the Church North, we shall always be ready, kindly and
respectfully, to entertain, and duly and carefully consider, any
proposition or plan, having for its object the union of the two
great bodies, in the North and South, whether such proposed
union be jurisdictional or connectional.

Yeas.—Bascom, Stevenson, Kavanaugh, Crouch, Gunn,
Taylor, Brush, Harrison, McCown, King, James, Ralston,
Monroe, J. Green, Glanville, Browning, Patton, Linn, Boyle,
Johnson, Catlett, Stringfield, Stevens, Sullins, Fulton, Paine,
McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, Pitts, Driskill, Hanner, Boucher,
Maddin, Fergusof, Andrews, Bryant, Leigh, Blake, Carson,
Doub, Brame, Brock, Harris, McMahon, Joyner, Davidson,
McAlister, T. Smith, Harrell, Truslow, Custer, Early, Crowder,
W. A. Smith, Lee, Penn, Doggett, Cowles, Dibrell, Campbell,
Jones, Rogers, Drake, Speer, Watkins, Winans, Fowler, Wil-
son, Alexander, Hamilton, Boring, T. H. Capers, Levert, Cal-
loway, Summers, Garrett, L. Pierce, Evans, Glenn, Anthony,
188 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Longstreet, Boring, Payne, G. F. Pierce, Samford, W. Capers,

Wightman, Walker, Dunwody, English,S. W. Capers, W.

Smith, Boyd, P. P. Smith, Benning, Peery, Cumming—97.
Nayvs—None.

The Committee on Organization then presented an addi-
tional report, which was amended and adopted, in the follow-
ing form:—

1. Resolved, That this Convention request the Bishops, pre-
siding at the ensuing session of the border Conferences of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to incorporate into the
aforesaid Conferences any societies or stations adjoining the
line of division, provided such societies or stations, by a ma-
jority of the members, according to the provisions of the plan
of separation adopted by the late General Conference, re-
quest such an arrangement.

2. Resolved, That answer 2d of 3d section, chapter Ist of the
Book of Discipline, be so altered and amended as to read as
follows:—

“The General Conference shall meet on the first day of
May, in the year of our Lord, 1846, in the town of Petersburg,
Virginia, and thenceforward in the month of April or May,
once in four years successively; and in such place and on
such day as shall be fixed on by the preceding General Confer-
ence, &c.” ;

3. Resolved further, That the first answer in the same chap-
ter be altered by striking out the word “ twenty-one,’ and in-
serting in its place fourteen.

Yras.—Bascom, Stevenson, Kavanaugh, Crouch, Gunn,
Taylor, Brush, Harrison, McCown, King, James, Ralston,
Monroe, J. Green, Glanville, Browning, Patton, Linn, Boyle,
Johnson, Catlett, Stringfield, Stevens, Sullins, Fulton, Paine,
McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, Pitts, Driskill, Hanner, Boucher,
Maddin, Ferguson, Andrews, Bryant, Leigh, Blake, Carson,
Doub, Brame, Brock, Harris, McMahon, Joyner, Davidson,
McAlister, T. Smith, Harrell, Truslow, Custer, Early, Crowder,
W. A. Smith, Lee, Penn, Doggett, Cowles, Dibrell, Campbell,
Jones, Rogers, Drake, Speer, Watkins, Winans, Fowler, Wil-
son, Alexander, Hamilton, Boring, T. H. Capers, Levert, Cal-
loway, Summers, Garrett, L. Pierce, Evans, Glenn,. Anthony,
Longstreet, J. Boring, Payne, G. F. Pierce, Samford, W. Ca-

ers, Wightman, Walker, Dunwody, English, S. W. Capers;
Smith, Boyd, P. P. Smith, Thomas C. Benning, Peery, Cum-
ming—97.

Nays.—None.

The Report of the Committee on Finance was then taken
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 189

up, and, on motion of Dr. William Capers, the following
resolution was adopted as a substitute:—

Resolved, That it appears not to be necessary at present to
appoint commissioners or agents, as provided for in the plan of
separation adopted by the late General Conference. Never-
theless, we recommend the same to the General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as proper to be
done, so soon as it can be with effect. :

The Report of the Committee on Missions, as amended by
the Committee of the Whole, was then taken up, and, with
the accompanying letter, adopted, as follows:—

The committee to whom was referred the subject of provi-
ding for the management and support of Missions, respectfully
report,

That in view of the present aspect of our missionary fields,
and our position in relation to them, the whole subject re-
ferred—always interesting and important—becomes eminent-
ly vital and essential. And your committee, having passed in
review the condition and prospects of the several missions
belonging to the Southern division of the Church, and exam-
ined with due deliberation and intense solicitude the questions
which have arisen as to the means of supporting them, have
arrived at the conclusion, that, though in other circumstances
it should seem plausible to change materially our system of
finance, it is best for the present to introduce no changes but
such as are necessary to conform our missionary system to our
Church organization. And we deem it to be reason enough
for this conclusion, that even changes which might prove ad-
vantageous after they had become familiar to the numerous
persons to be moved by them, would, at their introduction, be
less productive for the want of familiarty, and the present
juncture imperativgly requires a plan for immediate production.

Your committee, therefore, do respectfully offer the follow-
ing resolutions, as‘specifying what is requisite to be done at
the present time, and as comprehending, in connection with
what is provided in the Book of Discipline, all which appears
to them suitable in our circumstances. .

1. Resolved, That until a General Conference of the Annual
Conferences represented in this Convention, shall have ordered
otherwise, the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, in the city of Louisville, Ky., shall be regarded as the
central or parent society for said Conferences,—said society
having previously changed its title, and adopted a constitution
agreebly to the purport of these resolutions.

2. That the Board of Managers of the central society afore-
said, shall appoint two assistant Treasurers—of whom one
190 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

shall be resident in the city of Charleston, and the other in
the city of New Orleans, to whom monies designed for the
General Treasury may be remitted; and who shall make
quarterly exhibits to the Treasurer at Louisville, of' their re-
ceipts and disbursements, severally.

3. That the Board of Managers of each Annual Confer-
ence, auxiliary, supply the demands of the Missions of its
Annual Conference, as far as it can be done, notifying the
Bishop or President ofthe Conference, of any deficiency for
which he may draw on the General Treasurer at Louisville, or
on one of the assistant Treasurers at Charleston or New Or-
leans. And in case there be a surplus with any of the Con-
ference Societies, the Treasurer of such society shall forthwith
transmit it to the General Treasurer, or one of the assistant
Treasurers,

4. That the Bishops be requested to aid the central Board
with their counsel, as to the ‘appropriation of the funds; and
that the brethren, Alexander L. P. Green, Jerome C. Berry-
man, Benjamin M. Drake, Littleton Fowler, William Capers,
and Hubbard H. Kavanaugh, be a committee for the same

urpose.

5. That the missions connected with the Southern division of
the Church myst be sustained, and, with the blessing of God, shall
be; and that this may be done with greater facility, it is en-
joined on all missionaries to make quarterly reports of the
work in their missions through one of ourChurch papers.

And your committee beg leave further to offer the accompa-
nying Letter, which they respectfully propose to be adopted
as your own.

The Southern and South-western Annual Conferences of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, assembled by their delegates
in Convention, in the city of Louisville, Ky., to the ministers
constituting said Conferences, and to all the brethren, greeting:

Previously to the receipt of this, beloved brethren, you will
have understood, that the Convention, whose letter this is, has
carried into effect the object of its appointment, by forming
our sixteen Annual Conferences (to wit, Missouri, Kentucky,
Virginia, Holston, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Tennessee, Memphis, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida,
East Texas, West Texas, and the Indian Mission Conference)
into a distinct ecclesiastical connection, agreeably to the provi-
sion of the late General Conference. By this-act, the relation
which has hitherto existed between our Indian missions, the mis-
sions in Texas, our domestic missions, (or missions to the people
of color,) and those to the German immigrants within our bounds,
is necessarily changed, both for the management of them, and

f
\
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 191

their support. A great and weighty responsibilty has thus
been devolved on us—on you. And we would not disguse,
but freely unbosom to you, brethren beloved, how deep a
solicitude we have felt that we all may approve ourselves as
the servants of Christ in this matter, and make it manifest
with how simple and sincere a desire we have been moved i
all that we have done, that God may be glorified. a
The first hint afforded in the Holy Scriptures of the expe-
diency of adopting a separation of jurisdiction as a remedy
for unmanageable differences in the Church, and to keep the
ministry to their holy work of preaching Christ, without dis-
tracting controversies, (Gal. ii, 1-10,) is accompanied with an
express stipulation on behalf ofthe poor. That Scripture act of
separation, or division, was the work of the Apostles, moved,
no doubt, by the Spirit of God; and in circumstances by no
means dissimilar, it behooves us to practice the lesson which it in-
culcates, by devising liberal things. !
And how numerous are the poor who must be destitute of
the gospel without our ministry. Consider the many hundreds
of thousands of the African race, who, though dwelling in
our midst, cannot be served by the circuit appointments—Ger-
man immigrants—the thousands of families scattered over the
least favored parts of Florida and Arkansas, (where it is com-
puted that the ministry cannot be sustained in the ratio of one
to every fifty miles square)—East and West Texas—the tribes
of Indians included in our Mission Conference—and the vast
range of the farther tribes, from the borders of Mexico to the
Rocky Mountains. . How wide is the field! And what a call
is this, of so many kindreds, colors, and conditions of men, in
our national territory, crying to us for the gospel of Christ?
This gospel they must have. The negro in his bonds—our
citizen people in their far-off homes—the strangers among us
from a foreign land—the Indian in the wilderness, whither he
has retreated that we might possess his lands and become
great in the earth—they must have the gospel. They all must
have it, and we must give it to them. We have meant this,
all this, and nothing but this, in all that we have done. We
feel that our action in this Convention pledges us anew for
the maintenance of that great motive principle of Methodism,
that the gospel must be preached, with all our might, to as
many as we can, and at all hazards. And your action, brethren,
without which ours might not have been attempted, pledges
you to sustain us to the utmost of your power. Nor can we
in the least distrust you, but rest satisfied that our confidence
in you will never be put to shame. You will suffer no good
work which has been begun to stop at its beginning, and
nothing in progress to be put back, on account of its becoming
192 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

connected with a Southern General Conference or a Southern
Missionary Society. And satisfied we are, that no harm need
happen in any quarter, from the present posture of. affairs, if
you, brethren, will unite with us as one man in a hearty reso-
lution that by God’s help, there shall no harm happen. Indeed,
we see not but instead of harm, (to the general cause at least)
much good may result. The very act which removes us from
under the jurisdiction of a General Conference like the last,
removes out of the way the chief hindrance to the preaching
of the gospel to the colored population. It must operate fa-
vorably on.the public mind in Texas also; and yet more among
the Indians. We hope, indeed, that it will prove a means of
recovering the ground so unhappily lost in the Creek Nation,
partly by abolition intermeddling, some years ago.

‘Whether we direct our attention then to our colored popu-
lation, or to the German immigrants, or to the least favored
parts of the States of Arkansas and Florida, or to Texas, or
to the Indian Mission Conference, “a great door and effectual”
is opened to us, and every Christian consideration urges that
we enter and occupy in our Master’sname. We would, espe-
cially at the present juncture, have you consider how great
the -work is which has been devolved tous in the Indian Con-
ference; as it is probable that you are less acquainted with it,
both as to its extent and cost,than with other portions of the
missionary field which lie nearer to you. _ Besides teachers and
others not exclusively employed as preachers of the gospel,
we have twenty white missionaries and twelve Indian preach-
ers, (of whom seven are regular itinerants,) and about four
thousand Church members, among some twenty tribes of In-
dians, of whom the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chicasaws, Creeks,
Seminoles, Senecas, Quapaws, Osages, Kansas, Potwattamies,
Chippeways, Otawa, Peoria, Miami, Shawnees, Kickapoos,
Delawares, and Wyandotts, are the principal. Their num-
bers are about 90,000, and there are some 20,000 negroes
(slaves) among them. We have also four schools, at which
nearly three hundred children, of both sexes, are taught the
rudiments of English education, and some knowledge of the
mechanic arts, agriculture, and housewifery. And these
schools are so situated that children belonging to some twenty
tribes partake ofthe benefit. These tribes are rapidly: ad-
vancing to a degree of civilization; and ours is the responsi-
ble and interesting office of serving as their guides. Shall
their advancement be accompanied with the lights of virtue
and religion, or left to the misguiding influences of vice and
infidelity? Who can hesitate?

Of how much value the Indians themselves regard the
schools, may be inferred from the fact that the expense of
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. | 193

maintaining them, is shared with us by appropriations volunta-
rily made out of their annuities. The cost we incur is about
eight thousand dollars, and for the regular work about twelve
thousand more. Add to this an equal sum for missions to the
slaves in our own States, some eight thousand dollars for the
German missions, half as much to assist the work in the
weaker parts of Arkansas and Florida, and five thousand dol-
lars to East and West Texas, and you have what is considered
a moderate estimate of the annual cost of the missions which
now depend on us for support. Will you not furnish it? What
is the sum of fifty or even sixty thousand dollars to a member-
ship of near half a million, having a willing mind.

We have considered with careful deliberation, what system
might prove most convenient for collecting your liberality, and
have concluded that it is best, at least for the present, to adopt
no changes, farther than is necessary to conform to our Church
organization. If, however, any should think our system de-
fective, we would exhort such to supply the deficiency by
greater diligence. We cannot at present risk an experiment.
There must be no delay. The central society will lose no time
to organize on the plan adopted, and elect a General Treasu-
rer, to reside at Louisville, and Assistant Treasurers at Carles-
ton and New Orleans. Meanwhile, the preachers, every
where within our bounds, should be actively employed in pro-
curing contributions. We repeat, there must be rio delay, no
holding back, no waiting for one another, no postponing the
matter to.a convenient season. We desire that every one
should receive this letter as summoning him to begin, not by
and by, not to-morrow, not the next hour, but with the paper
in his hand. Read it to those about you—in the societies—
in the congregations; and add what shall strike you to pro-
mote the cause? And may God, whom we serve in the gospel
of his Son, send now prosperity.

Signed in behalf of the Convention.

James O. Anprew, Pres’t.

Tuomas O. Summers, Sec’y.

All of which is respectfully submitted.
May 14th, 1845. Wituam Carers, Ch’n.

On motion of Thomas Crowder, the thanks of the Conven-
tion, by a rising vote, were given to the citizens of Louisville,
for defraying the expenses incurred by Bishops Soule and An-
drew in attending the Convention, and by printing and other
incidentals incurred during the session.

On motion of John Early, the Convention adjourned to
meet again this afternoon at 3 o’clock,—Bishop Andrew pro-
nouncing the benediction.

1
194 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

SATURDAY AFTERNOON, MAY 17.

Convention met. Bishop Andrew in the chair. Opened
with prayer by Francis Wilson, of the Texas Conference.—
The Minutes were read and approved. x

The Committee on Finance reported the following resolu-
tion, which, on motion of Dr. Wiliam Capers, was adopted:—

Resolved, That the family expenses of the Bishops be equally
divided among the fifteen Annual Conferences of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, South, and paid in the same manner
that their quarterage and traveling expenses are now paid.

Joun Earzy, Ch’n.

The Committee on Education then made their report, which
was accepted, and the following resolution adopted:—

Resolved, That this Convention recommend to the several
Annual Conferences here represented, at their next session, to
collect all the material facts comnected with the Institutions of
learning under their control, respectively, and forward the
same by their delegates to the next General Conference.

Grorce F. Pierce, Ch’n.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE BOOK CONCERN AND PERIODICALS.

The committee to whom was referred the subject of a Book
Concern and Periodicals, after taking the subject into con-
sideration, beg leave to report,—

Your committee take great pleasure in saying to this Con-
vention, that quite a number of memorials and petitions, to-
gether with kind and liberal offers. of pecuniary aid, have
come into our hands. From the city of Memphis we have
received a very flattering proposal, consisting in a large brick:
building, formerly occupied as a Tavern, which is said to have
cost some $30,000, (though its present value we would not.
not attempt to estimate) together with the expressed wish and
desire of a large number of the citizens of the city and neigh-
horhood, that our contemplated Book Concern should be loca-
ted at that place; pledging themselves to aid and assist the
enterprise to the utmest of their ability.

We have also received several petitions from the citizens of
this city (Louisville) praying its location here, setting forth the
claims of this place to your consideration, and further assuring
us that should the Book Concern be established here, that a
considerable amount of funds can and will be raised in aid of
such establishment. "We have also been favored with a me-
morial from the city of Nashville, setting forth the claims of
that city as every way suitable for such an establishment.
Si. Louis, also, has been presented to your committee as anx-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 195
ious for the location of said Concern there, and as in every
way ‘eligible for the same. While your committee are of. the
opinion that any one of the abovementioned cities are worthy
of such an establishment, and rejoice to learn that our friends
in the South feel so deep an interest in this great auxiliary in
promoting the cause of God and the best interests of man-
kind; yet itis the opinion of your committee, that as there
will be a General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, in Petersburg, next May—vested with full power
to establish a Book Concern, and as further developments may
yet be made with respect to: the most eligible point within
our bounds to locate such an establishment;

1. Resolved, therefore, That while we consider a Book Con-
cern as indispensable tg the prosperity of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, yet we deem the establishment of one at
this time premature; nevertheless, we recommend the appoint-
ment of two Book Agents, whose duty shall be to receive propo-
sitions for the location of the Book Concern, and also receive
moneys and contributions for building up the same, and report
to the General Conference to be held at Petersburg next May.

2. Resolved; That we recommend to the ministers and mem-
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to continue for
the.present to patronize the Book Concerns at New York and
Cincinnati.

3. Resolved, That we recommend to our friends, generally,
that they patronize our Periodicals, viz: South-Western. Chris-
tian Advocate, Southern Christian Advocate, and Richmond
Christian Advocate, as every way worthy of our support.

A. L. P. Green, Chin.

‘John Early, of the Virginia Conference, and John B. Mc-
Ferrin, of the Tennessee Conference, were unanimously
elected the Book Agents provided for in the first resolution of
the foregoing report.

A communication from James P. Shaffner, was received and
referred to the Committee on the Book Concern and Periodicals.

On motion of John Early, the Convention adjourned, with
the benediction by the Bishop. ‘

MONDAY: MORNING, MAY 19.

Convention met. Bishop Soule in the chair. The usual
devotions were conducted by Jacob Custer of the Arkansas
Conference. The Minutes were read and approved.

John Harrell, of the Arkansas Conference, and Robert
Paine, of the Tennessee Conference, obtained leave to go
home, when they may find it necessary. a

3
196 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The Book Concern and Periodical Committee made an ad-
ditional report, which was adopted, as follows:—

The committee to whom was referred the request of J. P.
Shaffner, Esq., which contemplates the getting up of a publi-
cation of the acts of this Convention, together with the
speeches which have been delivered on the occasion, having
taken the subject into consideration, beg leave to submit to
the Convention their views with regard to this matter.

. The great difficulty there is, at present, of obtaining a faith-
ful and correct history of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
in America, has no doubt often occurred to every member of
this body, and notwithstanding such a work has been attempted,
yet it is evident to every one, that it is an utter failure. This
has no doubt grown out of the very nature of things, and
does not necessarily attach blame to any one. Although
our fathers in the ministry were generally men of sound
minds and enlarged views, having a correct knowledge of the
Holy Scriptures and plan of salvation by faith—men of deep
piety and great usefulness—yet there were but few writers
among them, and even those who might be called ripe scholars
and able preachers, far the greater part have passed away,
leaving their names embalmed in the memory of the Church,
but no manuscripts with which to enlighten following gene-
rations with regard to the true history of our Church; and
even those of them who: wrote at all, confined themselves
principally to their own private journals or sectional questions.
No individual has collected and kept together the facts which
came up from time to time in our progress,so as to furnish the
Church and the world with anything like a correct history of
Methodism. All this may be accounted for from the following
facts:—in the first place, their fields of labor were very ex-
tensive, and between traveling, preaching and pastoral duties,
their time and strength were taxed to their utmost. Add to
this, that for a considerable time we had no public journals of
our own, and access to the world through literary or political
journals was very difficult, so that in all probability much of
what little was written has been left in the hands of friends who
have neglected it, and it long since has become defaced, and
being condemned as worthless, has passed away.

But we rejoice to be able to say} to you, beloved brethren,
that our situation is very different from that of our fathers—
now, almost every journal is ready to throw open its columns
to us. We have writers, and printers, and periodicals, and
book-makers of our own, and should generations to come fail
to receive from us a faithful account of what we have done,
they could not plead such an apology for us, as we have to
offer for our fathers, but would be compelled to say that we
wilfully neglected a known duty,
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 197

Your committee would further state, that we would not
attempt to disguise the fact, that the movements of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, both North and South, are at this time
characterized by facts and circumstances, which will anc
must be referred to by generations yet unborn, as an important
epoch in our history, and will stand paramount among the re-
cords of our beloved Clfurch, until the Trump of God shall
awake the dead. ioe :

.A failure, therefore, on our part, as a Convention, to furnish
posterity with a correct account of our acts and doings in the
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to-
gether with the facts which led to the establishing of the
same, would be, in the opinion of your committee, a criminai
neglect of duty; and y6ur committee would further state, that
they not only consider this a duty in view of posterity, but ix
due to the Church which lies near our hearts, and to our coun-
try, of which we are proud, that the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, should be made public—not a matter of
record only, but also of history. The necessity of this course
is the more apparent at present, from the fact that our acts
and doings, and our words in debate, are misrepresented, while
attempts have been made to create before the public mind
false issues. + é -

Your committee believe further, that all the important facts
and circumstances connected with our separate organization,
can now be obtained, compiled, and put into a state of pre-
servation; but should this Convention adjourn without taking
some measure to secure this: object, that it cannot: be.done at
any ‘future period to the same degree of perfection; and as we
do nothing in a corner, but wish the Church and the world at
large to know what we have done, and our reasons for so
acting; therefore, ‘ ,

1. Resolved, That the-editor or editors of the South-westcrn
Christian Advocate, with A. L. P. Green, F. E. Pitts, and John
W. Hanner, be appointed a committee, to be entitled the
Publishing Committee, whose duty it shall be to compile and
publish a work or book, which shall be called The History of the
Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. a

2. Resolved, That said work shall contain.a full account of the
acts and doings of the late General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, in the cases of Rev. James Osgood An-
drew, one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and the Rev. F. A. Harding of the Baltimore Conference, to-

gether wifh the speeches in the abovementioned cases... ,.

, 2. The Protest of the minority against the proceedings:o

the Conference, in the cases mentioned above. i
17*
198 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

3. The Declaration of the delegates from those Conferences
within the bounds of the slave-holding States.

4. The Address of Bishops Soule and Andrew before said
Conference. :

5. The Plan of Division by the Committee of Nine.

6. The Address of the Southern, Delegates to the Church in
the South.

7. Action of each and all the Annual Conferences in the
bounds of the Southern Organization, on the subject of division,
or a separate Southern Organization, together with the vote
of each Conference on their respective resolutions.

8. The Address of Bishops Soule and Andrew before this
Convention,—the manuscript to be furnished by themselves.

9. The acts and doings of this Convention, together with
the speeches which have been delivered.

8. Resolved further, That the following brethren, members
of this body, be, and they are hereby requested and expected
to furnish the Publishing Committee, within one month from
this time (or date) a manuscript copy of their speeches before
this Convention, viz:—

Drs. Winans, Capers and Smith, Rev. John Early, Dr. Pierce,
Rev. G. F. Pierce, Drs. Longstreet and Paine, Rev. T. Crow-
der, Rev. H. H. Kavanaugh, Rev. A. Monroe, Rev.. Wm. Pat-
ton, Rev. Joseph Boyle, Rev. Wm. McMahon, Rev. F. E. Pitts,
Rev. Wm. Gunn, Rev. J. C. Harrison, and Rev. S. Dunwody.

The Committee of Publication shall also be at liberty to
publish such other speeches as may have been reported with
sufficient correctness to justify their publication.

4, Resolved further, That the Journals of the Convention,
with all memorials, petitions, reports, and papers, be placed,
for the present, in the hands of the Publishing Committee, to
enable them to compile the contemplated wor

5. Resolved, That Dr. William Capers and William M. Wight-
man be appointed to address a Circular Letter, in the form of
a Pastoral Address, to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
and said letter shall form a portion of the contemplated work.

6. Resolved, That should any thing which is not referred to
in this report, occur to the Publishing Committee, which, in
their opinion, is of interest, and properly belonging to the con-
templated work, they shall be at liberty to use such matter.

7. Resolved, That the establishment of the South- -westerti
Christian Advocate shall i incur, for the present, the cost of pub-
lication, but shall have the first claim in the sale of the Book,
until the money expended in the publication is refunded; after
which, the profits of the work shall belong to the ‘Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South. All of which is respectfully
submitted. A. L. P. Green, Ch’n. ©
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 199

The report of the Committee on Organization was then
taken up and adopted. .

Yzas.—Bascom, Stevenson, Kavanaugh, Crouch, Gunn,
Brush, King, James, Ralston, Monroe, J. Green, Glanville,
Browning, Patton, Linn, Boyle, Johnson, Catlett, Stringfield,
Stevens, Sullins, Fulton, Paine, McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, Pitts,
Driskill, Hanner, Boucher, Maddin, Andrews, Bryant, Leigh,
Blake, Carson, Doub, Brame, Brock, Harris, McMahon, Joyn-
er, Davidson, McAlister, Smith, Truslow, Custer, Early, Crow-
der, W. A. Smith, Lee, Penn, Doggett, Cowles, Dibrell, Camp-
bell, Jones, Drake, Watkins, Winans, Fowler, Wilson, Alex-
ander, Hamilton, Boring, T. H. Capers, Levert, Calloway,
Summers, Garrett, L, Pierce, Evans, Glenn, Anthony, Long-
street, J. Boring, Payrfe, G. F. Pierce, Samford, W. Capers,
Wightman, Walker, Dunwody, English, S. W. Capers, W.
Smith, Boyd, P. P. Smith, Benning, Peery, Cumming—90.

Nays.—Taylor and Harrison—2.

Assent.—McCown, Ferguson, Harrell, Rogers, Speer—5.

The Committee on Organization then made an additional
report, as follows:— ;

The Committee on Organization beg respectfully to report
the following resolutions for adoption by the Convention:

1. Resolved, That Bishops Soule and Andrew be, and they
are hereby respectfully and cordially requested by this Con-
vention, to unite with and become regular and constitutional
Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, upon the
basis of the plan of separation adopted by the late General
Conference.

2 Resolved, That should any portion of an Annual Confer-
ence on the line of separation, not represented in this Conven-
tion, adhere tothe Methodist Episcopal Church, South, ac-
cording to the plan of separation adopted at the late General
Conference, and elect delegates to the General Conference of
the Church in 1846, upon the basis of representation adopted
by this Convention, they shall be accredited as members of
the General Conference. ; :

3. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, whose
duty it shall be to prepare and report to the General Confer-
ence of 1846, a revised copy of the Peo Discipline, with
such changes as. are necessary to conform ‘it to the Organiza-
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. ‘Respectfully
submitted. Joun Farry, Ch’n.

The first resolution was then adopted:

Yeras.—Bascom, Stevenson, Kavanaugh; Crouch, Gunn,
Taylor, Brush, Harrison, King, James, Ralston, ‘Monroe, J.
Green, Glanville, Browning, Patton, Linn, Boyle, Johnson,
ule
200 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Catlett, Stringfield, Stevens, ‘Sullins, Fulton, Paine, McFerrin,
‘A. L. P. Green, Pitts, Driskill, Hanner, Boucher, Maddin, An-
drews, Bryant, Leigh, Blake, Carson, Doub, Brame, Bréck,
Harris, McMahon, Joyner, Davidson, McAlister, T. Smith,
Truslow, Custer, Early, Crowder, W. A. Smith, Lee, Penn,
Doggett, Cowles, Dibrell, Campbell, Jones, Drake, Watkins,
Winans, Fowler, Wilson; Alexander, Hamilton, Boring, Ca-
pers, Levert, Calloway, Summers,. Garrett, L. Pierce, Evans,
Glenn, Anthony, Longstreet, J. Boring, Payne, Pierce, Samford,
W. Capers, Wightman, Walker, Dunwody, English, 8. W.
Capers, W. Smith, Boyd, P. P. Smith, Benning, Peery, Cum-
ming—95. :

Navs.—None.

Assuxr.—Burr H. McCown, Ferguson, Harrell, Rogers,
Speer.—5.

The following dcouments were received from Bishops Soule
and Andrew, in answer to the invitation contained in ‘this
resolution:—

“Dear Breturen,—I feel myself bound in good faith, to
carry: out the official plan of Episcopal] Visitations as settled
by the Bishops in New York, and’ published in the official
papers of the Church, until the session of the first General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; from
which time it would be necessary that the plan should be so
changed as to be acéommodated to the jurisdiction of the two
distinct General Conferences. That when such Southern
General Conference shall be held, I shall feel myself fully
authorized by the plan of separation, adopted’ by General
Conference of 1844, to unite myself with the Methodist Epis-..
copal Church, South, and if received by the General Confer-
ence of said Church, to exercise the functions of the Episcopal
Office within the jurisdiction of said General’ Conference.

" “ Josuua Souup.

-“ Loutsvitie, Ky., May 19, 1845.” « sh

’“DesrR Brerarey,—I decidedly approve the course which
the Convention. has taken in establishing the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, believing as I do most sincerely, that it
will tend, under God’s blessing, to the wider spread and more
efficient propagation of the gospel of the grace of God. I
accept the invitation of the Convention to act as one of the
superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
and pledge myself, in humble dependence upon Divine grace,
to use my best efforts to promote the cause of God in the in-
teresting and extensive field of labor assigned me.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 201

“May the blessing of God be upon us mutually, in our labo-
rious field of action, and finally, may we all, with our several
charges, be gathered to the home of God and the good in

heaven. ~ Affectionately your brother and
“ Fellow-laborer, °
“ Louisvitte, May, 1845. James O. Anprew.”

On motion of William Gunn the Convention adjourned to
meet again this afternoon, at 3 o’clock—the Bishop pronounc-
, ing the benediction.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, MAY 19.

Convention met. Bishop Soule in the chair. The usual
devotions were conducted by Dr. Lovick Pierce. The Minutes
were read and approved. .

The additional report of the Committee on Organization
was taken up, and the Resolution requiring the vote to be
taken by yeas and nays suspended.

The second and third resolutions. of the report were then
unanimously adopted.

The Committee on Education made an additional report,
which was adopted, and the Secretary was instructed to fur-
nish a copy of the same to the President of Transylvania
University. It is as follows:— ;

The Committee on Education beg leave to offer the follow-
ing additional report:—

Transylvania University, though not now strictly under the
control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has special
claims on our attention, in view of its present and perspective |

,Telations. A connection has subsisted between that Institution
and the Kentucky Annual Conference for nearly three years;
during which period that Conference has enjoyed the control
of the academical department and has supplied it with pro-
fessors. The property is valuable—the endowment large, and
the Institution in.a highly prosperous condition, having about
two hundred and seventy students, and employing eight pro-
fessors. The control of this department of the University is
now tendered by the Trustees to the Methodist Episcopal

‘Church, South, through this Convention, on terms entirely
liberal and advantageous to the Church. That the Church
should avail itself of a proposition so well calculated to pro-
mote her welfare and extend her sphere of useful influence,
can hardly be doubted; but as the power of this body in its
conventional capacity to act conclusively in the premises is
questionable, the consummation of the proposed connexion
must of necessity be deferred until the meeting of the Gene-
¢

202 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in
May, 1846. It is, however, in the mean time, expedient to
give such assurances as are not inconsistent with our Con-
ventional character, of a just appreciation of the liberal pro-
position of the Trustees, and of the intention of the Church to
consummate in good faith the proposed connexion, so soon as
it may be practicable to do so; therefore, \

Resolved, 1. That the members of this Convention highly ap-
preciate the offer made to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, by the Trustees of Transylvania University, of the
control of the academical department of said Institution, and
that we will use our influence, so far ag it may be done, con-
sistently with obligations to kindred Institutions under the care
of our Conferences, to promote its patronage and general
prosperity.

Resolved, 2. That it be recommended to the Annual Confer-
ences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to instruct
their delegates in the General Conference of 1846, to take
such action as will consummate the proposed connexion be-
tween the Trustees of Transylvania University and the Gene-
ral Conference, and adopfit as the University of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.

Resolved, 3. That it is the judgment of the members of this
Convention, that by fair construction of the terms and condi-
tions of the negotiation pending between the Trustees of Tran-
sylvania University and the Annual Conferences of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, South, it will be competent and proper
for the present Curators of the University, in behalf of the
Church, to fill any. vacancies in their own Board, until the
meeting of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, in May, 1846. Gerorce F’, Pierce, Ch’n.

The committee appointed to prepare a Pastoral Address,
submitted the following, which was adopted:—

To the ministers of the several Annual Conferences of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and to all the brethren of
their pastoral oversight, the Convention of said Annual Con-
ferences address this letter, with Christian salutation.

We gratefully regard it matter of congratulation, beloved
brethren, for which our thanks should be offered at the throne
of grace, that we have been enabled to conduct the business
confided to us by you, with great harmony, and except, perhaps,
some inconsiderable shades of difference on points of minor
import, with unexampled unanimity. Our agreement on all
questions of importance, has probably been as perfect as the
weakness of human knowledge might allow, or reason should
require.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 203

For full information of all that we have done, we refer you
to the journal of our proceedings, and the documents which
accompany it; particularly the Reports of the Committees on
Organization, and on Missions. This latter interest we have -
made the subject of a special letter, wishing to bring it imme-
diately to the notice of all our Churches and congregations, (to
whom we have requested the letter might be read,) to engage
their instant liberality.

We made it a point of early inquiry, in the course of our
proceedings, to ascertain with what unanimity the Annual
Conferences represented by us, and the entire body of the min-
istry and membership within their general bounds, were known
to have concurred in sustaining the declaration of the South-
ern delegates in the late*General Conference, and in approving
of the plan provided by that Conference for our being consti-
tuted a distinct ecclesiastical connection, separate from the
North. The Committee on Organization, being composed of
two members from each of the Annual Conferences,.was fur-
nished with ample means of obtaining satisfactory informa-
tion. The members of the committee held meetings with
their several delegations apart, and on acomparison of their
several reports carefully made, it was found, that both as to the
members of the Annual Conferences, and the local ministry
and membership of our entire territory, the declaration had
been sustained, and a separate organization called for, by as
great a majority as ninety-five to five. Nor did it appear that
even five in a hundred were disposed to array themselves against
their brethren, whose interests were identical with their own,
but that part were Northern brethren sojourning in our bor-
ders, and part were dwelling in sections of the country where
the questions involved did not materially concern their Chris-
tian privileges, or those of the slaves among them. . So great
appears to have been the unanimity of opinion prevailing,
both among the pastors and the people, as to the urgent ne-
cessity of the great measure which we were deputed to effect,
by organizing on the basis of the discipline, and the plan pro-
vided by the late General Conference, Tue Meruopist Eriscopa
Cuurcu, Soutu. ;

That on so grave a question, concerning interests so sacred,
and affecting so numerous a people, spread over the vast ex-
tent of the country from Missouri to the Atlantic Ocean, and
from Virginia to Texas, there should be found some who dissent, .
is what we could not but expect. But that the number dis-
senting should have been so small, compared to the number of
those who have required us to act, is, at least to our minds,
conclusive proof of the absolute necessity of this action, as
affording the only means left in our power to preserve the
204 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Church in the more Southern States from hopeless ruin.” In-
deed the action of the late General Conference, without the
intervention of the declaration of the Southern delegates, and
the provisional plan for a separate Southern connection, must
have immediately broken up all our missions to the people of
color, and subjected their classes in most of the Southern cir-
cuits to. ruinous deprivations. Of this, the evidence has been
unquestionable. And it must appear to you, brethren, that
for whateverreason so great an evil was threatened for a cause
which the Southern delegates did nothing to produce, but re-
sisted in the General Conference, that evil could not fail of
being inflicted with redoubled violence, and to a still greater
extent, if we, having a platform legally furnished for a sepa-
rate organization, should hesitate a moment to avail ourselves
of it. It would be, in effect, to put ourselves, in relation to the
laws and policy of the Southern people, in the same position
which was so injuriously offensive in our Northern brethren,
while it could not be plead in extenuation of the fault, that we
were Northern men, and ignorant of the state of affairs at
the South. Into such a position we could not. possibly put
ourselves; nor can we think that reasonable men would re-
quire us to do so.

We avow, brethren, and we doit with the greatest solemni-
ty, that while we have thus been laid under the imperative
force of an-absolute necessity to organize the Southern and
South-western Conferences into an independent ecclesiastical
connection, whose jurisdiction shall be exclusive of all in-
terference on the part of the North, we do not withdraw
from the true Christian and Catholic pale of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Andthat whilst we have complained, with
grievous cause, of the power of the majority of the General
Conference, as that power has been construed and exercised,
we have not complained, and have no complaint, against the
Church in itself. The General Conference, or a majority
thereof, is not the Church. Nor is it possible that that should
be the Methodist Episcopal Church, which withdraws the min-
istry of the gospel from the poor, and turns her aside from
her calling of God “to spread scripture holiness over these
lands,” in order to fulfill some other errand, no matter what. .
We could not be Methodists at all, as we have been taught
what Methodism is, if with our knowledge of its nature, its aim,
its constitution, its discipline, and of the ruin inevitable to the
work of the ministry in most of the Southern States, if not in
all of them, should we still cleave to a Northern jurisdiction;
we nevertheless could not be persuaded to yield the gospel for
a jurisdictional affinity with brethren, who, we believe in our
hearts, cannot govern us without great injury to the cause of
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 205

Christ in most parts of our work. If we err, it is the spirit of
Methodism which prompts us to the error. We “call God for
arecord,” that, as far as we know our hearts, we intend noth-
ing, we desire nothing, we do nothing, having any other object
or aim but that the gospel may be preached, without let or
hindrance, in all parts of our country, and especially to the
poor. There is nothing belonging of right to the Church—
her doctrines, her discipline, her economy, her usages, her
efficiency, which we do not cherish in our inmost hearts. It is
not the Church, not any thing proper to the Church, in her
character as Christ’s body, and consecrated to the promotion of
his cause in the earth, which we would disown, or depart from,
or oppose; but only such a position in the Church as some of
her sons would force us into, antagonistic to her principles,
her policy, and her calling of God. Nor yet can we be
charged with any factious or schismatic opposition to the
General Conference, for we have done nothing, and mean to
do nothing, not authorized by express enactment of that body,
in view of the very emergency which compels our action.

It had been too much to expect, considering the weakness
of man, that suddenly roused to resistance as the Southern
Churches were, by the unlooked for action in the cases of
Cishop Andrew and brother Harding, there should not in some
instances have escaped expressions of resentment and unkind-
ness. Or that, put to the defence of the majority of the Gen-
eral Conference, where the evil complained of was so serious,
the advocates of that majority should not sometimes have ex-

ressed themselves in terms which seemed harsh and unjust.

e deeply deplore it, and pray that for the time to come, such
exhibitions of a mortifying frailty may give place to Christian
moderation. We invoke the spirit of peace and holiness.
That brother shall be esteemed as deserving best, who shall
do most for the promotion of peace. Surely this is a time of
all others, in our day, when we should seek and pursue peace.
A continuance of strife between North and South, must prove
prejudicial on both sides. The separation is made—formally, |
legally made—and let peace ensue. In Christ’s name let
there be peace. Whatever is needful to be done, or worth
the doing, may be done in peace. We especially exhort
brethren of the border Conferences and societies, to forbear
each other in love, and labor after peace. Let every one abide
by the law of the General Conference with respect to our
bounds, and choose for himself with Christian temper, and
permit others to choose without molestation, between North
and South. Our chief care should be to maintain “ the unity
of the spirit in the bond-of peace.” Methodism preserved in
what makes it one the world over—the purity of its doctrines,

18
206 HISTORY, OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

the efficiency of its discipline, its unworldliness, its zeal for
God, its self-devotion—is of infinitely greater value than a
question of boundary, or General Conference jurisdiction
merely.

And now, brethren, beseeching you to receive the word of
exhortation which we have herein briefly addressed to you,
and humbly invoking the blessings of God upon you, accord-
ing to the riches of his grace in Christ our Lord, praying for
you, as we always do, that you may abound in every good
work, and confiding in your prayers for us, that we may be
found one with you in faith and charity at the appearing of
Jesus Christ, we take leave of you, and return from the work
which we have now fulfilled, to renew our Jabors with you
and among you in the Lord. James O. Anprew, Pres’t.

Tuomas O. Summers, Sec’y.

Louisvitir, Ky., May 16, 1845.

On motion of Thomas N. Ralston, it was

Resolved, That in the judgment of- this Convention, those
societies and stations on the border, within the limits of Con-
ferences represented in this Convention, be constructively
understood as adhering to the South, unless they see proper to
take action on the subject; and in all such cases, we consider
the Pastor of the society or station as the proper person to
preside in the meeting.

On motion of William A. Smith, it was

Resolved, That the Pastoral Address be printed, and that
such border charges or societies as may feel themselves called
upon to make an election between the Northern and Southern
division of the Church be, and they are hereby, respectfully
requested to have the Pastoral Address of this Convention
read before the society or the several societies of the charge,
before voting on the subject.

Dr. Lovick Pierce presented a document on the Bible cause,
which was read, adopted, and ordered to be published.

On motion of Dr. William Capers, it was

Resolved, That we cherish an affectionate sense of the very
kind obligations under which we have been laid to our friends
of this city, for the Christian hospitality with which we have
been entertained at their houses, during the session of this
Convention, and that our prayers to God shall not be wanting
for their prosperity and spiritual welfare.

Resolved, That we entertain a grateful sense of the liberali-
ty of those Churches and Pastors of this city who have invited
us to their pulpits, and that we will not fail to remember them
as brethren, at the throne of grace.

On motion of Drs. Winans and Bascom, it was
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 207

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered
to Bishops Soule and Andrew, for the able and impartial man-
ner in which they have performed the laborious and responsi-
ble duties of the Chair during the session of the Convention.

On motion of Dr. William A. Smith, it was

Resolved, That we hereby tender our thanks to the Rev.
Thomas O. Summers, Secretary of this Convention, and to the
Rev. Thomas N. Ralston, Assistant Secretary, for their fidelity
in the discharge of the laborious duties of their office.

On motion of Whitford Smith, it was

Resolved, That we devoutly acknowledge the superintending
Providence of God over this Convention, and rejoice in the
harmony which has prevailed in all its deliberations and
decisions. ;

On motion of John Early, John B. McFerrin was instructed
to take charge of the Journal and papers of this Convention.

The Minutes were then read and approved, and on motion
of John Early, the Convention adjourned. This venerable
minister offered a suitable and impressive prayer to the Throne
of Grace, the Convention sung an appropriate hymn, and
Bishop Soule pronounced the benediction. Thus closed the
session. Josaua Sous, Ch’n.

Tuomas O. Summers, Sec’y.

Tuomas N. Ratstoy, As’t. Sec’y.

Loursvinin, Ky., May 19, 1845.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION.

Type committee appointed to enquire into the propriety and
‘elect of a separate organization of the Annual Confer-
ences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the slaveholding
States, for the purpose of aseparate General Conference con-
nexion and jurisdiction, within the limits of said States and
Conferences, having had the entire subject under careful and
patient consideration, together with the numerous petitions,
instructions, resolutions, and propositions for adjustment and
compromise, referred to them by the Convention—offer the
following as their

REPORT:

In view of the extent to which the great questions in con-
troversy, between the North and the South of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, have been discussed, and by consequence
must be understood by the parties more immediately interested;
it has not been deemed necessary by the committee to enter
208 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

into any formal or elaborate examination of the general sub-
ject, beyond a plain and comprehensive statement of the facts
and principles involved, which may place it in the power of
all concerned, to do justice to the convictions and motives of
the Southern portion of the Church, in resisting the action of
the late General Conference on the subject of slavery, and its un-
constitutional assumption of right and power in other respects;
and also presenting, in a form as brief and lucid as possible,
some of the principal grounds of action, had in view by the
South, in favoring the provisional plan of separation, adopted
by the General Conference at its last session.

On the subject of the legitimate right, and the full and pro-
per authority of the Convention to institute, determine, and
finally act upon the enquiry, referred to the committee, to de-
liberate and report upon, the committee entertain no doubt
whatever. Apart from every other consideration, which
might be brought to bear upon the question, the General Con-
ference of 1844, in the plan of jurisdictional separation
adopted by that body, gave full and express authority to “the
Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States,” to judge of
the propriety, and decide upon the necessity of organizing a
“separate ecclesiastical connexion,” in the South. And not
only did the General Conference invest this right in “the An-
nual Conferences in the slaveholding States,” without limita-
tion or reserve, as to the extent of the investment, and exclu-
sively with regard to every other division of the Church, and
all other branches or powers of the government, but left the
method of official determination and the mode of action, in
the exercise or assertion of the right, to the free and untram-
melled discretion of the Conferences interested. These Con-
ferences, thus accredited by the General Conference, to judge
and act for themselves, confided the right and trust of decision
and action, in the premises, to delegates regularly chosen by
these bodies respectively, upon a uniform principle and fixed
ratio of representation, previously agreed upon by each, in
constitutional session, and directed them to meet in general
Convention, in the city of Louisville, May, 1845, for this and
other purposes, authorized by the General Conference, at the
same time and in the same way. All the right and power,
therefore, of the General Conference, in any way connected
with the imporfant decision in question, were duly and for-
mally transferred to “the Annual Conferences in the slave-
holding States,” and exclusively invested in them. And as
this investment was obviously for the purpose, that such right
and power might be exercised by them, in any mode they
might prefer, not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of
the investment, the delegates thus chosen, one hundred in
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 209

number, and representing sixteen Annual Conferences, under
commission of the General Conference, here and now assem-
bled in Convention, have not only all the right and power of
the General Conference, as transferred to “the Annual Con-
ferences in the slaveholding States,” but in addition, all the
right and power of necessity inherent in these bodies, as con-
stituent parties, giving birth and power to the General Con-
ference itself, as the common Federal] Council ofthe Church.
It follows hence, that for all the purposes specified and under-
stood in this preliminary view of the subject, the Convention
possesses all the right and power both of the General Confer-
ence and the sixteen “ Annual Conferences in the slaveholding
States,” jointly and severally considered. The ecclesiastical
and Conventional right therefore, of this body, to act in the
premises, and act conclusively, irrespective of the whole
Church—and all its powers of government beside, is clear and
undoubted. As the moral right, however, to act as proposed,
in the General Conference plan of jurisdictional separation,
rests upon entirely different grounds, and will perhaps be con-
sidered as furnishing the only allowable warrant of action,
notwithstanding constitutional right, it may be necessary at
least to glance at the grave moral reasons, creating the necessity,
the high moral compulsions, by which the Southern Conter-
ences and Church have been impelled to the course of action,
which it is the intention of this Report to explain and vindi-
cate, as not only right and reasonable, but indispensable to
the character and welfare of Southern Methodism.

The preceding statements and reasoning, present no new
principle or form of action in the history of the Church. Nu-
merous instances might be cited, in the constitutional history
of Church polity, in which high moral necessity, in the ab-
sence of any recognized Conventional right, has furnished the
only and yet sufficient warrant for ecclesiastical movements
and arrangements, precisely similar in character with that
contemplated in the plan of a separate Southern Connection
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, adopted by the late Gen-
eral Conference. Wesleyan Methodism, in all its phases and
aspects, is a most pertinent illustration of the truth we assume,
and the fitness and force of the example must go far to pre-
clude the necessity of any other proof. It was on the specitie
basis of such necessity, without Conventional right, that the
great Wesleyan Connection arose in England. It was upon
the same basis, as avowed by Wesley, that the American Con-
nection became separate and independent, and this Connec-
tion again avows the same principle of action, in the separa-
tion and establishment of a Methodist Episcopal Church in
Canada, whose organization took place by permission and di-

18*
210 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

rection of the same authority, under which this Convention is
now acting for a similar purpose.

Should it appear in the premises of the action proposed,
that a high, moral, and religious duty is devolved upon the
ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
in the South—devolved upon us by the Great Head of the
Church, and the Providential appointments of our social con-
dition, which we cannot neglect without infidelity to a high
moral trust, but which we cannot fulfil in connexional union
with the Northern portion of the Church, under the same Gen-
eral Conference jurisdiction, owing to causes connected with
the civil institutions of the country, and beyond the control of
the Church, then a strong moral necessity is laid upon us,
which assumes the commanding character of a positive duty,
under sanction of Divine right, to dissolve the ties and bonds
of a single General Conference jurisdiction, and in its place
substitute one in the South, which will not obstruct us in the
performance of duty, or prevent us from accomplishing the
great objects of the Christian ministry and Church organiza-
tion. From a careful survey of the entire field of facts and
their relations—the whole range of cause and effect, as con-
nected with the subject-matter of this report, it is confidently
believed that the great warrant of moral necessity, not less than
unquestionable ecclesiastical right, fully justifies this Conven-
tion in the position they are about to take, as a separate or-
ganic division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by authority
of its chief synod, “the delegates of all the several Annual
Conferences in Genera] Conference assembled.” One of the two
main issues, which have decided the action of the Southern Con-
ferences, relates, as all know, to the assumed right of the Church
to control the question of slavery, by means of the ordinary
and fluctuating provisions of Church legislation, without refer-
ence to the superior control of State policy and civil law.—
From all the evidence accessible in the case, the great masses
of the ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, North and South, present an irreconcilable opposition
of conviction and feeling on the subject of slavery, so far as
relates to the rights of the Church to interfere with the ques-
tion—the one claiming unlimited right of interference to the
full extent the Church may, at any time or from any cause, be
concerned, and the other resisting alike the assumption or ex-
ercise of any such right, because, in nearly all the slaveholding
States, such a course of action must bring the Church in direct
conflict with the civil authority, to which the Church has
pledged subjection and support in the most solemn and explicit
forms, and from the obligations of which she cannot retreat
without dishonoring her own laws, and the neglect and viola:

ny
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 211

tion of some of the plain and most imperative requirements
of Christianity. Under such circumstances of disagreement—
in such @ state of adverse conviction and feeling on the part
of the North and South of the Church, it is believed that the
two great sections of the Church, thus situated, in relation to
each other by causes beyond the control of either party, can-
not remain together and successfully prosecute the high and
common aims of the Christian ministry and Church organiza-
tion, under the same General Conference jurisdiction. The
manifest want of uniformity of opinion and harmony of co-
operation, must always lead, as heretofore, to struggles and
results directly inconsistent with the original intention of the
Church, in establishing a common jurisdiction, to control all
its general interests. And should it appear that, by a division
and future duality of such jurisdiction as authorized by the
late General Conference, the original purposes of the Church
can better be accomplished, or rather, that they can be accom-
plished in no other way, how can the true and proper unity of
the Church be maintained except by yielding to the necessity,
and having a separate General Conference jurisdiction for
each division? By the Southern portion of the Church gene-
rally, slavery is regarded as strictly a civil institution exclu-
sively in custody of the civil power, and as a regulation of
State beyond the reach of Church interference or control, ex-
cept as civil law and right may be infringed by ecclesiastical
assumption. By the Northern portion of the Church, individ-
uals are held responsible for the alleged injustice and evil of
relations and rights, created and protected by the.organic and
municipal laws of the Government and country, and which
relations and rights, in more than two thirds of the slavehold-
ing States, are not under individual control in any sense or to
any extent.

Both portions of the Church are presumed to act from prin-
ciple and conviction, and cannot, therefore, recede; and how,
under such circumstances, is it possible to prevent the most
fearful disunion, with all the attendant evils of contention and
strife, except by allowing each section a separate and indepen-
dent jurisdiction, the same in character and purpose with the
one to which both have hitherto been subject. What fact,
truth, or principle, not merely of human origin, and therefore
of doubtful authority, can be urged, as interposing any reason-
able obstacle to achange of jurisdiction, merely modal in charac-
ter, and simply designed to adapt a single principle of Church
government, not pretended to be of divine obligation or scrip-
ture origin, to the character and features of the civil govern-
ment of the country? Nothing essential to Church organi-
zation—nothing essentially distinctive of Methodism—even
-

212 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

American Methodism, is proposed to be disturbed or even
touched, by the arrangement. Itis a simple division of gene-
ral jurisdiction, for strong moral reasons, arising out of the
civil relations and position of the parties, intended to accom-
plish for both, what it is demonstrated by experiment, cannot
be accomplished by one common jurisdiction, as now consti-
tuted, and should therefore, under the stress of such moral
necessity, be attempted in some other way. ‘

The question of slavery, more or less intimately interwoven
with the interests and destiny of nine millions of human beings,
in the United States, is certainly of sufficient importance,
coming up as it has, in the recent history of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, and as it doesin the deliberations of this Conven-
tion, to authorize any merely modal or even organic changes in
the government of the Church, should it appear obvious that the
original and avowed purposes of the Church will be more effect-
ively secured and promoted by the change proposed, than by con-
tinuing the present or former system. The evidence before the
committee, establishes the fact in the clearest manner possible,
that throughout the Southern Conferences, the ministry and
membership of the Church, amounting to nearly 500,000, in
the proportion of about ninety-five in the hundred, deem a
division of jurisdiction indispensable to the welfare of the
Church, in the Southern and South-western Conferences of. the
slaveholding States; and this fact alone, must go far to estab-
lish the right, while it demonstrates the necessity of the separate
jurisdiction, contemplated in the plan of the General Confer-
énce and adopted by that body in view of such necessity, as
likely to exist. The interests of State, civil law, and public
opinion, in the South, imperiously require, that the Southern
portion of the Church shall have no part in the discussion and
agitation of this subject in the chief councils of the Church.
In this opinion, nearly universal in the South, we concur.

Christ and his Apostles—Christianity and its inspired and
early teachers, found slavery in its most offensive and aggrava-
ted forms, as a civil institution, diffused and existing through-
out nearly the entire field of their ministrations and influence;
and yet, in the New. Testament and earlier records of the
Church, we have no legislation—no interference—no denunci-
ation with regard to it, not even remonstrance against it.
They found it wrought up and vitally intermingled with the
_ whole machinery of civil government and order of society—so
implicated with “the powers that be,” that infinite wisdom, and
the early pastoral guides of the Church, saw just reason why
the Church should not interfere beyond a plain and urgent en-
forcement of the various duties growing out of the peculiar
relation of master and slave, leaving the relation itself, as a
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 213

civil arrangement, untouched and unaffected, except so far
as it seems obviously to have been the Divine purpose to re-
move every form and degree of wrong and evil connected
with the institutions of human government, by a faithful in-
culeation of the doctrines and duties of Christianity, without
meddling in any way with the civil polity of the countries into
which it was introduced. A course precisely similar to this,
the example of which should have been more attractive, was
pursued by the great founder of Methodism, in all slavehold-
ing countries in which he established societies. Mr. Wesley
never deemed it proper to have any rule, law, orregulation on
the subject of slavery, either in the United States, the West
Indies, or elsewhere. The effects of the early and unfortu-
nate attempts of the Methodist Church to meddle and inter-
fere, in the legislation and practice of government and discipline,
with the institution of slavery in the United States, are too
well known torequire comment. Among the more immediate
results of this shortsighted, disastrous imprudence, especially
from 1780 to 1804, may be mentioned the watchful jealousy
of civil government, and the loss of public confidence through-
out a very large and influential portion of the whole Southern
community. These, and similar developments, led the Church,
by the most careful and considerate steps, to the adoption,
gradually, of a medium compromise course of legislation on
the subject, until the law of slavery, as it now exists in the
letter of discipline, became, by the last material act of legisla-
tion in 1816, the great compromise bond of union between
the North and the South on the subject of slavery. The whole
law of the Church, all there is in the statute-book to govern
North and South on this subject, is the following: First: The
general rule, which simply prohibits “the buying for selling of
men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them.”
Second: “No slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station
in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which
he lives admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated
slave to enjoy freedom. When any traveling preacher be-
comes an owner of a slave, or slaves, by any means, he shall
forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he exe-
cute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves,
conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives.”
Here is the law, the whole, the only law of the Church, con-
taining first, a prohibition, and second a grant. The prohibi-
tion is, that no member or minister of the Church, is allowed
to purchase or sell a human being, who is to be enslaved, or
reduced to a state of slavery, by such purchase. or sale. And
further, that no minister, in any of the grades of ministerial
office, or other person, having official standing in the Church,
214 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

can, if he be the owner of a slave, be allowed to sustain such
official relation to the Church, unless he shall legally provide
for the emancipation of such slave or slaves, if the laws of the
State in which he lives will admit of legal emancipation, and
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. Such isthe plain
prohibition of law, binding upon all. The grant of the law,
however, is equally plain and unquestionable. It is, that per-
sons may purchase or sell men, women, or children, provided
such purchase or sale does not involve the fact or intention of
enslaving them, or of reducing the subjects of such purchase or
sale t6 a state of slavery. The intention of the law no doubt is,
that this may be done from motives of humanity, and not by
any means for the purpose of gain. But further, the law dis-
tinctly provides; that every minister, in whatever grade of office,
and every person having official standing of any kind, in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, being the owner or owners of
slave property, shall be protected against any forfeiture of
right, on this account, where the laws of the State do not ad-
mit of legal emancipation, and allow the liberated slave to
enjoy freedom in the State in which he isemancipated. Here
is the plain grant of law to which we allude. From the first
agitation of the subject of slavery in the Church, the Northern
portion of ithas been disposed to insist upon further prohibitory
enactments. The South, meanwhile, has always shown itself
ready to go as far, by: way of prohibition, as the law in question
implies, but has uniformly resisted any attempt to impair South-
ern rights under protection of the grant of law to which we
have asked attention. Under such circumstances of disagree-
ment and difficulty, the conventional and legislative adjust-
ment of the question, as found in the General Rule, but espe-
cially the tenth section of the discipline, was brought about, and
has always been regarded in the South as a great compromise
arrangement, without strict adherence to which, the North and
the South could not remain together under the same general
jurisdiction. That we have not mistaken the character of the
law, or misconstrued the intention and purposes of its enact-
ment, at different times, we think entirely demonstrable from
the whole history both of the legislation of the Church and
the judicial and executive administration of the Government.
The full force and bearing of the law, however, were more
distinctly brought to view, and authoritatively asserted, by the
General Conference of 1840, after the most careful examina-
tion of the whole subject, and the judicial determination of
that body, connected with the language of the discipline just
quoted, gives in still clearer light the true and only law of the
Church on the subject of slavery. After deciding various
other principles and positions incidental to the main question,

\
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 215

the decision is summed up in the following words: “ While
the general rule (or law) on the subject of slavery, relating to
those States whose laws admit of emancipation, and permit
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmly and con-
stantly enforced, the exception to the general rule (or law)
applying to those States where emancipation, as defined above,
is not practicable, should be recognized and protected with equal
firmness and impartiality; therefore— 5

Resolved by the several Annual Conferences in General Con-
ference assembled, That under the provisional exception of
the general rule (or law) of the Church, on the subject of
slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of
slave property, in States or Territories where the laws do not
admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to en-
joy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordi-
nation of ministers to the various grades of office known in
the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot,
therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right,
in view of such election and ordination.” This decision of
the General Conference was not objected to or dissented from
by a'singlemember of that body. It was the unanimous voice
of the greatrepresentative and judicial council of tHe Church
then acting in the character of a high court of appeals for the
decision of an important legal question. It will be perceived
how strikingly the language of this decision accords with both
the features of the law of slavery which we have thought it
important to notice, the prohibition and the grant of law in the
case; what may not be done as the general rule, and at the
same time what may be done, under the provisional exception to
the general law, without forfeiture of right of any kind. It
is also worthy of particular notice, that beside the plain assu-
rance of the original law, that where emancipation is not le-
gally practicable, and the emancipated slave allowed to enjoy
freedom, or where it is practicable to emancipate but the
emancipated slave cannot enjoy freedom, emancipation is not
required of any owner of slaves in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, from the lowest officer up to the Bishop, but the rights
of all thus circumstanced are protected and secured, notwith-
standing their connection with slavery. Besides this, the full
and elaborate decision of the General Conference as a grave
and formal adjudication had upon all the issues involved in
the question, published to all who were in or might be disposed
to enter the Church, that the law of slavery applied to States.
where emancipation is impracticable, and the freed slave not
allowed to enjoy freedom, this clear and unambiguous decision,
by. the highest authority of the Church, /eaves the owner of
slaves upon the ground—upon a basis of the most perfect
216 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

equality with other ministers of the Church, having no con-
nection with slavery. Such, then, is the law; such its con-
struction; such the official and solemn pledge of the Church.
And these had, to a great extent, restored the lost confidence
and allayed the jealous apprehensions of the South, in rela-
tion to the purposes of the Church respecting slavery. There
was in the South no disposition to disturb, discuss, or in any
way agitate the subject. The law was not objected to or
complained of, but was regarded as a settled compromise be-
tween the parties, a medium arrangement on the ground of
mutual concession, well calculated to secure and promote the
best interests of the Church North and South.

That this law, this great compromise conservative arrange-
ment, which had been looked to as the only reliable bond of
jurisdictional union between the North and South for nearly
half a century, was practically disregarded and abandoned by
the last General Conference, in the memorable cases of Harding
and Andrew, both by judicial construction and virtual legisla-
tion, manifestly inconsistent with its provisions and purposes,
and subversive of the great objects of its enactment, has been
too fearfully demonstrated by various forms of proof, to re-
quire more than a brief notice in this report. The actual po-
sition of the Church was suddenly reversed and its long es-
tablished policy entirely changed. The whole law of the
Church and the most important adjudications had upon it,
were treated as null and obsolete, and that body proceeded to
aclaim of right and course of action amounting to a virtual
repeal of all law, and new and capricious legislation on the
most difficult and delicate question ever introduced into the
councils of the Church or named upon its statute. book.

By no fair construction of the law of slavery as given above,
could the Church be brought in conflict with civil legislation
on the subject. It is true, as demanded by the convictions and
opinions of the Church, testimony was borne against the evil
of slavery, but it was done without conflicting with the polity
and laws of any portion of the country. No law, for example,
affected the lay-membership of the Church with regard to
slaveholding; the Church gave its full permission that the pri-
vate members of the Church might own and hold slaves at
discretion; and the inference is indubitable, that the Church
did not consider simple slaveholding as a moral evil, personally
attaching to the mere fact of being the owner or holder of
slaves. The evil charged upon slavery must of necessity
have been understood of other aspects of the subject, and
could not imply moral obliquity, without impeaching the integ-
rity and virtue of the Church. Moreover, where the laws
precluded emancipation, the ministry were subjected to no
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 217

disabilities of any kind, and the requirements of the Church,
in relation to slavery, were not at least in any thing like direct
conflict with civil law. In contravention, however, of the
plain and lgng established law of the Church, the action of
the General Conference of 1844, in the well known instances
cited, brought the Church into a state of direct and violent
antagonism with the civil authority and the rights of citizen-
ship, throughout all the slaveholding States. This was not
done by the repeal of existing law, or additional legislation
by direct enactment, but in a much more dangerous form, by
the simple process of resolution by an irresponsible majority,
requiring Southern ministers as slaveholders, in order to Church
eligibility and equality of right with non-slaveholding minis-
ters of the Church, to do what cannot be done without a vio-
lation of the laws of the States in which they reside, and is
not required or contemplated, but expressly excepted and even
provided against by the law of the Church.

It will thus appear that the entire action of the General
Conference on the subject of slavery, was in direct conflict
with the law, both of the Church and the land, and could not
have been submitted to by the South, without the most serious
detriment to the interests of the Church. The action in the
instance of Bishop Andrew, was in the strongest and most ex-
ceptionable sense, extra-judicial. It was not pretended that
Bishop Andrew had violated any law of the Church; so far
from this, the only law applicable to the case, gave, as we have
seen, ample and explicit assurance of protection. So to con-
strue law, or so proceed to act without reference to law, as to
abstract from it its whole protective power, and deprive it of
all its conservative tendencies in the system, is one of the
most dangerous forms of legal injustice, and as a principle of
action, must be considered as subversive of all order and gov-
ernment. The late General Conference required of Bishop
Andrew, the same being equally true in the case of Harding,
as the condition of his being acceptable to the Church, the
surrender of rights secured to him, both by civil and ecclesiasti-
cal law. The purposes of law were contravened and de-
stroyed, and its prerogative and place usurped by mere opinion.

The requisition in the case was not only extra-judicial,
being made in the absence of anything like law authorizing
the measure, but being made at the same time against law, it
was usurpation; and so far as the proceeding complained of is
intended to establish a principle of action with regard to ‘the
future, it gives to the General Conference all the attributes of
a despotism, claiming the right to govern without, above and
against law. The doctrine avowed at the late General Con-
ference, and practically endorsed by the majority, that that

19
218 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

body may, by simple resolution, advisory, punitive, or. declara-
tory, repeal an existing law in relation to a particular case,
leaving it in full force with regard to other cases—or may
enact a new and different law, and apply it ie to the
individual case, which led to the enactment, and all in a mo-
ment, by a single elevation of the hand, is a position—a doc-
trine so utterly revolutionary and disorganizing, as to place in
jeopardy at once, both the interests and reputation of the
Chureh. The action in the. case of Bishop Andrew, not only
assumed the character, and usurped the place of law, but was
clearly an instance of ex post facto legislation, by making that
an offence after the act, which was not such before. The
conduct charged as an offence, was at the time, and continues
to be, under the full protection of a well understood, and
standing law of the Church, and yet this conduct was made
criminal, and punishable by the retrospective action of the
Conference to which we allude. The officially expressed will
of the General Conference intended to govern and circumscribe
the conduct of Bishop Andrew, without reference to existing
law, and indeed contrary to it, was made the rule of action,
and he found guilty of its violation, by acts done before he
was made acquainted with it. The conduct charged, was in
perfect consistency with the law of the Church, and could only
be wrought into an offence by an ex post facto bearing of the
after action of the General Conference.
Bishop Andrew became the owner of slave property, in-
voluntarily, several years before his marriage, and as the fact,
and not the extent of his connection with slavery constituted
his offence, it follows, that for a relation in which he was
placed by the action of others, and the operation of civil law,
andin which, as a citizen of Georgia, he was compelled to re-
main, or be brought in conflict with the laws of the State, he
was, in violation of the pledge of public law, as we have shown,
arrested and punished by the General Conference. .That body
by direct requirement, such at least by implication, commanded
him to free his slaves, or suffer official degradation. The law
of Georgia required him to hold his slaves, or transfer them to
be held as such by others, under heavy and painful penalties to
master and slave. To avoid ecclesiastical punishment and
disability, the Church required him either to leave the State of
his residence, or violate its laws. In this way, taking the ju-
dicial decision in Harding’s case, and the anomalous action in
Bishop Andrew’s, the Church is placed in most offensive con-
flict with the civil authority of the State. Can any country or
‘government safely allow the Church to enforce disobedience
to civil law, as a Christian duty? If such attempts are made
to subordinate the civil interests of the State, to the schemes
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 219

and purposes of Church innovation, prompted and sustained
by the bigotry and fanaticism of large masses of ignorant and
misguided zealots engaged in the conflict in the name of God
and conscience, and for the ostensible purposes of religious re-
form, what can be the stability of civil government, or the
hopes of those seeking its protection? And what, we ask,
must be the interest of the South, in connection with such
movements?

In the instance of slavery in this country, it is but too well
known, that such antagonism as is indicated by the preceding
facts and developments between the purposes of the Church
and the policy of the State, must result in the most disastrous
consequences to both. The slavery of the Southern States,
can never be reduced ig amount or mitigated in form by such
astate of things. The Southern States have the sole control
of the question, under the authority and by contract of the
Federal Constitution, and all hope of removing the evil of
slavery, without destroying the National compact and the
union of the States, must connect with the individual sove-
reignty of the Southern States, as parties to the Federal
compact, and the independent policy of each State in relation
to slavery, as likely to be influenced by moral and political
reasons and motives, brought to bear, by proper means and
methods, upon the understanding and moral sense of the
Southern people.. All trespass upon right, whether as it re-
gards the rights of property or of character—every thing like
aggression, mere denunciation or abuse, must of necessity
tend to provoke further resistance on the part of the South,
and lessen the influence the North might otherwise have upon
the great mass of the Southern people, in relation to this great
and exciting interest. The true character and actual relations
of slavery in the United States, are so predominantly civil and
political, that any attempt to treat the subject or control the
question, upon purely moral and ecclesiastical grounds, can
never exert any salutary influence South, except in so far as
the moral and ecclesiastical shall be found strictly subordinate
to the civil and political. This mode of appeal, it is believed,
‘will never satisfy the North. The whole Northern portion of
the Church, speaking through their guides and leaders, is man-
ifesting an increasing disposition to form issues upon the sub-
ject, so utterly inconsistent with the rights and peace of the
slaveholding States, that by how far the Methodist Episcopal
Church, in the South, may contribute to the bringing about of
such a state of things, or may fail to resist it, the influence of
Methodism must be depressed, and the interest of the Church
suffer. In addition then, to the fact, that we have already re-
ceived an amount of injury, beyond what we can bear, except
220 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

under a separate ‘organization, we have the strongest grounds
of apprehension, that unless we place ourselves in a state of
defence and prepare for independent action, under the distinct
jurisdiction we are now authorized by the General Conference
to resolve upon, and organize, we shall soon find ourselves so
completely subjected to the adverse views and policy of the
Northern majority, as to be left without right or remedy, ex-
cept as a mere secession from the Church. Now, the case is
entirely different, as we propose to do nothing, not authorized
inthe General Conference plan of separation, either expressly
or by necessary implication. The general view thus far
taken of the subject, is intended to show, that “the Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States,” embracing the entire
Church South, have found themselves placed in circumstances,
by the action of the General Conference in May last, which
according to the declaration of the Southern Delegates, at the
time, render it impracticable to accomplish the objects of the
Christian Ministry and Church organization, under the present
system of General Conference control, and showing by the
most clear and conclusive evidence, that there exists the most
urgent necessity for the ‘separate ecclesiastical connection,
constitutionally provided for by the General Conference upon
the basis of the Declaration, just adverted to. At the date
of the Declaration, the Southern Delegates were fully con-
vinced that the frequent and exciting agitation and action in
that body on the subject of slavery and abolition, as in Harding’s
case and especially the proceedings in the case of Bishop
Andrew, each being regarded as but a practical exposition of
the principle of the majority—rendered a separate organization
indispensable to the success of Methodism in the South. The
truth of the Declaration, so far from being called in question,
by the majority, was promptly conceded in the immediate
action the Conference had upon it, assigning the Declaration
as the sole ground or reason of the action, which terminated
-in the adoption of the plan of separation, under which we are
now acting, as a Convention, and from the spirit and intention
of which, it is believed to be the purpose of the Convention
not to depart, in any of its deliberations or final acts. Al-
though the action of this General Conference on the subject of
slavery, and the relative adverse position of the parties North
and South, together with the irritating and exasperating evils
of constant agitation and frequent attempts at legislation, are
made in the Declaration, the grounds of the avowal,, that a
separate organization was necessary to the success of the
Ministry in the slaveholding States, it was by no means in-
tended to convey the idea, or make the impression, that no
other causes existed rendering a separate organization proper
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 221
and necessary; but as the action of the Conference on the sub-
ject of slavery, was certain to invo!ve the Church in the South,
in immediate and alarming difficulty, and it was believed that
this could be so shown to the majority, as to induce them to
consent to some course of action, in remedy of the evil, the
complaint of the Declaration was confined to the simple topic
of slavery. It will be perceived that the case of Bishop An-
drew, although prominently introduced, is not relied upon as
exclusively furnishing the data of this conclusion at which we
have arrived. The entire action of the General Conference
so frequently brought to view, and which is made the ground
of dissent and action, both in the Protest and Declaration of
the Southern Delegates, must be understood as belonging to
the premises and lamguage employed as including all the
principles avowed, as well as the action had by the late Gene-
ral Conference on the subject of slavery. The attempt to dis-
claim the judicial character of the action in Bishop Andrew’s
case, and show it to be merely advisory, cannot affect the pre-
ceding reasoning, for first; the disclaimer is as equivocal in
character, as the original action: and secondly; the reasoning
in support of the disclaimer, negatives the supposition of mere
advice, because it involves issues coming legitimately within
the province of judicial process and legal determination, and
thirdly; Bishop ‘Andrew is by the explanation of the disclaimer
itself, held as responsible for his conduct, in view of the alleged
advice, as he could have been held by the original action with-
out the explanation. While, therefore, the explanation giving
the original action an advisory character, notwithstanding the
inconsistency involved, fully protects Bishops Soule and Andrew
from even the shadow of blame in the course they have pursued,
the entire action in the case, and especially when connected with
thé case of Harding, as alluded to in the Declaration, fully
sustains the general view of the subject we have taken in this
report. The Southern delegates at the General Conference, in
presenting to that body their declaration and protest, acted,
and they continue to act, as the representatives of the South,
under the full conviction that the principles and policy avowed
by the Northern majority, are such as to render their public and
practical renunciation by the Southern Methodist Ministry and
people, necessary to the safety, not less than the success of
the Church in the South.

Other views of the subject, however, must claim a share of
our attention. Among the many weighty reasons which in-
fluence the Southern Conferencesin seeking to be released from
the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church as now constituted, are the novel and as we
think dangerous doctrines, practically avowed and endorsed

19*
222 ‘ HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

by that body'and the Northern portion of the Church generally,
with regard.to the constitution of the Church, and the constitu-
tional rights and powers respectively, of the Eriscopacy and
the General Conference. In relation to the first, it is confi-
dently, although most unaccountably, maintained that the
six short Restrictive Rules which were adopted in 1808, and
first became obligatory, as an amendment to the constitution,
in 1812, are in fact the true and only constitution of the Church.
This single position, should it become an established principle
of action to the extent it found favor with the last General
Conference, must subvert the government of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church. It mustbe seen at once, that the position leaves
many of the organic laws and most important institutions: of
the Church entirely unprotected and at thé mercy of a mere
and ever fluctuating majority of the General Conference.
Episcopacy, for example, although protected in the abstract,
in general terms, may be entirely superceded or destroyed by
the simple omission to elect or consecrate Bishops, neither of
which is provided for in the Restrictive Articles. The whole:
itinerant system, except general superintendency, is without
protection in the Restrictive Rules; and there is nothing in them
preventing the Episcopacy from restricting their superintenden-
cy to local and settled Pastors, rather than a traveling ministry, and
thus destroying the most distinctive feature of Wesleyan Meth-
odism. So far asthe Restrictive Rules are concerned, the Annu-
al Conferences are without protection, and might also be de-
stroyed by the General Conference atany time. Ifthe newcon-
stitutional theory be correct, class leaders and private members
are as eligible, upon the basis of the constitution, to a seat in
the General Conference, as any Ministers of the Church. So-
cieties too, instead of Annual Conferences, may elect delegates,
and,may elect /aymen instead of ministers, or local instead of
traveling ministers. Very few indeed of the more funda-
mental and distinguishing elements of Methodism, deeply and
imperishably imbedded in the affection and veneration of the
Church, and vital to its very existence, are even alluded to in
the Restrictive Articles. This theory assumes the self-refuted
absurdity, that the General Conference is in fact the govern-
ment of the Church, if not the Church itself. With no other
constitution than these mere restrictions upon the powers:and
rights of the General Conference, the government and Disci+
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church as a system of or-
ganized laws and well adjusted instrumentalities for. the
spread of the Gospel, and the diffusion of piety, and whose
living principles of energy and action have so long com-
manded the admiration of the world, would soon cease even
to exist. The startling assumption, that a Bishop of the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 223

Methodist Episcopal Church, instead of holding office under
the constitution, and by tenure of law, and the faithful per-
formance of duty, is nothing in his character of Bishop, but a
mere officer at will, of the General Conference, and may ac-
cordingly be deposed at any time, with or without cause,
accusation, proof, or form of trial, as a dominant majority
may capriciously elect, or party interests suggest—and that
the General Conference may do, by right, whatever is not
prohibited by the Restrictive Rules, and with this single ex-
ception, possess power, “supreme and all-controlling,”’ and
this, in all possible forms of its manifestation legislative, ju-
dicial, and executive—the same men claiming to be at the
same time both the fountain and functionaries of all the pow-
ers of government, which powers thus mingled and concen-
trated into a common force, may at any time be employed, at
the promptirig of their own interests, caprice or ambition. —
Such wild and revolutionary assumptions, so unlike the Faith
and Discipline of Methodism, as we have been taught them,
we are compelled. to regard as fraught with mischief and ruin
to the best interests of the Church, and as furnishing a strong
additional reason why we should: avail ourselves of the war-
rant we now have, but may never again obtain, from the
General Conference, to “establish an ecclesiastical connex-
ion,” embracing only the Annual Conferences in the slave-
holding States.

Without intending anything more than a general specifica-
tion of the disabilities, under which the Southern part of the
Church labors, in view of existing difficulties, and must con-
tinue to do so until they are removed, we must not omit to
state, that should we submit to the action of the late General
Conference, and decline a separate organization, it would be
to place, and finally confirm the whole Southern ministry in

‘the. relation of an inferior caste, the effect of which, in spite
of all effort to the contrary, would be such a relation, if not
(as we think) real degradation of the ministry, as to destroy
its influence to a great—a most fearful extent throughout the
South. A practical proscription, under show of legal right,
has long been exercised towards the'South, with regard to the
higher offices of the Church, especially the Episcopacy. To
this, however, the South submitted with patient endurance, and
was willing further to submit in order to maintain the peace
and unity of the Church, while the principle involved, was dis-
avowed, and decided to be unjust as by the decision of the
General Conference in 1840. But when in 1844, the General
Conference declared by their action, without the forms of le-
gislative or judicial process, that the mere providential own-
ership of slave property, in a State where emancipation is
224 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

legally prohibited under all circumstances, and can only be
effected by special legislative enactment, was hereafter to ope-
rate as a forfeiture of right in all similar cases, the law of the
Church and the decision of the preceding General Conference
to the contrary notwithstanding, the Southern ministry were
compelled to realize, that they were deliberately fixed by the
brand of common shame, in the degrading relation of standing
inferiority to ministers, not actually, nor yet liable to be, con-
nected with slavery, and‘that they were published to the
Church and the world as belonging to a caste in the ministry,
from which the higher offices of the Church could never be
selected. ,

To submit, under such circumstances, would have been a
practical, a most humiliating recognition of the inferiority of
caste, attempted to be fixed upon us by the Northern majority,
and would have justly authorized the inference of a want of
conscious integrity and self-respect, well calculated to destroy
both the reputation and influence of the ministry in all the
slaveholding States. It may be no virtue to avow it, but we
confess we have no humility courting the grace of such a
baptism. The higher objects, therefore, of the Christian Min-
istry, not less than conscious right and self-respect, demanded
resistance on the part of the Southern Ministry and Church,
and these unite with other reasons, in vindicating the plea of
necessity, upon which the meeting and action of this Conven-
tion are based, with the consent and approval of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The variety
of interests involved, renders it necessary that the brief view
of the subject we are allowed to take, be varied accordingly.

Unless the Southern Conferences organize as proposed, it is
morally certain, in view of the evidence before the Committee,
that the Gospel now regularly and successfully dispensed by
the ministers of these Conferences to about a million of slaves,
in their various fields of missionary enterprise and pastoral
charge, must, to a great extent, be withheld from them, and
immense masses of this unfortunate class of our fellow beings
be left to perish, as the result of Church interference with the
civil affairs and relations of the country.

The Committee are compelled to believe, that the mere di-
vision of jurisdiction, as authorized by the General Conference,
cannot affect either the moral or legal unity of the great
American family of Christians, known as the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, and this opinion is concurred in by the ablest
jurists of the country. Wedonothing but what we are express-
\ authorized to do by the supreme, or rather highest legislative
power of the Church. Would the Church authorize us to do
wrong? The division relates only to the power of general
METHODIST EPISCOPAL €HURCH, SOUTH. 225

jurisdiction, which it is not proposed to destroy or even reduce,
but simply to invest it in two great organs of Church action
and control, instead of one as at present. Such a change in
the present system of general control, cannot disturb the
moral unity of the Church, for it is strictly an agreed modifica-
tion of General Conference jurisdiction, and such agreement
and consent of parties fhust preclude the idea of disunion.
In view of what is the alleged disunion predicated? Is the
purpose and act of becoming a separate orgariization proof
of disunion or want of proper Church unity? This cannot be
urged with any show of consistency, inasmuch as “ the several
Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled,” that
is to say, the Church through only its constitutional organ of
action, on all subjects involving the power of legislation, not
only agreed to the separate organization South, but made full
constitutional provision for carrying it into effect. It is a sepa-
ration by consent of parties, under the highest authority of
the Chureh. Is it intended to maintain that the unity of the
Church depends upon the modal uniformity of the jurisdiction
in question? If this be so, the Methodist Episcopal Church
has lost its unity at several different times. The general ju-
risdiction of the Church has undergone modifications, at
several different times, not less vital, if not greatly more so,
than the one now proposed. The high conventional powers,
of which we are so often reminded, exercised in the organi-
zation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were in the hands of
a Conference of unordained lay preachers, under the sole super-
intendance of an appointee of Mr. Wesley. This was the first
General Conference type and original form of the jurisdiction in
question. The jurisdictional power now proposed by the Gene-
ral Conference, was for years exercised by small Annual Confer-
ences, without any defined boundaries, and acting separately on
all measures proposed for their determination. This general
power of jurisdiction next passed into the hands of the Bishops’
Council, consisting of some ten persons, where it remained for a
term ofyears. Next it passed into the hands of the whole itiner-
ant Ministry, in full connection, and was exercised by them, in
collective action, as a,General Conference of the whole body,
met together at the same time. The power was afterwards
vested in the whole body of traveling Elders, and from thence
finally passed into the hands of Delegates, elected by the An-
nual Conferences, to meet and act quadrennially as a General
Conference, under constitutional restrictions and limitations.
Here are several successive re-organizations of General Con-
ference jurisdiction, each involving a much more material
change than that contemplated in the General Conference
plan, by authority of which, this Convention is about to erect
226 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

the. sixteen Annyal Conferences in the slaveholding States
into a separate organization. We change no principle in the
existing theory of General Conference jurisdiction. “ We dis-
tinctly recognize the jurisdiction of a delegated General Con-
ference, receiving its appointment and authority from the
whole constituency of Annual Conferences. The only change
‘in fact or in form, will be, that the Delegates of the “ Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States,” as authorized in the
plan of sepafation, wili meet in one General Conference. as-
sembly of their own, and act in behalf only of their own con-
stitdency, and in the regulation of their own affairs, con-
sistently with the good faith and fealty they owe the authority
and laws of the several States in which they reside, without
interfering with affairs beyond their jurisdiction,.or suffering -
foreign interference with theirown. Andin proceeding to do
this, we have all the authority it was in the power of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church to confer. We have also further example
and precedent in the history of Methodism, to show that there
is nothing irregular or inconsistent with Church order or unity
in the separation proposed. The great Wesleyan Methodist
family, everywhere one in faith and practice, already exists
under several distinct and unconnected jurisdictions—there
is no jurisdictional or connectional union between them;
and yet it has never been pretended, that these several dis-
tinct organizations were in any sense inconsistent with Church
unity. If the Southern Conferences proceed, then, to the es-
tablishment of another distinct jurisdiction, without any
change of doctrine or discipline, except in matters necessary
to the mere economical adjustment of the system, will it fur-
nish any reason for supposing that the real unity of the Church
is affected by what all must perceive to be a simple division
of jurisdiction? When the Conferences .in the slaveholding
States are separately organized as a distinct ecclesiastical con-
nection, they will only be what the General Conference au-
thorized them to be. Can this be irregular or subversive of
Church unity? Acting under the provisional plan of separa-
tion they must, although a separate organization, remain in
essential union with, and be part and parcel of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, in every scriptural and moral view of the
subject; for what they do is with the full consent, and has the
official sanction of the Church as represented in the General
Conference. The jurisdiction we are about to establish and
assert as separate and independent, is expressly declined and
ceded by the General Conference as originally its own, to the
Southern Conferences, for the specific purpose of being estab-
lished and asserted in the manner proposed. All idea of se-
cession, or an organization alien in right or relation to the
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 227

Methodist Episcopal Church, is forever precluded by the terms
and conditions of the authorized plan of separation. In what-
ever sense we are separatists or seceders, we are such by au-.
thority—the highest authority of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. To whatever extent or in whatever aspect we are
not true apd faithful ministers and members of that Church,
such delinquency or misfortune is authenticated by her act
and approval, and she declares us to be “without blame.”
“ Ministers of every grade and office in the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, may, as they prefer, without blame, attach them-
selves to the Church South.” Bishops, elders, and deacons,
come into the Southern organization at their own election,
under permission from the General Conference, not only ac-
credited as ministers of, the Methodist Episcopal Church, but
with credentials limiting the exercise of their functions within
the Methodist Episcopal Church. Is it conceivable that the
General Conference, would so act and hold such language in
relation to an ecclesiastical connection which was to be re-
garded as a secession from the Church? Does not such act
and language, and the whole plan. of separation, rather show
that, as the South had asked, so the General Conference in-
tended to authorize, a simple division of its own jurisdiction,
and nothing more?

All idea of secession or schism or loss of right or title, as
ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, being precluded
by the specific grant or authority under which we act, as well
as for other reasons assigned, many considerations might be
urged, strongly suggesting the fitness and propriety of the
separate jurisdiction contemplated, rendered necessary, as we
have seen, upon other and different grounds; and among these
the increased value of the representative principle likely to
be secured by the change, is by no means unworthy of notice.
At the first representative General Conference, thirty-three
years ago, each delegate represented five traveling ministers
and about two thousand members, and the body was of con-
venient size for the transaction of business. At the late Gen-
eral Conference, each delegate was the representative of
twenty-one ministers and more than five thousand members,
and the body was inconveniently large for the purpose of de-
liberation and action. Should the number of delegates in the
General Conference be increased with the probable growth of
the Church, the body will soon become utterly unwieldy.—
Should the number be reduced, while the ministry and mem-
bership are multiplying, the representative principle would
become to be little more than nominal, and in the same pro-
portion, without practical value. Beside that the proposed
re-organization of jurisdiction will remedy this evil, at least to
228 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE .

a great extent, it will result in the saving of much time and
expense and useful services to the Church, connected with the
travel and protracted sessions of the General Conference, not
only as it regards the delegates, but also the bench of Bishops,
whose general oversight might become much more minute and
pastoral in its character, by means of such an arrangement,
When, in 1808, the Annual Conferences resolved upon chang-
ing the form of General Conference jurisdiction, the precise
reasons we have just noticed, were deemed sufficient ground
and motive for the change introduced, and as we are seeking
only a similar change of jurisdiction, although for other pur-
poses as well as this, the facts to which we ask attention, are
certainly worthy of being taken into the estimate of advan-
tages likely to result from a separate and independent organi-
zation, especially as the ministry and membership, since 1808,
have increased full seven hundred per centum, and should they
continue to increase, in something like the same ratio, for
thirty years to come, under the present system of General Con-
ference jurisdiction, some such change as that authorized by
the late General Conference must be resorted to, or the Church
resign itself to the virtual extinction of the representative
principle, as an important element of government action.

In establishing a separate jurisdiction as before defined and
explained, so far from affecting the moral oneness and integ-
rity of the great Methodist body in America, the effect will
be to secure avery different result. In resolving upon a sepa-
rate Connection, as we are abdut to do, the one great and
controlling motive is to restore and perpetuate the peace and
unity of the Church. At present we have neither, nor are we
likely to have, should the Southern and Northern Conferences
remain in connectionalrelation,asheretofore. Inferring effects
from causes known to be in existence and active operation,
agitation on the subject of slavery is certain to continue, and
frequent action in the General Conference is equally certain,
and the result, as heretofore, will be excitement and discon-
tent, aggression and resistance. Should the South retire ‘and
decline all further conflict, by the erection of the Southern Con-
ferences into a separate jurisdiction, as authorized by the
General Conference plan, agitation in the Church cannot be
brought in contact with the South, and the former irritation
and evils of the controversy must, to a great extent, cease, or
at any rate so lose their disturbing force as to become com-
paratively harmless. Should the Northern Church continue to
discuss and agitate, it will be within their own borders and
among themselves, and the evil effects upon the South must,
to say the least, be greatly lessened. At present, the. consoli-
dation of all the Annual Conferences, under the jurisdictional
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 229

control of one General Conference, always giving a decided
Northern majority, places it in the power of that majority to
manage and control the interests of the Church, in the slave-
holding States, as they see proper, and we have no means of
protection against the evils certain to be inflicted upon us, if we
judge the future from the past. The whole power of legislation
is in the General Conference, and as that body is now constitu-
ted, the Annual Conferences of the South are perfectly powerless
in the resistance of wrong, and have no alternative left them but
unconditional submission. And such submission, to the views
and action of the Northern majority on the subject of slavery,
it is now demonstrated must bring disaster and ruin upon
Southern Methodism, by rendering the Church an object of
distrust on the part of the State. In this way, the assumed
conservative power of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with re-
gard to the civil union of the States, is to a great extent
destroyed, and we are compelled to believe that it is the in-
terest and becomes the duty of the Church in the South to seek
to exert such conservative influence in some other form; and after
the most mature deliberation and‘ careful examination of the
whole subject, we know of nothing so likely to effect the ob-
ject, as the jurisdictional separation of the great Church parties,
unfortunately involved in a religious and ecclesiastical con-
troversy about an affair of State—a question of civil policy,
over which the Church has no control, and with which
it is believed, she has no right to interfere. Among the
nearly five hundred thousand ministers and members of the
Conferences represented in this Convehtion, we do not
know one not deeply and intensely interested in the safety and
perpetuity of the National Union, nor can we for a moment hesi-
tate to pledge them all, against any course of action or policy, not
calculated, in their judgment, to render that union as immortal as
the hopes of patriotism would have it to be!

Before closing the summary view of the whole subject taken
in this report, we cannot refrain from a brief notice of the
relations and interests of Southern border Conferences. These,
it must be obvious, are materially different from those of the
more Southern Conferences. They do not, for the present,
feel the pressure of the strong necessity impelling the South
proper, to immediate separation. They are, however, involv-
ed with regard to the subject matter of the controversy, and
committed to well defined principles, in the same way, and to
the same extent, with the most Southern Conferences. They
have with almost perfect unanimity, by public official acts,
protested against the entire action of the late General Con-
terence on the subject of slavery, and in reference to the rela-
tive rights and powers of Episcopacy and the General Confer-

20
230 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

ence, as not only unconstitutional, but revolutionary, and, there-
tore, dangerous to the best interests of the Church. They have
solemnly declared, by approving and endorsing the declaration,
the protest and address of the Southern delegates, that the ob-
jects of their ministry cannot be: accomplished, under the ex-
isting jurisdiction of the General Conference, without repara-
tion for past injury and security against future aggression, and
unless the border Conferences have good and substantial rea-
son to believe such reparation and security not only probable,
but so certain as to remove reasonable doubt, they have, so far
as principle and pledge are concerned, the same motive for
action with the Conferences South of them. Against the
principles thus avowed by every one of the Conferences in
question, the anti-slavery and abolition of the North have,
through official Church, organs, declared the most open and
undisguised hostility, and these Conferences are reduced to
the necessity of deciding upon adherence to the principles they
have officially avowed, or of a resort to expediency to adjust
difficulties in some unknown form, which they have said could
only be adjusted by substantial reparation for past injury, and
good and sufficient warrant against future aggression. The
question is certainly one of no common interest. Should any
of the border Conferences, or societies South, affiliate with the
North, the effect, so far as we can see, will be to transfer the
seat of war from the remoter South, to these border districts;
and what, we ask, will be the security of these districts against
the moral ravages of such a war? What protection or secu-
rity will the discipline or the conservatism of the middle Con-
ferences afford? Of what avail were these at the last General
Conference, and has either more influence now than then?
The controversy of a large and rapidly increasing portion of
the North, is not so much with the South as with the discipline,
because it tolerates slavery in any form whatever, and should
the Southern Conferences remain under the present common.
jurisdiction, or any slaveholding portions of the South unite
in the Northern Connection in the event of division, it requires
very little discernment to see that this controversy will never
cease until every slaveholder or every Abolitionist is out of
the connection. Beside, the border Conferences have a great
and most delicate interest af stake, in view of their territorial
and civil and political relations, which it certainly behooves.
them to weigh well and examine with care in coming to the
final conclusion, which is to identify them with the North or
the. South. Border districts going with the North, after and
notwithstanding the action of the border Conferences, must, in
the nature of things, as found in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
affiliate, to a great extent, with the entire aggregate of North-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 231

ern anti-slavery and abolition, as now embarked against the
interests of the South—as also with all the recent official vio-
lations of right, of law, and discipline, against which the
South is now contending. In doing this, they must of ne-
cessity, if we have reasoned correctly, elect, and contribute
their influence to retain in the connection of their choice all
the principles and elements of strife and discord which have
so long and fearfully convulsed the Church. Will this be the
election of Southern border sections and districts, or will they
remain where, by location, civil and political ties and relations,
and their own avowed principles, they properly belong, firmly
planted upon the long and well tried platform of the discipline
of our common choice, and from which the Methodism of the
South has never manifested any disposition to swerve? To
the discipline the South has always been loyal. By it she has
abided in every trial. Jealously has she cherished and guarded
that “form of sound words’’—the faith, the ritual, and the
government of the Churéh. It was Southern defence against
Northern invasion of the discipline, which brought on the pre-
sent struggle; and upon the discipline, the whole discipline,
the South proposes to organise, under authority of the General
Conference, a separate connection of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. This result, from first to last, has been consented to
on the part of the South with the greatest reluctance.

After the struggle came on, at the late General Conference,
the Southern Delegates, as they had often done before, mani-
fested the most earnest desire, and did all in their power, to
maintain jurisdictional union with the North, without sacrifi-
cing the interests of the South: when this was found im-
practicable, a Connectional union was proposed, and the rejec-
tion of this, by the North, led to the projection and adoption of
the present General Conference plan of separation. Every
overture of compromise, every plan of reconciliation and
adjustment, regarded as at all eligible, or likely to succeed,
was offered by the South and rejected by the North. All sub-
sequent attempts at compromise, have failed in like manner,
and the probability of any such adjustment, if not extinct, is
lessening every day, and the Annual Conferences in the slave-
holding States are thus left to take their position upon the
ground assigned them by the General Conference of 1844, asa
distinct ecclesiastical Connection, ready and most willing to
treat with the Northern division of the Church, at any itime, in
view of adjusting the difficulties of this controversy, upon terms
and principles, which may be safe and satisfactory to both. |

Such we regard as the true position of the Annual Confer-
ences represented in this Convention. Therefore, in view of al
the principles and interests involved, appealing to the Almighty
232 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

searcher of hearts, for the sincerity of our motives, and humbly in-
coking the Divine blessing upon our action,

Be it Resolved, by the Delegates of the several Annual Confer-
cnces of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the slaveholding States,
in General Convention assembled, That it is right, expedient, and
necessary to erect the Annual Conferences, represented in this
Convention, into a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, separate
from the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, as at present constituted; and, ac-
cordingly, we, the Delegates of said Annual Conferences, act-
ing under the provisional plan of separation adopted by the
General Conference of 1844, do solemnly declare the jurisdiction
hitherto exercised over said Annual Conferences, by the Gene-
ral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely
dissolved; and that said Annual Conferences shall be, and they
hereby are constituted a separate ecclesiastical Connnection,
under the provisional plan of separation aforesaid, and based
upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, com-
prehending the doctrines, and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and
economical rules and regulations of said Discipline, except
only, in so far,as verbal alterations may be necessary to a
distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Resolved, That Bishops Soule and Andrew be, and they are
hereby respectfully and cordially requested by this Convention
to unite with, and become regular and constitutional Bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, upon the basis of
the plan of separation adopted by the late General Conference.

Resolved, That this Convention request the Bishops presi-
ding at the ensuing sessions of the border Conferences of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to incorporate into the
aforesaid Conferences any societies or stations adjoining the
line of division, provided such societies or stations by the ma-
jority of the members, according to the provisions of the plan.
of separation, aforesaid, request such an arrangement.

Resolved, That answer the 2d of 3d Section, Chapter 1st, of
the book of Discipline, be so altered and amended as to read
as follows: 'The General Conference shall meet on the Ist of
May, in the year of our Lord, 1846, in the town of Petersburg, Va.,
and thenceforward, in the month of April or May, once in four
years successively, and in such place and on such day as shall
be fixed on by the preceding General Conference,” etc.

Resolved, That the first answer in the same chapter, be al-
tered by striking out the word “twenty-one,” and inserting in
its place the word “ fourteen,” so as to entitle each Annual
Conference to one Delegate for every fourteen members.

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, whose
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 233

duty it shall be to prepare and report to the General Confer-
ence of 1846, a revised copy of the present Discipline, with
such changes as are necessary to conform it to the organization
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. -

Resolved, That while we cannot abandon or compromise
the principles of action upon which we proceed to a separate
organization in the South; nevertheless, cherishing a sincere
desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intercourse,
with the Church North, we shall always be ready, kindly and
respectfully to entertain, and duly and carefully consider, any
proposition or plan, having for its object, the union of the two
great bodies, in the North and South, whether such proposed
union be jurisdictional or connectional.

‘ 20*
-

234 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

CHAPTER V.

Embracing events subsequent to the adjournment of the Louisville
Convention.

Tur meeting of a Convention of Delegates, from the South-
ern and South-western Conferences of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, was a novel proceeding in the history of the
Church, and consequently attracted great attention. Vast
numbers attended its session, and many from a great distance,
to observe its doings and witness the result of its deliberations.
There were many speeches of uncommon ability delivered,
the interests of the public mind was kept quickly alive through-
out the protracted session, and it was quite evident that an
impression deep and wide had been made on the community
in favor of the Southern cause.

This result was readily foreseen by the leading men of the
North, and measures were taken in advance to epunteract it.
The opposing editors, (one of whom had, in the General Con-
ference, advocated division in the abstract—as necessary apart
from the slavery coritroversy, and another had advocated a
positive boundary, beyond which—even on the border—no
one might pass, as the only way to secure peace) labored to
impress the public mind unfavorably with regard to the Con-
vention. It was contended that the people very generally
were opposed to it, and that a large proportion of the preach-
ers were with them in this opposition;—that the divisive move-
ments were led on by a few ambitious leaders seeking their
own aggrandizement;—that the proceeding was irregular and
unmethodistical, as the General Conference had not authoriz-
ed it, &c. This last argument, considering its want of sound-
ness, had considerable effect for a time. The more considerate,
however, soon came to perceive that as the General Confer-
ence had granted to the South the right to decide on the ne-
cessily of division, that grant must necessarily embrace the
right to take such action as would enable them to make up
that important decision in the best and most satisfactory
manner.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 235

It was also predicted that there would be great discord in
the Convention, and it was doubted whether any course could
be suggested which would secure the acquiescence of even a
majority of that body. And this conjecture received some ap-
parent strength from the fact, that though-all the delegates
elected disapproved the action in the case of Bishop Andrew,
and rejected the principle involved in it as unsound and dan-
gerous, yet some of them were not convinced, at the time of
assembling, that present separation was absolutely necessary,
and therefore inclined to defer final action, either until the
meeting of the regular General Conference of 1848, or untila
special meeting of that body could be called to attempt an
adjustment of the difficulty;—or to propose terms on which
they would agree to remain in connection with the North, and
leave that portion of the Church to accept or reject the terms
—to perpetuate the union or effectuate the separation. When
however, the Convention, with but three exceptions, came to
the conclusion that separation was absolutely necessary, and
necessary now, and when those three, after casting their votes,
cordially feelin and cheerfully co-operated with the majority,
the very unanimity of the action produced strengthened con-
fidence in the community, and many who had previously
doubted, hesitated, or even opposed, now acquiesced and came
promptly forward to sustain the course of the Convention.

The question was now considered as finally settled; and
from this time the prevailing desire of the South—editors,
ministers, and people—evidently was to discontinue the con-
flict and cultivate peace with our Northern brethren; and if
we could not unite with them under one jurisdiction, to unite
in one spirit of forbearance and love. And this sentiment
was reciprocated on the part of many Northern brethren, and
even those Church papers from which the South originally ex-
pected least.

Not so the leading Church papers of the Northern con-
nection. They set themselves diligently to work to prove
to the world, that the Southern organization was an actual
secession from the Church, “if not indeed a scism of the worst
sort;’?—that all who did not go with the Northern Connection,
whether located North or South, were no longer members of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, but of a pro-slavery Church,
the object of which was to strengthen slavery and encourage
and protecf slaveholding in the ministry;—that the Convention
was not held in accordance with the plan of separation;—that
the Plan itself was unconstitutional and void. They accord-
ingly encouraged all in the South, over whom they could
exert any influence, to adhere to the Northern division of the
Church, and holding out as inducements the declaration that
236 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

the Church property in the South, purchased with the money
and for the accommodation of Southern societies, would all
fallinto the hands of those—-however few—who should adhere
to the North, and assuring such, that the North would send
them preachers and amply provide for their supply. Assum-
ing that there were many disaffected ministers in the South,
they urged such to an utter disregard of the plan of separa-
tion, by forming themselves into a separate Conference where
they were in a minority, and assuring them that however few
in number, they would be recognized as the true Annual Con-
ference—of Kentucky, Missouri, or Holston, as the case might
be,—and would draw the dividend from the Book Concern
due the Conference whose name they were recommended to
assume. :

Bishop Soule, as has been seen in the preceding Chapter, had
intimated to the Convention his purpose to pursue the plan of
episcopal visitation agreed on in 1844, until the meeting of
the first General Conference of the Southern Connection,—
authorizing the opinion that he would then fully identify him-
self with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This gave
great offence in the same quarters, and he was denounced in
more unmeasured terms.of censure than had been so liberally
heaped on-Bishop Andrew. He was charged as the prime
agent in the whole divisive movement. It was declared that
he had, by the act above alluded to, seceded’ from the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, and was no longer capable of ex-
ercising episcopal functions in it. In the plan of episcopal
visitation for 1845, several Conferences in non-slaveholding
States had been assigned to him. Those Conferences were
earnestly entreated not to receive him as their presiding Bishop,
as no act done under his administration would be legal—no
ordination of his valid. In this course the editors were zeal-
ously and even violently supported by several ministers of age
and standing, particularly Messrs. Cartwright and Akers, of
Illinois, and Mr. Finley of the Ohio Conference. But while
Bishop Soule had work assigned him on the episcopal plan in
Northern Conferences, Bishops Morris and Janes—who were
regarded as Northern Bishops in good standing—had work in
the South, and whether it was expedient for them to preside
in Conferences, denounced as seceders, became a grave
question.

Matters had now reached such a crisis that it was wisely
deemed advisable to convoke a council of the Bishops to de-
termine on the proper course to pursue, and especially to settle
the principles of their own administration. This council met
in the city of New York, July 2d, 1845, and was attended by
Bishops Hedding, Waugh, Morris, and Janes. Bishop Hamline
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 237

sent his opinion in writing on the points to be acted on by the
Council, Bishop Soule did not attend, and Bishop Andrew,
being suspended, was not invited. There was some contra-
riety of opinion in the council on some points. Bishops Morris
and Janes preferred carrying out the original plan of episcopal
“visitation, though the work of both, for 1845, lay within the
Southern Connection, which in high places had been denounced
as a secession. But a majority deemed it more prudent, under
the circumstances, to form a new plan of visitation, in which
the Southern Connection was not included. The council,
however, resolved not to change, or in any way interfere with
Bishop Soule’s appointments to preside in Northern Confer-
ences, but provided that if he should desire to be released from
them, they should be attended by Bishop Morris. Besides
agreeing on a new plan of visitation, the Bishops adopted the
following resolutions, intended for the government of their own
administration:

1. Resolved, That the plan reported by the sclect Committee
of Nine at the last General Conference and adopted by that
body in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical connection, should _
such a course be found necessary by the Annual Conferences
in the slaveholding States, is regarded by us as of binding
obligation in the premises, so far as our administration is
concerned.

2. Resolved, That in order to ascertain fairly the desire and
purpose of those societies bordering on the line of division, in
regard to their adherence to the Church, North or South, due
notice should be given of ‘the time, place, and object of meet-
ing for the above purpose, at which a Chairman and Secretary
should be appointed, and the sense of all the members present
be ascertained, and the same be forwarded to the Bishop who
‘may preside at the ensuing Annual Conferences; or forward to
said presiding Bishop a written request to be recognized and
have a preacher sent them, with the names of the majority
appended thereto. 2

A true copy. Epmunp 8. Janzs, Sec’y.

By these wise and prudent resolves the Bishops have entitled
themselves to the gratitude of the Church,—have shown that
they are the true conservatives, and have insured to themselves
the commendation of posterity. "

This action of the Bishops, when it came to be known
and understood, was mightily influential in calming the
troubled waters‘and settling the public mind. . And though by
the two leading papers opposing the General Conference plan
of separation, it was treated with no apparent respect what-
ever, with the vast majority the case was far otherwise, And
'
238 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

\
these sound and conservative views were ably seconded _by
men of the highest standing in the Northern connection. Drs.
Bangs and Olin contended with great ability, that the faith
and honor of the Church were deeply concerned in carrying
out the plan of separation, adopted by the General Confer-
ence, and thereby greatly endeared themselves to the lovers of
peace and justice, North and South. The Church papers too,
with the exceptions mentioned, generally took the same hon-
orable ground.

At the close of the General Conference of 1844, Dr. H. B.
Bascom, in behalf of the Southern minority, gave notice of
his intention to review, at his convenience, the Reply of Drs.
Durban, Peck and Elliott, to the Protest of the Minority of the
General Conference. Immediately before the meeting of the
Louisville Convention, this review made its appearance under
the title of “Methodism and Slavery,” &c., and was rapidly and
widely circulated—an edition of six thousand copies having
been sold almost immediately, without nearly supplying the
demand. This powerful production made a strong impression
favorable to the cause of the Church South, which was strong-
ly seconded by the clear and able Report of the Committee of
the Louisville Convention on a Southern Organization, drawn
up by the same hand.

Dr. Bascom’s Review was replied to by Dr. Peck, one of the
committee who replied to the Protest, and Edftor of the Meth-
odist Quarterly Review. This attempt to answer the clear
reasoning of Dr. Bascom’s work, was a remarkable failure.
The work of Dr. Peck abounds in special pleading,—imputes
to the South doctrines never entertained by it or Dr. Bascom,
and advocates at length opinions never broached until the
General Conference of 1844, as the orthodox doctrines of
Methodism. :

The chief effect of Dr. Peck’s book will doubtless be, to
mark by clearer and more indelible lines, a distinction between
the North and the South on the subject of ecclesiastical polity.
In short, the doctrines of that book are those of the famous
Reply to the Protest, carried out into minuter detail,—doctrines
which the South unanimously reject, and about which there
has been great disagreement in the North; but more uni-
formity must be superinduced by it in the, Northern Connec-
tion—if it should be read and received as authority.

The plan of sepdration contemplated action by the border
Conferences, as the appointed means of fixing their connec-
tional relation as Conferences, either North or Séuth. Ofcourse,
therefore, no border Conference as such, could be regarded as
strictly belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
until a majority of its members had voted to adhere to that
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 239

connection. The action of these Conferences was therefore
looked to with much interest. It was thought, and especially
by our Northern brethren, that there would be much division
in all those Conferences. In most of them large Northern mi-
norities, if not indeed majorities—were claimed; with how
much forecast and correctness, will be seen by the report of
the official action of those Conferences.

But before we notice the final and decisive action of the
border Conferences on the question, we must pay.some atten-
tion to the action of some of the Conferences on the general
subject, which were not called on to act by their relation to the
plan of separation, nor by any other consideration of which we
can conceive, save that of a desire to place the South in the
wrong in this whole business.

The first of the “ Conservative” Conferences, whose action
claims notice here, is the Nortu Onto. The following nulli-
fying action was had by that respectable body of ministers:—

Wuereas, a Convention of delegates from several Annual
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slave-
holding States, assembled at Louisville, in May last, did for-
mally dissolve their connection with the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and form themselves into a distinct ecclesiastical or-
ganization, under the style and title of the “Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South,” claiming, as authority for said act, the
provisional planof separation recommended by the last Gene-
ral Conference, notwithstanding said plan is void; (allowing
that the General Conference had the constitutional right to
recommend it,) by the refusal of the Annual Conferences to
confirm it. And, whereas, it appears to us, that our Southern
brethren have not found such a necessity for separating from
the Methodist Episcopal Church, as was affirmed, did, or would
exist; and on the real undoubted existence of which necessity the
General Conference based the plan of separation; and, whereas,
said Convention did by resolution provide for the incorpora-
tion of all societies within the slaveholding States, (represented
in the Convention,) and for the representation of fractional
portions of Conferences, (not represented in the Convention) in
their General Conference, thereby violating the /etter, as well
as the spirit of the plan; ‘and, whereas, there are many
ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church
within the jurisdiction claimed by the Southern organization,
who cannot consent to be transferred from the Church of their
choice by the force of a dead recommendation, but will remain,
or seek to remain, under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, from a conviction that the act of separation is
unnecessary, revolutionary in its character, and drawing after
240 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

it all the fearful consequences of a schism in the body of
Christ. Therefore, ;

1. Resolved, by the North Ohio Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in Conference assembled, That we deeply re-
gret the precipitate haste with which this great and momen-
tous action has been had by the Southern Conferences.

2. That we can view the action of the Louisville Conven-
tion in no other light than that of secession, (made respectable
by the number engaged init,) and a voluntary surrender of all
right and privilege in the Methodist Episcopal Church.

3. That those who adhere to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, have our sympathy in this their hour of darkness; that
for them we will make supplication continually, that they may
endure hardiness as good soldiers; and that we will furnish
them aid as they may require.

4. That it is the duty of the Methodist Episcopal Church
to provide for the special wants of our Southern brethren
who adhere to her jurisdiction, whether they be majorities or
minorities of Conferences, circuits, stations, or societies.

5. That we recommend to our adhering brethren in the
South, in.such prudent way as they best can, agreebly to the
Discipline of our Church, to continue the organization of their
Conferences, districts, circuits, stations, and classes, until the
next General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

6. That in our opinion it will be the duty of the next Gene-
ral Conference to provide fully for all who desire to continue
in, or who may return to, the Methodist Episcopal Church,
that they may enjoy all those inalienable privileges to which
they have a constitutional right, and which cannot be wrested
from them. .

The next Conference to meet was Onto. This body met in
the city of Cincinnati, September 3d, 1845. During part of
its session Bishop Soule happened to be in the city, and Bishop
Hamline, the presiding Bishop of the Conference, in the ex-
ercise of the courtesy due the venerable senior Bishop of the
Church, invited him to take part in the official duties of the
Conference. Bishop “Soule accordingly opened the session
with the usual religious services, and was about to proceed with
the regular business, when an aged minister—Rev. Jacob
Young—offered the following for adoption by the Conference:

Waereas, Bishops Soule and Andrew did preside at the Con-
vention at Louisville, in May last, composed of delegates from
the Southern Conferences; and whereas, said Convention did
resolve the said Conferences into a “separate and distinct
ecclesiastical connection,” solemnly declaring that they were
no longer under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 241

Church; and, whereas, Bishops Soule and Andrew did pledge
their adherence to the Church South: and in view of the
Southern organization, and the course of said Bishops at a
meeting of the Bishops in New York, Bishops Morris and
Janes declined presiding in the Southern Conferences; therefore,

“Resolved, That although the Conferences composing the
Methodist Episcopal Church, will treat the Bishops of the
Church South with due courtesy and respect, yet it would be,
in the estimation of this Conference, inexpedient and highly
improper for them to preside in said Conferences.”

The reading of this paper produced considerable excitement.
Bishop Soule remarked to the Conference that he was in the
chair, not by his own seeking, but by the courteous invitation of
their Bishop; that*to him he was ready to resign the Chair
whenever he (Bishop H.) would take it; but considering the
paper offered disrespectful to their presiding Bishop, who had
placed him in the position they so strongly objected to his oc-
cupying, he could not, without participating in the disrespect
offered to Bishop Hamline, put the question to the Conference.
Bishop Hamline, however, first called a member of the Con-
ference to the Chair, but order not being restored, he resumed it
himself and put the question on the resolution ejecting Bishop
Soule from the Chair, and it was carried by a vote of 145,to 7.

Toward the close of the Conference, the following resolu-
tions were offered, and after a spirited debate, adopted by
nearly the same vote as the preceding resolution:—

“Wuereas, events connected with the history of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, involving important principles in the
government of said Church, have lately transpired; and whe7c-
as, the position of the Annual Conferences, constituting the
governmental department, should be clearly defined; therefore,

“ Resolved, That we heartily approve of the general tenor
of the editorial course of the Western Christian Advocate and
the Christian Advocate and Journal, in relation to all those
questions involved in the existing controversy between the
Methodist Episcopal Church and the organization styled, “the
distinct and separate ecclesiastical connection of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, South.”

“ Resolved, That we hereby tender to these worthy defenders
of constitutional Methodism our warmest thanks, and assure
them of our sympathies, and pledge them our hearty support.

“ Resolved, 'That we tender to our brethren of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, our sympathies
and regards—hoping that should they not alienate themselves
from the Church of their choice, the next General Conference
will provide for them in the regular way.

21
242 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION AF THE

“ Resolved, That we consider the provisional arrangement,
commonly called “the plan of separation,” as a nullity, be-
cause unconstitutional in its nature, and virtually rejected
by the Annual Conferences in their action in regard to the
change of the “ sixth restrictive rule.”

“ Resolved, That we protest against the term “ North” being
prefixed, or added to, or used synonymously for the “ Methodist
Episcopal Church” in the United States of America.

Jacos Youne,
.Grorce W. Watker.” ,

In these resolutions, it will be perceived that the Conference
not only nullified the plan of separation, but the very men who
in the General Conference voted for it and zealously advocated
it, now solemnly resolved that it was unconstitutional, thus alike
condemning the General Conference and themselves, in their
earnest zeal to place the South in the wrong.

There were afew, however, even in the Conservative Con-
ference of Ohio, who could not receive these strong doctrines,
and we here give their Protest,—which, it may not be amiss
to notice, could not gain admission into the official organ so
liberally lauded in the resolutions above.

“We, the undersigned members of the Ohio Annual Confer-
ence, in conformity to the rights and usages of deliberative
assemblies in such cases, do hereby protest against the action
of the majority of the Conference, in the adoption of the reso-
lutions offered by brothers Jacob Young and G. W. Walker,
declaring the plan adopted by the last General Conference a
nullity.

“1, We protest against the action of the majority in the case,
because the General Conference is the supreme legislative
and judicial department in the Church—the high court of ap-
peal beyond which we cannot travel for the cure of errors, it

aving full power within the restrictive rules, to make rules
and regulations for the Church.

“2. Because the Board of Bishops, the highest executiveau-
thority in the Church, are the supreme constitutional judges of
law in the intervals of the General Conferences, and have
acknowledged said plan of the General Conference as of
binding obligation, and determinéd to regulate their’ adminis-
tration accordingly.

“3. Because the Annual Conference, in adopting those reso-
lutions, acted upon the false assumption that, in their official
capacity, they have power to nullify an act of the General
Conference, which, in their judgment, it had no constitutional
authority to pass; whereas the General Conference is the sole
judge of the constitutionality of its own acts.
METIIODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 243

“4, Because the action of the General Conference provided
regulations for a peaceable separation from its jurisdiction, of
the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
_ slaveholding States, if, in their judgment, such separation
was found to be necessary: in consequence of which, the
Southern Conferences finding such necessity, have proceeded
to effect the contemplated separation.

' “5, Because no succeeding General Conference, since such
division has taken place, will possess the power to repeal said
act, inasmuch as it was passed by the representatives of all
the Annual Conferences in the United States, in General Con-
ference assembled, and inasmuch as such a General Confer-
ence, in which all the parties interested will be represented,
cannot again be cgnstituted. Nor can either of the General
Conferences, North or South, disregard or set aside the pro-
visions of the plan, because it originated in mutual concession
and compromise, and now partakes of the nature of a treaty
or compact between the two existing parties, neither of which
can violate or annul it, without a breach of good faith.

“6. Because the act of this body, by which the plan of sepa-
ration is declared a nullity, is unconstitutional, revolutionary,
and subversive of the fundamental principles involved in the
government of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

J. A. Waterman,
8S. A. Larra,
Wm. Burks,
G. W. Matey,
E. W. Seuon,
Isaac Expert,
Samuet Buack,

é J. B. Exiusworry.”

This protest subsequently received the cordial official appro-
bation of the Quarterly Conference of one of the oldest and
most respectable stations in the Northern Connection—that of
St. George’s, Philadelphia. Of the eight signers of this Pro-
test, all except the last two named, afterwards left the Ohio
Conference and united with the Southern Connection.

But far as the North Ohio and Ohio Conferences went in
their opposition to the South, it was reserved for Illinois to
leave them in the rear. Not only did that Conference adopt
all the nullification of the others, but erected Annual Confer-
ences into a supreme judicatory, vested with full powers to
determine the constitutionality of acts done by the General
Conference, and to revoke, suspend or nullify them at pleasure.

The following are their preamble and resolutions:—

“ Wuereas, The traveling ministers of the Methodist Episco-
«

244 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

pal Church in the United States of America are, by the Disci-
pline of said Church, constituted its pastors, who, for the put-
pose of accomplishing the great and avowed object of their
ministry, are divided into Annual Conferences, in which is
lodged the power of appointing the delegates who compose,
or constitute, the General Conference of said Church: And
whereas, the Discipline gives to the General Conference the
power to make rules and regulations for said Church, under
limitations and restrictions, but, at the same time, it does not
say where the power is lodged, to determine as to the consti-
tutionality of the acts and doings of the General Conference:

And whereas, in the absence of any disciplinary expression
on this subdject, it follows, that the Annual Conferences, being
the immediate constituents of the General Conference, con-
stitute the natural and proper tribunal, and exclusively pos-
sess the right to determine as to the constitutionality of all
acts and doings of the General Conference; therefore,

1, Resolve, by the Illinois Annual Conference, That the plan
reported by the Committee of Nine, and adopted by the Gene-
yal Conference, called by the “Methodist Episcopal Church,
south,” “ A constitutional provisional plan of separation,” is,
in its operations, in direct contravention of the third restrictive
article of the Discipline, which prohibits the General Confer-
ence from altering said article, as follows: “They shall not
change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to
do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant gen-
eral superintendency.” This it does, in that the said plan,
adopted by the General Conference, in its operations, excludes
the general superintendency: from the whole Church and ter-
ritory South of the prescribed boundary—thus preventing
them from traveling “through the connection at large.” It
also contravenes the fifth restrictive article, which says, “They
shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers
of trial by a committee, and of an appeal; neither shall they
do away the privileges of our members of trial before
society, or by a committee, and of an appeal.” The
plan adopted by the General Conference, in its operations,
turns out of the Methodist Episcopal Church both ministers
and members, without disciplinary privileges, and hence, it is
unconstitutional, and ought not to be carried into operation
by the Bishops and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.

“2. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with the ministers
and membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who re-
side within the limits of the Southern Organization, in the
troubles and difficylties they are passing through; and that
we recommend to them to remain in the Methodist Episcopal.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 245

Church; and we further recommend, that in all the Annual
Conferences within the limits of the Southern Organization,
where there are traveling preachers who still adhere to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, to meet and form themselves
into the regular Annual Conference; and, in the event there
shall be no Bishop present to preside over their deliberations,
to appoint a President pro tem, as is provided for by the Dis-
cipline in the absence of a Bishop.

“3. Resolved, That the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, are most respectfully requested to attend the Missouri
and Kentucky Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and preside over their deliberations, and make all ne-
cessary arrangements to supply the members of the Church,
in the above named Annual Conferences, with preachers, to
take the pastoral care of them; and to make such further ar-
rangements as they may deem necessary, to supply with
preachers all the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
residing within the boundaries of the self-styled “ Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.”

“4, Resolved, That the action of the Louisville Convention
was without any constitutional authority; and, consequently, it
can only be regarded as a secession from the Methodist Episco-
pal Church—that, in view of this being a secession, and of
the difficulties now existing in the Church growing out of the
revolutionary spirit which caused them, being of such a na-
ture, and to such an extent, it is sufficient to authorize the
calling of a special General Conference. The Bishops are,
therefore, most respectfully requested and advised, to call a
General Conference as soon as practicable. «

“5. Resolved, That inasmuch as the several Annual Confer-.
ences of the Methodist Episcopal, Church, are the only consti-
tutional judges and determiners of the acts and doings of the
General Conference, it becomes their indispensable duty to de-
termine as to the constitutionality of the so called plan of
separation, passed by the late General Conference, at their
next several Annual Conferences; and, if they determine it to
be unconstitutional, to appoint delegates to the special Gene-
ral Conference, should one be called. |

“6. Resolved, That as soon asa majority of the Annual Con-
ferences of the Methodist Episcopal] Church shall have con-
curred in the above resolutions, the Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church be, and they are hereby, requested and ad-
vised, to proceed immediately to take charge of, and superin-
tend all the ministers and members ‘adhering to the Methodist
Episcopal Church within the assumed bounds of the Church
“ South.”

“7, Resolved, That the course pursued by Drs. Bond and

21*
246 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

Elliott, during the difficulties in the Church, since the last
General Conference, merits the highest praise from the Church;
and, that the unmerited abuse which the Southern editors, and
others, have attempted to fasten upon them, for their faithful
and able defence of the Church, is worthy the cause they
espouse, and deserves the. stern rebuke of all the friends of
the Church.” :

The same Conference, it appears, adopted a resolution re-
fusing to pay their proportion of the salary or quarterage of
Bishops Soule and Andrew. When it is recollected that the
Southern Conferences were paying their full share of the sal-
aries of five Northern Bishops who render no service whatever
in the South, this withholding of quarterage from two Southern
Bishops, can hardly be regarded as having met too stern a re-
buke’in the following resolution adopted by unanimous vote
of the Missouri Conference:—

“Wuereas, It appears from documents from Illinois Confer-
ence, at its late annual session, that the said Conference re-
fused to pay its share of the Disciplinary allowance to Bishops
Soule and Andrew; therefore,

* Resolved, That the Missouri Annual Conference order that
the Stewards pay the same for the Illinois Conference, and
make no charge for the same.”

We now come to notice the movements of Conferences in
the slaveholding States, and which were represented in the
Louisville Convention. The first in order of these is Kentucky.
It met September 10, 1845, in Frankfort, Ky., and was at-
tended by Bishops Soule and Andrew. On the first day of
the session the following preamble and resolutions were of-
fered to the Conference and adopted:—

“Wuereas, the long continued agitation and excitement on
the subject of slavery and abolition in the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, and’ especially such agitation and excitement in
the last General Conference, in connection with the civil and
domestic relations of Bishop Andrew, as the owner of slave
property, by inheritance and marriage, assumed such form in
the action had in the ease of Bishop Andrew, as to compel the
Southern and South-western delegates in that body, to believe,

ind formally and solemnly to declare, that a state of things must
result therefrom which would render impracticable the suc-
cessful prosecution of the objects and purposes of the Chris-
tian ministry and Church organization, in the Annual Confer
ences Within the limits of the slaveholding States;—upon
the basis of which declaration, the General Conference adopted
a provisional plan of separation, in view of which said Con-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 247

ferences might, if they found it necessary, form themselves
into a separate General Conference jurisdiction; and whereas,
said Conferences, acting first in their separate Conference ca-
pacity, as distinct ecclesiastical bodies, and then collectively,
by their duly appointed delegates and representatives, in Gen-
eral Convention assembled, have found and declared such sep-
aration necessary, and have further declared a final dissolution,
in fact and form, of the jurisdictional connection hitherto ex- _
isting between them and the General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church as heretofore constituted; and have
organized the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, upon the
unaltered basis of the doctrines and discipline of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States before its separation,
as authorized by the General Conference; and whereas, said
lan of separation; as&dopted by the General Conference, and
carried out by the late Convention of Southern delegates in
in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, and also, recognized by
the entire Episcopacy as authoritative and of binding obliga-
tion in the whole range of their administration, provides that
Conferences bordering on the line of division between the
two connections—North and South—shall determine by vote
of a majority of their members respectively, to which juris-
diction they will adhere; therefore, in view of all the premi-
ses, as one of the border Conferences, and subject to the above
named rule, ,
_ “Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, That in conforming to the General Con-
ference plan of sepafation, it is necessary that this Conference
decide by a vote of a majority of its members to which connec-
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church it will adhere, and
that we now proceed to make such decision.

“ Resolved, That any member or members of this Conference,
declining to adhere to that connection to which the majority
shall by regular, official vote decide to adhere, shall be regard-
ed as entitled, agreeably to the plan of separation, to hold
their relation to the other ecclesiastical connection—North or
South—as the case may be, without blame or prejudice of any
kind, unless there be grave ‘objections to the moral character
of such member or members, before the date of such formal
adherence.

« Resolved, That agreeably to the provisions of the General
Conference plan of separation, and the decisions of the Epis-
eopacy with regard to it, any person or persons, from and after
the act of non-concurrence with the majority, as above, cannot
be entitled to hold membership, or claim any of the rights or
privileges of membership in this Conference. :

“ Resolved, That as a Conference, claiming all the rights,
248 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

powers, and privileges of an Annual Conference of the Meth-

odist Episcopal Church, we adhere to the Methodist Episcopal

Church, South, and that all our proceedings, records, and offi-

cial acts hereafter, be in the name and style of the Kentucky.

Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
“Frankrort, Ky., September 10th, 1845.”

The vote on the 4th—the adhering resolution—being taken
by ayes and noes, stood—ayes 77, noes 6. Four of the six
who voted in the negative, afterwards adhered personally to
the South; but three persons who did not vote on Conference
adherence—one being absent and two being probationers—
personally adhered to the North. Here the result was very
different from the predictions of one party and the apprehtn-
sions of the other. The unanimity of sentiment in the Con-
ference and the delightful harmony which prevailed, wielded
a mighty influence in promoting harmony in the societies and
throughout the Conference. Ona line of border of several
hundreds of miles, there was found but one small sqciety ad-
hering to the North, while in nearly all the others, not a mur-
mur or complaint was heard. A paper in Kentucky, which had
employed all its influence previously against the South, from
this time acquiesced and faithfully co-operated with the Con-
ference. True, the Conference had lost two effective men—
two young men who might in time have become useful, anda
venerable superannuate—for whose support during life the Con-
ference gave a generous pledge; but they had gainéd Jive (and
afterwards gained three) from the North, all men of experience,
weight, and talents.

The second border Conference to act on the question of ad-
herence, was Missouri. Here it was claimed that the Northern
party would have a Conference at any rate; for if they could
not secure a majority, they would organize with a minority,
transact the regular business of the Missouri Conference, and
draw the dividend from the Book Concern. The better to ac-
complish their purposes, Bishop Morris was written to and in-
vited to attend the Conference, with a desire that he would
take charge of the Northern party. To this invitation he gave
the following noble response:—

“BISHOP MORRIS’? LETTER.

“ Buruneton, Iowa, Sept. 8, 1845.
“Rev. Wilson S. McMurry—Dear Brother,—Your letter of
the Ist inst. is now before me. The resolutions to which you
refer did pass in the meeting of the Bishops at New York in
July, unanimously. We all believe they are in accordance
with the plan of separation adopted by the General Confer-
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 249

ence. Whether that plan was wise or foolish, constitutional
or unconstitutional, did not become us to say, it being our duty,
as Bishops, to know what the General Conference ordered to
be done in.a certain contingency which has actually transpired,
and to carry it out in good faith. It is, perhaps, unfortunate
that the resolutions were not immediately published, but it
was not thought necessary by a majority at the time they
passed. Still our administration will be conformed to them.
Bishop Soule’s notice was doubtless founded upon them.

‘ As I am the responsible man at Indiana Conference, Oct. 8,
it will not be in my power to attend Missouri Conference; nor
do,I think it important to do so. Were I there, I could not,
with my views of propriety and responsibility, encourage sub-
division. ,If a majagity of the Missouri Conference resolve to
come under the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that would
destroy the identity of the Missouri Conference as an integral
ae of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As to having two

issouri Conferences, each claiming to be the true one, and
demanding the dividends of the Book Concern, and claiming
the Church property, that is the very thing that the General
Conference designed to prevent, by adopting the arhicable
plan of separation. It is true that the minority preachers have
. aright, according to the general rule in the plan of separa-
tion, to be recognized still in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
but in order to that they must go to some adjoining Conference
in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The border charges may
also, by a majority of votes, decide which organization they
will adhere to, and if reported in regular order to the Con-
‘ference from which they wish to be supplied, or to the Bishops
presiding, they will be attended to, on either side of the line of
separation. But if any brethren suppose the Bishops will
send preachers from the North to interior charges South, or to
minorities of border charges, to produce disruption, or that
they will encourage minority preachers on either side of the
line to organize opposition lines, by establishing one Confer-
ence in the bounds of another, they are misled. That would
be departing from the plain letter of the rule prescribed by the
General Conference, in the premises. Editors may teach such
nullification and answer for it, if they will; but the Bishops
all understand their duty better than to endorse such princi-
ples. I acknowledge that, under the practical operation of
the plan of separation, some hard cases may arise; but the
Bishops do not make, and have not the power to relieve them.
It is the fault of the rule, and not of the executive adminis-
tration of it. In the mean time, there is much more bad feel-
ing indulged in respecting the separation, than there is neces-
sity for. If the plan of separation had been carried out in

.
250 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

good faith and christian feeling on both sides, it would scarcely
have been felt any more than the division of an Annual Con-
ference. It need not destroy confidence or embarrass the work,
if the business be managed in the spirit of Christ. I trust the
time is not very far distant when brethren, North and South,
will cease their hostilities, and betake themselves to their
prayers and other appropriate duties in earnest. Then, and
not till then, may we expect the Lord to bless us as in former
days.
I am, dear brother, yours respectfully and affectionately,
Tuos. A. Morris.”

Bishop Soule presided over the Conference, and when the
question of adherence was taken up, the letter of Bishop
Morris was read, and as may be supposed, not without effect.

The same resolutions substantially adopted by Kentucky
Conference, were introduced and adopted by this Conference,
only 14 voting in the negative, including absentees.

Next, the Holston Conference met: Bishop Andrew presided,
and the Conference adopted the following preamble and reso-
lutions, with but one negative vote; and the brother who gave
the negative vote, afterwards gave in his adhesion to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and took work of the
Conference as usual:— ,

The following preamble and resolutions were offered by '
Samuel Patton, and adopted by a vote of 51 in the affirmative
and 1 in the negative. Several members were not in at-
tendance at the Conference.

«“ Wuereas, The long continued agitation on the subject of
‘slavery and abolition in the Methodist Episcopal Church, did
at the General Conference of said Church, held in the city of
New York, in May, 1844, result in the adoption of certain
measures by that body, which seriously threatened a disrup-
tion of the Church: and to avert this calamity said General
Conference did devise and adopt a plan contemplating the
peaceful séparation of the South from the North; and consti-
tuting the Conferences in the slaveholding States the sole
judges of the necessity for such separation; and, whereas,
the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the exercise of
the right accorded to them by the General Conference, did by
their representatives in Convention at Louisville, Ky., in May
last, decide that separation was necessary, and proceeded to
organize themselves into a separate and distinct ecclesastical
connection, under the style and title of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South, basing their claim to a legitimate relation
to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, upon
their unwavering adherence to the “plan of separation,”
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 251

adopted by the General Conference of said Church, in 1844,
and their devotion to the doctrines, discipline, and usages of
the Church as they received them from their fathers.

“ And as the plan of separation provides that the Conferences
bordering on the geographical line of separation, shall decide
their relation by the votes of the majority,—as, also, that
ministers of every grade shall make their election North or
Sonth without censure,—therefore,

“1. Resolued, That we now proceed to determine the ques-
tion of our ecclesiastical relation, by the vote of the Conference.

“2, That we, the members of the Holston Annual Confer-
ence, claiming all the rights, powers and privileges of an An-
nual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States, do hgreby make out election with, and adhere
to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

“3, That while we thus declare our adherence to the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, South, we repudiate the idea of seces-
sion in any schismatic or offensive sense of the phrase, as we
neither give up nor surrender any thing which we have re-
ceived as constituting any part of Methodism, and adhere to
the Southern ecclesiastical organization, in strict accordance
with the provisions of the plan of separation, adopted by the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its
session in New York, in May, 1844.

“4, That we are satisfied with our Book of Discipline as it
is, on the subject of slavery and every other vital feature of
Methodism, as recorded in that book; and that we will not
tolerate any changes whatever, except such verbal or unim-
portant alterations as may, in the judgment of the General
Conference, facilitate the work in which we are engaged, and
promote uniformity and harmony in our administration.

“5, That the journals of our present session, as well as all
our official business, be henceforth conformed in style and title
to our ecclesiastical relations.

“6. That it is our desire to cultivate and maintain fraternal
relations with our brethren of the North. And we do most
sincerely deprecate the continuance of paper warfare, either
by editors or correspondents in our official Church papers, and
devoutly pray for the speedy return of peace and harmony in
the Church, both North and South.

“7, That the Holston Annual Conference most heartily com-
mend the course of our beloved Bishops, Soule and Andrew,
during the recent agitations which have resulted in the terri-
torial and jurisdictional separation of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and that we tender them our thanks for their steady
‘adherence to principle and the best interests of the slave
population. Davin ApaAms.”
252 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE

The Tennessee Conference, which met October 22, 1845,
though not a border Conference, adopted the following pre-
amble and resolutions, by a unanimous vote:—

“Wuereas, The agitation of the questions of slavery and
abolition for the last several years, has created great excite-
ment in the Methodist Episcopal Church, destructive of her
peace and harmony; and whereas, the General Conference
of 1844 did, by extra-judicial act, virtually suspend the Rev.
James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops of said Church, for an
act in which he was fully sustained by the law and constitu-
tion of the Church, and did thereby render a continuance of
the Conferences in the slavcholding States under the jurisdic-
tion of said General Conference, inconsistent with the interests
of our holy religion, and the great purposes of the christian
ministry; and whereas, the said General Conference adopted
a plan for a constitutional and’ peaceable division of the
Methodist Episcopal Church into two separate and distinct
ecclesiastical jurisdictions; and whereas, the Conferences in
the slaveholding States did adjudge such separation impe-
riously necessary, and did appoint delegates from their respec-
tive bodies to meet in General Convention at Louisville, Ky.,
on the first day of May, 1845; and whereas, said Convention
did proceed to declare the separation right, expedient and
necessary for the safety and prosperity of the Southern Church,
and did proceed, according to the plan of separation provided
by the General Conference of 1844, to adopt measures for the
organization of a separate and distinct ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion, known by the name and under the style of “ The Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, South,” based on the doctrines and
economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as set forth in
the Discipline of said Church: therefore,

“1. Resolved, That we approve the plan of separation as re-
ported by the Committee of Nine, and adopted by the Gencral
Conference of 1844.

“2. That we most cordially approve of the entire proceed-
ings of the Southern delegates in the Convention at Louisville,
in May, 1845, and that we solemnly declare our adherence to
the said Southern Organization.

“3. That our journals and all our official records be kept in
the name and under the style of the Tennessee Annual Con-
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

“4, That we will, at this session, elect delegates to the Gene-
ral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to
be held at Petersburg, Va., on the Ist day of May, 1846, ac-
cording to the, ratio of representation (one for every fourteen:
members of the Conference) fixed at the Louisville Convention.

~
METIODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 253

“5, That we, as ever, heartily believe in the doctrines and
approve the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
as set forth in our articles of faith, and taught in the Discip-
line, and that we will resist any and every attempt to change
any cardinal features of Methodism, as handed down to us by
‘our fathers.’

“6. That we highly approve of the course pursued by Bish-
ops Soule and Andrew in their administration, since the oc-
currence of the difficulties in the General Conference of 1844,
and that we sympathise with them in the unjust and ungene-
rous persecution which has been so bitterly carried on against
them in certain portions of the North. :

“7, That we properly appreciate the conservative course
pursued by the Bench of Bishops, pending the difficulties
which for the last eighteen months have so agitated the
Church, and specially do we commend their purpose of carry-
ing out, so far as their administration is concerned, the plan
of separation adopted by the General Conference of 1844.

“ Roperr Pars,-

“J. B. McFerrin.”

Farther than this we cannot follow the action of the Con
ferences, nor is it important, as those in which most. difficulty
and division were apprehended have been noticed.

Methodism has ever been peculiarly the child of Providence,
and to follow the guiding star of that Providence has always
been her rule of action and her glory. Mr. Wesley was ar-
dently attached to the Church of England, yet following the
clear indications of Providence, he was led to establish an
independent Church in America, contrary to his persona!
wishes and long cherished purpose. Nearly all the parts and
peculiarities of Methodist economy and rule have been adopted
in the same way, without previous concert or design. South-
ern Methodists have ever been more rigid in their adherence
to what they understand to be original Methodism, than any
other portion of the American Church. Hence, when the
Northern portion of the Church thought the measures adopted
by the General Conference of 1844, necessary to the success
and prosperity of Methodism in that part of the Union, and
when the South were convinced that the same measures must
work the utter ruin of Methodism in the slaveholding States,
or a division of the Church, Southern hearts felt and bled more
deeply than any others; but terrible as was the mental strug-
gle, and painful the alternative, when they believed they saw
the star of Divine Providence leading the way, and the sal-
vation of the Southern Church and the African race in the
proposed arrangement, they yielded a sorrowful acquiescence

22
254 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION, &C..

to the stern necessity of the case. And trusting in the future
guidance of Heaven’s good Providence, they went forth to
cultivate the vineyard in which they were called to labor for
their Master, believing that if it were of God, his blessing
would be upon them and upon the work of their hands; but
if not, that it would come to naught. But their hearts and
hands have been strengthened mightily—the seal of Heaven’s
approbation has been set upon their course—the gracious
work of the Lord has been gloriously revived—thousands have
been brought to the knowledge of salvation, and Ethiopia
with glad heart is stretching out her hands unto God.
INDEX.

‘ A

Page.

Abolition petition from a northern Annual Conference
presented to General Conference,
Action of General Conference in case of Bishop Andrew
disapproved by Kentucky Conference,
Missouri ‘
Holston s
Tennessee fs
Memphis 6
Mississippi“
Arkansas §
Virginia fs
N. Carolina “
8. Carolina “
Georgia ee
Florida “
Texas #¢
Alabama as
Address of Southern Delegates in General Conference to
ministers and members in the South,
Address of Bishop Soule to General Conference,
Andrew to General Conference,
Soule to Convention,

of Kentucky Conference on division of the Church,

Adherence of Conferences, stations, and societies, to be de-
cided by vote,
Alabama Conference, resolutions of, on division,
Ambiguity of General Conference decision in Bishop An-
drew’s case, ;
Annual Conferences fai] to change the 6th restriction,
Ayes and noes on the compromise proposed to the Gene-
ral Conference by the Bishops,
Ayes and noes on Bishop Andrew’s case,
on Mitchell's resolutions,

1

109
125
127
129
132
135
137
141
143
144
148
153
154
156

173
11
f
91
156
158
168
67
67
89
256 ‘ INDEX.

Ayes and Noes on first Resolution of Plan,
on 2nd and 5th “ “ Plan,
on the lst organizing resolution,
on 2d Ke
on additional report,
; on main report,
on inviting Bishops Soule and Andrew to
unite with the South,

B
Baltimore Conference, new position of in Harding’s case,
proceedings of in Harding’s case,

Bangs Dr. N. remarks on Bishop Andrew’s case,

explanation by,

advocates plan of separation,

opposes course of leading Church papers

North,
Bascom Dr. H. B., his testimony respecting object of reso-
lution of. 1840,

99
100
186
187
188
199

199

238

9

presents Protest of Southern Delegates, 73

his “ Methodism and Slavery,”

238

“replied to by Dr. Peck, 238

Berryman Mr., ean of on case of Bishop Andrew,
Bishop Andrew’s case not the real cause of General Con-
ference action,
Bishop Andrew his response to committee on Episcopacy,
his marriage constituted his offense,
“his pide to General Conference,
his case decided,
kept in suspense as to action of Bishops
in his case,
his response to Bishop Soule’s letter invi-
ting him to work,
his reply to the Convention on uniting
with the South,
Bishops permitted to speak in General Conference in
Bishop Andrew’s case,
their proposition of compromise in Bishop An-
drew’s case,

their proposition of compromise rejected by Gen-"

eral Conference,

their proposition of compromise, vote on, by Gen-
eral Conference,

letter asking explanation of action in Bishop An-
drew’s case,

publication explaining their course towards Bish-
op Andrew,

158
159
200
48
64
67
67
88

165
INDEX.

Bishops, meeting of, at New York, in July, 1845,
their resolutions at that meeting,
their course approved by Holston Conference,
ee . ‘ by Mississippi Conference,
Bee eae as by Texas Conference,
Bishop Hedding withdraws his name from compromise,
Waugh refuses to withdraw his “ s
Morris “c “cc cc «
Soule’s Address to General Conference,
Letter inviting Bishop Andrew to labor,
his letter defending the measure, .
his reply to the Convention as to uniting
with the South,
his ene in Northern Conferences op-
O8ed,
fia fection from Chair of Ohio Conference,
Bishops all invited to attend the Conv. by Kentucky Con.,
Missouri “
Holston “
Tennessee “
Memphis “
Mississippi “
Arkansas “
S. Carolina “
Georgia“
; Alabama “
Bond Dr. T. E., opposed giving border societies a choice in
division,
Bowen Mr., his remarks on case of Bishop Andrew,

C
Capers Dr., his speech,
plan of division,
referred to committee,
Cartwright Mr., opposed to the plan of separation,
Central Church Organ, its violent opposition to General
Conference plan of separation,
followed by W.C. Advocate,
Church, unity of, not affected by the separation,
primitive not more united than M. E. Church af-
ter division, Dr. Elliott, ,
Collins Rev. J. A., his position on the practicability of eman-
cipation in Maryland,
on the usage of the Church,

236
240
111
127
129
131
134
136
139
146
152
156

97
21

62
70
70
93

108
108
93
93

4
41

his preamble and resolutions of compromise ,42

moves to adopt Bishops’ compromise,
advocates plan of separation,
22*

65
97
, 258 INDEX.

Coleman Mr., his remarks on case of Bishop Andrew,
Comfort Mr.,remarks. on Finley’s substitute,
Committee on Drs. Capers and Olin’s proposition of com-
promise,
Committee on Drs. Capers and Olin’s proposition, failure
of to agree on plan,
Committee on Episcopacy report of in case of Bishop
Andrew, ‘ ;
Committee of Nine appointed on Declaration,
instructed to report constitutional plan
of division,
Compromise, proposition for, by Drs. Capers and Olin,
recommended by the Bishops,
rejected,
vote on,
Compromise, plan for by Holston Conference,
rejected by Tennessee Conference,
Mississippi“
Georgia
Florida fs
Alabama

Convention recommended by Southern delegates at N. Y.

meets in Louisville,

Conferences represented in,

organized by appointment of President and
Secretary pro tem.

names of delegates in,

resolution of inviting Bishops to preside,

election by of Secretary and assistant,

21
37

12
15

15
72

72
12
64
67
67
128
132
137
152
153
157

104
169
169

169
170
170
171

appointment of committee on public worship, 171

' to prepare rules,

to publish proceed-

ings,
rules of order for adopted,

171

172
172

Address to by Bishop Soule on accepting chair, 173

Committee on Missions appointed by, 176
on organization, 176
instructions of to committee on organization, 178
Committee on Education appointed by, 180
Committee of Finance, 180
Committee on Book Concern, &c., appointed
by, and petitions referred to, 182-3 & 4
resolutions of to restrict debate, 183
Dr. Smith adopted by, 184
Report of Committee on Missions taken up, 185
and letter adopted, 189
on Organization read to, 185
INDEX. a 259

Convention, Report of Committee on ‘Organization taken

up, first resolution adopted, 186
second “ 187
additional report adopted by, 188
report to by financial committee, 194
resolution by Education, Committee, adopted by: 94
Book. agents appointed by, 195
report on Book Concern adopted, 7 + 195
report on History of Organization, 197
E report on organization adopted, — . 199
invite Bishops Soule and Andrew to unite with
the South, j 199
Response of Bishops to, 200
committee of revision appointed by 199
Reporwon Transylvania University adopted, 201
Pastoral Address of, 202
resolutions of concerning border societies, &c., 106
of concerning Pastoral Letter, 106
its influence on the public mind, 235

Crandall Mr., his remarks on Capers and Olin’s proposition, 14
Crowder Mr., ” remarks on case of Bishop Andrew, 22

D

Declaration of Southern Delegates, — 71
referred to Committee of Nine, 72
Deaeion; final in case of Bishop Andrew, 68
vote on, 68

Delegates from South meet at New York after General
Conference, 104
recommend plan of-operation, 104
a Convention, 104
Address to the Church in the South, 105

Division of the Church predicted as result of action of
General Conference, 21
of Church property provided for, 91
commissioners appointed to make, 92

desirable apart from slavery question,
Dr. Elliott, 93
Drake Mr., his remarks on Finley’s substitute, 26
proposed resolution, 27
resolution of instruction, 179
Dunwody Mr., remarks of, 48

Durbin Dr., his remarks on Capers and Olin’s compromise
proposition, 14
remarks on Finley’s substitute, 60

resolution of compromise, 61
260 INDEX.

E

Early Mr., his remarks on Capers and Olin’s proposition, 15
Effect on the South of rejecting the exposition of slavery

law given in the resolution of 1840, 10

Elliott Dr. proposed to refer Declaration to committee, 72

advocated division, 93

Events subsequent to the Convention, 234
Excitement produced by Bishop Soule’s invitation to Bish-

' op Andrew, 163

Expediency, doctrine of, 19

opposed; 20 &21

advocated, 21 & 22

Expost facto, Mr. Spencer’s construction of, 22

Exppsition of slavery law in Bishops’ address 1840, 7

. in address of General Conference
of 1840 to British Conference, 7
by Rev. J. B. Finley, 7
9
1

by Report of 1840,
Expectation of difficulties in General Conference of 1844,

F

Failure of Capers and Olin’s compromise plan, 15
Fast day appointed with reference to the Convention
by Kentucky Conference, 111

Mississippi a6 137

Arkansas 139

Indian Mission “ 148

Texas a 155

Alabama fs 157

Filmore Mr., advocates plan of separation, 95

explains object of changing 6th restriction, 99

F inley Mr., hisresolution in Bishop Andrew’s case, . 28

remarks on 5 i is 23 & 47

advocates plan of separation, 94

Florida Conference, resolutions of on division, 153

G

Griffith Mr., his remarks against laws of Maryland, 5
preamble and resolutions against Bishop

Andrew, 17

remarks on said resolution, 18

opposed to plan of separation, 93

Georgia Conference, resolutions of on division, 151

Report of on i 148

General Superintendency, remarks on, 61
INDEX. 261

H.
Hamline Mr., his speech on Finley’s resolution, 35
advocates plan of separation, 97

explains object of changing 6th restriction, 98

Harding’s case—its influence on that of Bishop Andrew, 4
» appeal introduced, 2
proceedings of Baltimore Conference on, 2
statement of, 3
Hedding, Bishop, withdraws his name from the compromise, 66
History of resolution of 1840 explanatory of slavery law, 8
organization of M. E. Church, South, provided
for by Convention, 196
Holston Conference, action of subsequent to the Conven-
tion, . 250
resolutions of on division, 128
I
Indian Mission Conference, resolution of on division, 147
Influence of the Convention on the public mind, 235
Instruction to committee on slavery, 2
of Nine, 72
‘asked by the Bishops concerning Bishop An-
drew, i 88
K
Kentucky Conference, resolutions of on division, 109
address of on division, &c., 111
action of subsequent to the Louis-
ville Convention, ’ 246
ue L
Letter of Bishop Soule explaining his course-in case of
Bishop Andrew, 163
Longstreet Dr., his remarks on Finley’s substitute, 31
presents his declaration of Southern Aele-
gates, : 71
remarks on the declaration, 72
M
Marriage, the offense of Bishop Andrew, 23
Meeting of Southern delegates after General Conference
at.New York, 104
of Bishops in New York, July, 1845, 238

Ministers of every grade and office at liberty to adhere
North or South, 91
262 _ INDEX.

Missouri Conference, resolutions of on division, 182
Memphis a He a 125
Mississippi « Ke s 135
Missionary report and letter, 189

Morris, Bishop, declines withdrawing his name from the
: * compromise, 66
letter to W. 8S. McMurry, 248

Missouri Conference, resolve to pay the Bishops, allowance
refused by Illinois, 246

action of subsequent to the Louis-
ville Convention, 250

N
Names of signers to Protest, 8
North Carolina Conference, resolutions of on division; 142
North Ohio Conference, action of against the South, 239
Nullifying Resolutions of the Ohio Conference, 241
. Illinois fs 243
a
O

Ohio Conference, action of against Bishop Soule, 240
Olin Dr., remarks on Finley’s substitute, 23
remarks on declaration, 72

resolutions explaining'General Conference action, 72
advocates just and liberal measures toward the

South, 238
Opinion of Justice Merrick on impracticability of emanci-
pation in Maryland, 3
Judge Key on same point, 4
Opposition to Bishop Soule’s presiding in Northern Con-
ferences, 236
Ordination may be dispensed with, Mr. Hamline, 37
Organization, report on, 207
P
Paine Dr. reported plan of separation, 90
Parties meet to arrange plans of prosecution and defence, 17
Pastoral address by Convention, __ 202
Peck J. T. of Troy, reply to Mr. Pierce, 31
opposed Bishops’ compromise, 65
Peck Dr., his reply to Dr. Bascom’s book, 138
Permission given to form separate connection, 91
Pierce G. F.,remarks on Finley’s substitute, 29
Pierce Dr. gives notice of Protest, 90

Power of General Conference over a Bishop absolute, Mr.
Hamline, 36
INDEX. : 263

Position of the three parties after the action in Harding’s case, 11
Power of General Conference over Bishops, _
Plan of separation presented,

Plan of operations proposed by Southern delegates at N. Y., 104
Proceedings of Baltimore Conference in case of Harding, 2

commenced in case of Bishop Andrew, 15

Primitive Church not more closely united than M. E.
Church after division, Dr. Elliott, 93

Publication by the Bishops, explaining their course to-
wards Bishop Andrew, 165
Protest, names signed to, 87
ordered to record, 88
committee to reply to appointed, 88
of Southern,delegates presented, 73
of the minority of the Ohio Conference, 242

\
: R
Remarks on the case of Bishop Andrew, by

Mr. Griffith, 18
Dr. Winans, 20
Mr. Bowen of Oneida Conf., 21
Dr. L. Pierce of Ga. “ 21
Mr. Berryman, 21
Coleman, 21
‘ Stringfield, 21
Crowder of Va.“ 22
Spencer of Pittsburgh, 22
Dr. Bangs, 22
Remarks on Finley’s substitute, by Dr. Olin, 23
Mr. Drake, 26
’ Slicer of ‘Balt., 27
Crandall, 27
Cass of N. H., 27
G. F. Pierce, 29
Dr. Longstreet, 31
J.T. Peck, 8]
Mr. Green of Tenn. 34
Hamline, 35
Comfort, 37
Dr. Smith of Va., 37
Mr. Collins of Balt., 41
Sehon, 46
Dr. Winans, 46
Mr. Finley,’ 47
Cartwright, 47
Stamper, 47
Dr. Durbin, 60

Dr. Capers, 62
264 INDEX.

Remarks on the Declaration, by Mr. Sandford,
Dr. Longstreet,
Dr. Olin,
Remarks in favor of Plan of separation, Dr. Elliott,
Dr. Lucky,
Dr. Bangs,
Mr. Filmore,
Mr. Finley,
Mr. Hamline,
in opposition to, Mr. Griffith,
Mr. Cartwright,
in favor of positive boundary, Dr. Bond,
plan of separation, Mr. Collins,

in opposition to . Mr. Sandford,
Remarks explaining object of changing sixth restrictive
rule, Dr. Winans,

98

Mr. Hamline, 983

Mr. Filmore, 99
Dr. Bangs, 94
Reply of: Drs. Durbin, Peck and Elliott to Protest, 101
brief analysis of, 102-3
denies that the action against Bishop Andrew

was judicial or punitive, 102

asserts that the Church never had a slaveholding
Bishop, 102
inconsistencies in, 102,
charges Bishop Andrew with wmpeachable offense, 102
produced excitement, 103
singular proceedings on, 103
vote on recording and printing it, 103
Report of South Carolina Conference on division, 143
Georgia, sg is 148
Resolution introduced instructing committee on slavery, 2
of inquiry in case of Bishop Andrew, 15
of Mr. Grifith against Bishop Andgew, 17
of Mr. Finley, a substitute, 23
proposed by Mr. Drake, 27
of compromise by Mr. Collins, 42
Dr. Durbin, 61

of Slicer and Sargent declaring action in case of ~

' Bishop Andrew advisory, and
postponing case until 1848,
laid on table,
Resolutions on Division by Dr. Capers,
_ referred to Committee,
of Dr. Olin explanatory of Southern Confer-
ence action,

69
70
71

72
INDEX.

Resolutions instructing Committee of Nine to report consti-

tutional plan of division,
explanatory of action in Bishop Andrew’scase,
votes on,
equivocal character of,
of Kentucky Conference on division, &c.,
Missouri
Holston
Tennessee
Memphis
Mississippi
Arkansas
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Indian Mission
Georgia
Florida
Texas
Alabama

Resolutions of Bishop’s council at New York,

its salutary influence,
North Ohio Conference nullifying Plan,
Ohio Conference ejecting Bishop Soule
from the chair,

_ Restrictive rules, provision for changing,

Annual Conferences refuse to change,
reasons for changing, not division,

s

Sandford Mr., his remarks on case of Bishop Andrew,

remarks on Declaration,

Separation, rule to be observed with regard to,
Slavery law, construction of by Mr. Collins,

exposition of by General Conference of 1840,
reflections on Mr. Collins’ construction of,
exposition of in Bishops’ address to General
Conference of 1840,
exposition of in address of General Confer-
ence of 1840 to British Conference,
exposition of by Rev. J. B. Finley,
by the Report of 1840,

Smith Dr., his remarks on Capers and Olin’s proposition,

his explanation of a rumor about Northern
movements, ;
Speech on Finley’s substitute,

28

265

72

89

89

90
109
125
128
130
132
135
137
140
142
146
147
151
153
154
156
237
237
240

241
91
168
98
266 INDEX.

Smith Dr., his resolution instructing Committee on Organi-

zation, 179
Societies, stations, and Conferences to decide on adher-
ence, 91
Southern delegates meet after General Conference for con-

sultation, 104
Plan of operations proposed by them, 104
South grew more calm and North less, as controversy pro-
gressed, 108
“Southern Delegates, their course approved by
Kentucky Conf., 110

Missouri 127
Holston 129
Tennessee 131
Memphis 134
Mississippi 136
Arkansas 139
Virginia 141

South Carolina 147
Tndian Mission 149

Georgia , 152
i Florida 153
Texas 154

South denounced as a secession by leading Northern papers, 235
Soule, Bishop, Address to General Conference,

adheres to the compromise, 66
Spencer Mr., his remarks on case of Bishop Andrew, 22
State of things immediately preceding the General Con-

' ference of 1844, 1
Stamper Mr., his remarks on Finley’s substitute, 47
Stringfield Mr., his remarks on case of Bishop Andrew, 21
Supremacy of the General Conference asserted, 35
Superintendency general, remarks on, 61

T
Tennessee Conference, resolutions of on division, 129
Texas Conference, resolutions of on division, 154
Transylvania University, resolutions concerning it by Con-
vention, 201
Tennessee Conference, action of subsequent to the Con-
vention, 252
Vv
Virginia Conference, resolutions of on division, 140
Vote of General Conference on appeal of Harding, 6

Bishop Andrew’s case, 67
INDEX. 267

Vote of General Conference on Bishop’s compromise, 67
Mitchell’s resolution, 89
first resolution in plan of

separation, 99
2d, 3d, and 4th, 100

the Reply. to the Protest, 103
Vote of Kentucky Conference on resolutions on division, 109

Memphis 182
North Carolina 143
Georgia 148
Indian Mission 148
Florida 153
WwW

Waugh, Bishop, adheres to the Bishop’s compromise, 66
Winans Dr., his remarks on case of Bishop Andrew, 20
Finley’s substitute, 46

declares the South satisfied with the Bishops?
compromise, 67

explains object of changing 6th restriction, 98
his resolution instructing Organizing Commit-
tee of Convention, 178