PERKINS LIBRARY 
 
 Uulce University 
 
 Kare Dook: 
 
 1903 
 
 Gift of Dr. and Mrs. Dred Peacock 
 

 ff-v-t.^^ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/expositionoflateOOcape 
 
\N 
 
 EXPOSITION 
 
 OK THK I. ATI; !»CHTSM 
 
 In the iVlcthodist Episcoiial Ciiiircli in Charleston, 
 
 IX WHICH. 
 
 THE CONDUCT OF THE SCHISMATICS, AND THE COURSE OF 
 
 THE CHURCH TOWARDS THEM, ARE FULLY SET 
 
 FORTH, AND THEIR COMPLAINTS AGAINST 
 
 THE MINISTRY ANSWERED. 
 
 'He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbor 
 Cometh and searcheth him." — Proverbs xviii. 17. 
 
 *»§§t 
 
 PRI>TKD HY .1. S. RrRGK-S, 183 KING-ST- 
 
 1834. 
 
 ^ 
 
u 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The public has been apprised of the late troubles of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in Cliarleston: and which lesult- 
 cd in the expulsion of some, and the withdrawal of others, 
 from the communion of the Church. A pamphlet has been 
 p»iblished by the expelled persons, with the sanction of their 
 friends, purporting to be an exposition of the matter: but 
 which we consider erroneous in its facts, and libellous in its 
 personalities. This is the occasion of the present publica- 
 tion. 
 
 The form in which we present this our Exposition to the 
 public, and which, under other circumstances, would not be 
 preferred to an uniform unbroken narrative, is owing to the 
 following considerations: — 1st. The events transpired during 
 parts of two several Conference years, under the administra- 
 tion of difierent ministers, each being distinctly responsible 
 for his own acts, in administering the Discipline. 2d. Near 
 the c!ose of the month of November last, the minister then in 
 charge, deemed it proper to lay before the members of the 
 Church, a succinct account of the rise and progress of these 
 difficulties in the Church, up to that time. This account, 
 which was then furnished to the membei's generally, was nevev 
 contradicted in any of its statements: but. as far as we have 
 understood, was admitted on all hands to be faithful in its 
 facts; we therefore prefer to abide by it for the time of which 
 treats, rather than go over the same ground at the present 
 time. It derives a claim to a\itheuticity from the circum- 
 stance of its having been so long under observation, without 
 being objected to. 
 
 We have appended to oui- Exposition, the pamphlet of the 
 schismatics, to winch ours is a i'e])ly: and we have done so for 
 two reasons. 1st. We are w illing to show all justice towards 
 them, and irive the public the fairest possible opportunity of 
 judging between us. 2d. The charges brought against us are 
 so gross, and evidently conceived in a bitter and uncharitable 
 spirit, that we prefer to have them stated, without abridg- 
 ment, bv themselves. W. C. 
 
 W. M. K. 
 
 Charleston, Sept. Atlu 1834. 
 
SAVANNAH, (GEO.) AUGUST -ioin, 1834. 
 
 To Messrs. Jonx Kingman, William Kirkwood, William G. Mood, 
 Olivkr B. Hillard. William Laval, F. A. Bkckma.v, W, W. Gop- 
 JREY and John H. Honotr. 
 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 I have seen and read a pamphlet published hy you, which purports 
 to be an exposition of the causes which led to the withdrawal ot' a number 
 of the members of the ^Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston; and in 
 which you say: "A proper regard for our own standing in the community 
 in which we live, and a correction of the t'alse re|)orts that are in circula- 
 tion, demanded that we should make this public exposition; having done 
 so, the controvers)- on our part ceases, unless we arc compelled to renew* 
 it in self-defence; and the only favor we ask of those with whom we were 
 formerly associated, is, to be let alone." The notice which you have 
 thought proper to bestow on myselt", however, obliges me, gentlemen, to 
 trespass so far on your desired repose, as to let you know that those who 
 would be "let alone^' in possession of the respect of society, ought not to 
 malign the characters of otliers. Farther than this I intend not to disturb 
 you, but leave you to God and the day of judgment. 
 
 After making it the burden of yo -ir pamphlet to represent me, bv name, 
 us a very wicked man, you seem to have been put in mind that otiences so 
 flagitious as those laid to my charge, ought to have been represented to the 
 Conference, to whom I was amenable for my conduct, and where my name 
 was called, and the usual question asked, whether or not there was any 
 thing against me. And yciur neglect to do this must appear the more sus- 
 picious, as the Conference sat in your city, and was always accessible to 
 you for such a purpose. To relieve yourselves of this implication, without 
 throwing your manuscript -into the fire, or blotting it two-thirds out, you 
 have given your reasons in an Appendix, why you did not accuse me to 
 the Conference, hut have arraigned me before the public. As this is a 
 point of particular importance, and iu which I feel peculiar interest, I bring 
 it first to your notice. You say, 
 
 '•It was the intention of the corporation party to impeach him, and he 
 must have been aware of the fact, for the determination to do so was re- 
 peatedly expressed in the presence of his warm adherents, who it was well 
 known repeated to him all that they heard. That this intention was not 
 executed, was in consequence of his attending the session of the Georgia 
 Conference, — which was held some weeks previous to the sitting of the 
 South-Carolina Conference — and it having been stated in the newspapers, 
 that he was to br^ transferred to the former Conference, and stationed in 
 Savannah; and although Bishop Emory very justly remarked, when intbrm- 
 cd of the design of the mf^-mbers to impeach, that the Doctor was umeu- 
 
able to the South-Carolina Conference until discharged from it; yet as' he 
 vas to fill au important fetation in Georgia, it was apprehended that his use- 
 fulness might hi materially affected by an exposition of his aristocrjitic 
 government of the Church here, which we did not wish should be the 
 ease." 
 
 You say it was the intention of the corporation party to impeach me, 
 and 1 must have been aware of it, 6cc. But how could you have been 
 aware of it yoursehes, gentlemen? Can the intention, or determination, 
 of a party be known, unless it be expressed by some act or vote of the 
 party.' Was there ever such an act of your party? Or do a few indivi- 
 duals of you, or your Diotrephes alone, conslitute the party, so absolutely, 
 as to make your very iiitenlions necessarily their's? If the party declared 
 their determination to imi)each me. what other act did they afterwards 
 perform to reverse the former one, and decline my impeachment? If I 
 heard of any intention lo impeach me to the Conference at all, I considered 
 it only as an idle rumor; and never for <Mie moment apprehended or expec- 
 ted an impeachment. The rest of what you say to excuse yourselves for 
 not having impeached me to the Annual Conference, is so ambiguous and 
 confused, that I cannot fix your meaning by the words you employ, except 
 only, that you did not wish to injure my usefulness. Do you mean by what 
 you have said, that my attending the Georgia Conference, and what was 
 said in the newspapers about me, put me out of your reach, or in any way 
 interposed an obstacle to my impeachment? You know better, for I re- 
 turned to Charleston about a fortiiight before the session of the Confer, 
 ence, and remained there as the preacher in charge till its adjournment. 
 Do you mean that Bishop Emory held any conference with you on the sub- 
 ject of my impeachment? and that he expressed, or countenanced, any 
 apprehension that my usefulness might bs "seriously affected," or affected 
 at all. should you impeach me? No, never, or he, the Bishop, should de- 
 serve to be impeached himself. And yet, if your words con\ey any 
 meaning, they seem to intend some such aspersions as the foregoing. 
 But you say plainly, ar.d w ithout ambiguity, that you did not icish to injure 
 my usefulness. My usefulness, Gentleniei!? Pray, for what? Verily if 
 you believe }t)ur own pauiphlet, you must account my usefulness as salt 
 Avithout savor! Please turn to page 8, and read after me as follows: 
 
 "In reading this pa|)er, lie omitted the words 'in its corporate capacity,' 
 and then triumphantly exclaimed, tliere is not one word of corporation in 
 the whole paper. A brother remarked, that there must be some mistake, 
 and requested that the paper might bL' read again, this was done, the reader 
 still omitting the words 'in its corporate capacity,' and then observed, 
 brethren I read honestly, if any one df,ubts it, let l)im come and read for 
 himself. The chairman of the Conunittee who had presented the resolu- 
 tion, arose to go and read if, conscious that cither it was not tlu' paper which 
 he had given the Preacher, or that it had not been read corn ctly. The 
 ])reachc'r perceiving this movem:jnt commenced reading again, and then 
 road the words, which he had previously omitted, 'in its corporate cnpu- 
 city,' observing, 'I care not what it says, I did not call a corporation meet- 
 ing, and immediately sat down. Astonishment was depie(ed on every coun. 
 tena'ice, and for a moment or two a deathlike silence prevailed. Such 
 conduct needs no comment. We simply slate facts susceptible of the most 
 irrefragable o^ idencc." 
 
After sucli iaiquity us this, and nuicli more of a like kiiiil, \vitli Mliicli 
 you have charged me, 1 wonder you should not respect yourselves more 
 than to pretend to any regard for my iLsef illness. ''Unto the wicked God 
 saith, what hast thou to do to declare my stattdes, or that thou shouldst take 
 my covenant in thy mouth.''^ Would you send "a wolf in sheep's clothing," 
 to be a usciul pastor of a flock? 
 
 But wiiy have you published the pamphlet before me? You have stated 
 this question, and answered it for yourselves, as follows: 
 
 "But it may be asketi, wliy array his conduct before the public? It 
 miglit be suflicient to answer, our own justification required it. But this 
 is not all — when he removed to another ConferenctJ, it was expected he 
 would devote himself exclusively to the duties of his charge; now it is 
 known, that tiiough absent in body, he was present in the minds of those 
 A\ho remained, and wlio succeeded him on the station; and we have good 
 reason to believe, that a constant communication has been kept up, and no 
 step of consequence was ventured on without consulting him. The 
 preachers themselves have declared, that he approved and sanctioned, if he 
 did not recommend the course pursued by them. Thus, he who caused 
 the agitation, and had retired from the conflict, looking through the vista 
 of 120 miles, to a station which he contemplates lilling at the end of the 
 ])resent year, has had the address yo to use tl\e preachers here, as to obtain 
 the removal of those who he kucAv would oppose his return, because they 
 were aware of his ability to disturb the peace of the Church." 
 
 First, then, and principally, you have published your abuse of me, he. 
 cause your own justification required^ it. But how so? As well as I can 
 make out your [)am])hlet, you profess to have been driven from the Church 
 by the tyranny of the preachers. You say, "/« consequence of this arbi- 
 trary and despotic proceeding,'' (meaning the proceeding by v iiich you. 
 eight gentlemen were cx])clled, as stated in your pamphlet,) "ccorthy of a Rus- 
 sian autocrat or the Cham of Tartary, nearly one hundred and fifty mem- 
 bers have withdrawn from the Church, and now appeal to an enlightened 
 public for a justification of their conduct.''' And farther on you saA, 
 " With our present knowledge of the despotic power given to the ministry by 
 the Discipline, we never can again consent to be members, without sacrificing 
 the inalienable rights which God has given us, and in defence of which, we 
 have the laws of our country.'^ Really, Gentlemen! who ever interfered 
 with your religious liberty? Did you not come into the Church, and under 
 tlic authority of its Discipline, of your own free will? And was not the 
 way out of it, always as open for j'ou as you found the way in/ Unless 
 you charge me with some act of despotic power, by which, during mv 
 administration of the Discipline hi the Church in Charleston, I transcended 
 my duty as a Methodist preacher, myself being subject, equally with you, to 
 the authority of the Discipline, v. hat liave all your accusations of another 
 sort, to do with your jusfitication in this matter? Was 1 to blame because 
 you were dissatisfied with the Constitution and Discipline of the'Church? 
 Besides, you well know, that from the time you began to form a party in 
 the Church, till your expulsion, you were a minority of the members; 
 and your revolutionary proceedings were no less offensive to the majority 
 tiian to the ministry. Why should it be accounted despotic in the ministry 
 to uphold the institutions of the Churcli along with the majority of its mem- 
 bivs, i\gnin^{ a minority j>kt1(ing to ovcrturi; those institutions. »nd nmapv 
 
•all poucr to themselves over tin.' majority ami the miiii.slr\ . alike' JJ\jt it' 1 
 MU-s the tyrant who drove }ou from the Church, it is a most sii)o;iilar fart, 
 (and strange enough as one for your justification.) that vou had got rid ol" 
 my tyraimy some .six months before it perJormed its office upon \ou. 
 
 You seem, however, to dissent from this, and say, I was present "i« the 
 //?/n(/,v" of my successors, and corresponded with them to inHuence their 
 proceedings. You even account for my doing so, by attributing to me the 
 vile motive of smoothing the way for my return next year. And do vou 
 think to impose successfully on the public thr yotir jtistifical'um. whatever a 
 morbid lUncy (I hope it may not be a malicious spirit) may coKJinc up for 
 my dishonor f In seeking your justi'ication //»/.< gentlemen; you do your- 
 selves a greater wrong, liian all [lossible t'alse judgments of men could do 
 you. You make yourselves \)o\\\ unch(trital)lr Mn[ inijust. 1st. Vou make 
 \ouTSc\\Q9. uncharitable. For whatil'thc Preachers liave said I approved 
 of their course towards you, could you not account for it on some other 
 ground than what insinuates incompetence in them and officiousness in me.' 
 Had they not evidence enough of what' I must approve, in the acts of 
 my administration last year? fiave you so soon forgotten who your 
 tyrant was? But what if I was consulted on. and advised, every step that 
 was taken towards your expulsion, might it not have been accounted for in 
 one who has shared so much of weal and woo as have fallen to my lot in 
 Charleston, without imputing to me the vile motive which you im])ute to 
 me? It was all conjecture with you, but in each case you settled on that 
 which was the worst possible one. No, gentlemen, you wrong us all round. 
 My successors in Charleston have not needed, have not asked, and have 
 not received, aiiy coun.sel, advice, or assi-stancc from me, touching their 
 exercise of the Discipline, in, or towards your expuli^ion. They Mere fully 
 competent to their duty, and have done it. But I confess to you, that what 
 they have done is much to my satisfaction, seeing that after all forbearance 
 towards you and much pains for your correction, you would allow of no 
 better alternative but that either you and your adherents must alone he ''the 
 Church" and hold the property, and control the Discipline of the Church, or 
 the Church expel you from her commuiiion. 
 
 And 2ndly, your reasons are no less iinjiist, than they are uncharitable. 
 Upon a mere conjecture of my having exercised some undue influence 
 to your disadvantage, since my being stationed in Savamiah, (a conjcctun^ 
 in which, to say the least, you were as likely to be wrong as right, and 
 positix-ehjwere wrong.) you have sent abroad a most injurious publication 
 against me; one, than which, I doubt if ever the sun shone on another more 
 libelous, or farther from fair dealing between man and man. And was this 
 al.so required (or your just >Jicaii.07il By no means. It goes thus far, and no 
 farther, that way, viz: That six months, or more, ago, when you were 
 Methodists, main men for the Church, calling yourselves "//»e Church," ike. 
 vou had certain knowledge, 'irrefragable evidence," that I, who was then 
 vour I'astor, was a vicious man, and utterly unworthy of my sacred of. 
 iice; (ju.st as bad, sujtpose. as you represent me to be in your Pami)hlet;) 
 but although the Co.ifri-er.ee was sitting at your doors, with full powers 
 over \iir, and your way was open to it, and you knew my name Mould be 
 called in the regular course of our aimual examinations, and the question 
 be asked m hcther there Mas any objection to n)e as a Methodist Preacher, 
 vou stood aloof, and objected not at all. But now that your passions have 
 
liet'ii St i vied by youv expulsion tVoin the Church, and you coijjccture that I 
 approved oi' your expulsion, or advised it, or in some way shot an evil eye 
 at you through the wide woods between us, you are eager to fix on me the 
 brand of inlamy, burning broad and deep. And is this the justification 
 which you seek gentlemen? Were you willingto let the wolf go to destroy 
 the sheep of other folds, when you kncAV him to be a wolf and had your- 
 selves felt his fangs, provided he would not disturb your particular plans in 
 the church in Charleston? Or, are you prepared to confess that jou have 
 grown so selfish as to have lost any respect you ever have had for the ninth 
 commandment? Which would you? 
 
 It would seem as sad for you that you did not accuse me to the Aimual 
 Conference, as perhaps, you might wish it could be for me. It was, un- 
 ipiestionabiy, the easiest, and most ready and efiectnal way you could have 
 taken, to get yourselves justified, if an exposure ofany «f/Mrt/ sins of mine 
 might justify you. And besides this paramount consideration of your being 
 justified by the public, you might, by my impeachment and conviction, have 
 claimed for yourselves the merit of souie consistency of conduct, have shewn 
 a becoming respect for your duty as members of the church, and possibly, 
 proved yourselves christian men who resist sin not to gratity a personal re- 
 sentment or some selfish end, but for the fear of God and the love of virtue. 
 Besides, gentlemen, consider how infallibly certain you must have been of 
 complete success. There was your ''■irrefragable cvidrnce^' to confound 
 me, and 3"ou know that nature has not blessed me witii the firmest nerves. 
 Supposing then Uidy that I was conscious of my guilt, aiul arraigned before 
 the Conference as vou might have arraigned me, my failing heart must 
 have quickly told through all my outer niiit\ how vile I was. Think gen- 
 tlemen of one, who has a heart in him, who has passed his whole time 
 from before nineteen years of age to forty-four as a preacher of the Gos- 
 pel — who has two sons and five daughters for whom he has gathered no 
 portion in (his world, except, perhaps, the kind respects that follow a pious 
 name; — think of such a one arraigned before his brethren in Conference, 
 between whom and himself nothing ever existed contrary to the sympa- 
 thies of a holy calling, but now guilty of what you charge, feeling hisguih, 
 and conscious of your ability to make it manifest. As you should state 
 your charges and adduce your proofs, he would grow pale, his lips quiver, 
 his whole body become agitated; attempting to answer, he Mould not be 
 able, voice and recollection should fail him, his eyes sink in their sockets, 
 his guilt be proclaimed, and he confounded, condemned, undone. Here 
 might incfeed be something towards your justification. And I put it to you, 
 if you could have looked for such a result of your impeachment, woidd you, 
 could you, for your regard for my usefulness, or any other cause, have spared 
 me the triall Yea or Nay. Make your answer but consistent with your 
 pamphlet and your professions as men fearing God, and I am content. — 
 \ou cannot. What is it then gentlemen/ Under a pretext of justifying 
 yourselves, have you wilfully published scandal? And if not, had you nev- 
 er a conscience till after you were expelled from the Methodist Church? — 
 What gentlemen might you not do if your own justification required itl — 
 But ought you to seek your justification hy every means'] 
 
 I said that I felt peculiar interest in the inquiry why you did not impeach 
 me to the Annual Conference. The reason why, is plain. Of several 
 facts whicli you hare gro.sslv misstated, there are no witnesses betweea 
 
US but ot'\oursuiv«s, and you arc scvrnil. or many persons allinniiur oue 
 •way, M hile I am alone in contradicting yon. Indeed you all are but one 
 in the idei:tiiy ol your cause, though your persons are several, aiid voii 
 seem lo alVirm each a.s ot' his own knowledge. Now such being the state 
 of the case it would have made much tor the truth, to have confronted the 
 parties before competent triers, wiio might have sifted each one to the l)ot- 
 tom of his stoiy. And of this fair mode of investigating the truth of vour 
 charges, you say yo\i once intended it. and even talked about if. but de- 
 clined putting it in practice for fear of injuring my usefulness. Then gen- 
 men, I have to tiiank you oiily for so much talk and fair intention; but as for 
 M hat you actually have done, tjiat is (piitc another matter, and looks more 
 like a conspiracy against the inn<»eent, than an honest aj)peal against an 
 evil-doer. 
 
 Let us review the whole groinid otthe case. 
 
 1st. I was a member of the South Carolina Conference of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, and stationed in Charleston, during the Conference 
 year of 1833-4. And you, (except Major 'Laval,) were all that time official 
 members of the Church, whereof I was the Preacher in Charge, or Pastor. 
 (That is to say, you Mr. Kingman was a Class-leader, IVIr. Kirkwood a 
 Class-leader and Steward, Mr. Mood a Class-leader, Mr. Hilliard a Class- 
 leader, Mr. Beckman a Class-leader, Mr. Godfrey a Class-leader, and Mr. 
 Honour a Class-leader and Exhorter.) 
 
 2nd. During this time 30U say I was guilty of the most flagitious offen- 
 ces, domineering over the Church, violating and despising the rights of 
 the members, and uttering divers falshoods most sacrilegiously and at differ- 
 ent times. 
 
 3rd. But during all the same time, (and until now that I first see myself 
 so accused) neither did you, or either of you, or any other person on your 
 account, or on any account, directly or indirectly, give me to imderstand 
 that I was held thus guilty; nor did you make any complaint to the* Presi- 
 ding Elder, or the Bishop, in the interval of the Annual (Conference, or to 
 the Annual Conference at its session. 
 
 4th. At the Conference (held in Charleston in February last,) my term 
 
 * The following are tbc provisions of the Book of Discipline for such cases. See Sec- 
 lions V. and XVIII, of Chap. 1. 
 
 "What are the duties of a Presiding Elder? 
 
 * * * * In the absence of the Bishop, to take charge of all the Elders and Deacons, 
 travelling and local Preachers, and Fxliortcrs. in his District. To change, receive, and 
 suxperul Preachers in i)is District during the intervals of the Conferences, and in the ab- 
 sence of the Bishop, as the Discipline directs." Pas^e 28, ed. 1832. 
 
 "What shall be done when an I^lder, Deacon, or Preacher, is under report of being 
 "uiltv of some crime expressly forbidden in the word of (iod, &c.- Jlns. Let the Pre- 
 siding Elder, in the absence of a Bishop, call as many travelling ministers as he shall 
 think fit, at least three; and if possible, bring the accused and the accuser face to face. — 
 If the person be clearly convicted, he shall be suspended from all official services in the 
 Church till the ensuing annual Conference; at which his case shall be fully considered 
 and determined." 
 
 Ques. "What shall be done in ca.ses of improper tempei-s. words or actions?" — 
 Jlns. The person so offending snail be reprehended by his senior in ollice. Should a se- 
 cond transgression take place, one, two, or three Ministers or Preachers are to be taken 
 as witnesses. If he be not cured, he shall be tried at the next Annual Conference, and 
 if found guilty and impenitent, shall be expelled from the connexion, and his name so 
 returned in the minutes of the Conference." Chap. I. Sec. XVIII p. 63, 64, ed. 1832, 
 
9 
 
 of service in that city expired, by the Discipline. la anticipation of tiiat 
 event, I attended the session of the Georgia Coiifercnce, (a month previous- 
 ly,) for the avowed purpose of soliciting of the Bishop the appointment of a 
 member of that Conference (Mr. Pierce) to Charleston!, for the present year. 
 And to propose (as I did propose, and it was done) that if Mr. Pierce could 
 not be spared from Georgia withoiit a substitute, I would become that substi- 
 tute at the expiration of my time in Charleston. At the close, therefore, of 
 the Session of the South Carolina Conference. Mr. Pierce was stationed in 
 Charleston; and myself in Savannah. 
 
 5th. Some six months after 1 was transferred, as above, to the Georgia 
 Conference, my successors in Charleston were under the paiiiful necessity 
 of expelling you from the Church; you prevailed on a considerable number 
 to leave her communion, and go with J ou; and then came, what you sav 
 your justification required. You chose to make the acts of a former year, 
 the burthen of your complaint why you were expelled, or withdrew from 
 the Church, the present y.^ar; and "looked through the vista of 120 miles" 
 from Charleston, through the swamps, iu the month of August, for your op- 
 ponent, when in all reason you should have rem;ii:ied at home. But you 
 could raise a fog in the distance; I had attended the Georgia Conference; 
 the newspapers had said i was to be stationed in Savannah — Bishop Emorv 
 said (what every Methodist boy knows) "that the I3r. was amenable to tlie 
 South Carolina Conference till discharged from it" — and insinuations are 
 made, to the effect, that I had eluded your justice by tripping off to Georgia. 
 Thus, gentlemen, have you compelled me to expose, what I shall be much 
 mistaken if the public do not consider, rather a conspiracy against my char- 
 acter, than a justification of your conduct. 
 
 I will despatch the contents of your Pamphlet, gentlemen, as brieily and 
 much to your satisfaction, as 1 am able. That is to say, so much of its 
 contents as I am personally concerned with. 
 
 Pe'rhaps I ought to begin by thanking you for not having made mc out 
 an abolitionist. You seem hov.ever to have strongly squinted that way. 
 and probably your just?Jieaiio?i rcqitircd no more. You present the case of 
 colored persons sitting amo:ig (he whites unfairly, as if to shew that the 
 evil which had given much dissatisfaction, and for the correction of Avhich 
 I advised the putting oftbnders out of the Church, was afterwards upheld 
 by me. Not so; nor was the colored man who was put out of the Church 
 sitting among the whites, but on a bench in the aisle against the Avail next 
 to the front gallery, where coloi\'d persons had been permitted to sit. For 
 4\\G true state of this case, and the correction of the contents, generally, of 
 the first five' and a half pages of your pamphlet, I need only refer to the 
 exposition Avhich I addressed to the members of the Church on the 28th 
 of November last; (which follows this article;) and particularly the corres- 
 pondence between Messrs. Poyas, Honour, and Mood, a Committee of the 
 Quarterly Conference, and myself. 
 
 A few prefatory remarks, only, T wiil make, in this place. 
 
 1st. IMie exposition now mentioned, was printed and distributed among 
 
 the members of the Church, but not published, at the date above given. — 
 
 None of its statements were contradicted at that time, nor subsequently, to 
 
 mv knowledge; on the contrarv, I understood from various quarters, up to 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 UK i:i;.' 'u ijiy leaviog Clinrleston. that you all admitted it to bo a i'uitht'ui 
 account of the trausactions therein set forlii. 
 
 2nd. \ou will perceive that tenacious of power, and tiie dignity of being 
 Chairman ex officio of the Board of Trustees, as you reprc-ent me to have 
 bjcn, two of yourselves, and they certainly not as mighty as "a Russian Au- 
 tocrat or the Cham of Tartary," could turn me out of office, and oblige the 
 'I'nistces to give them up the* keys of the Church to do their pleasure, 
 against both 7ny jr/// and the trill of the Trustees in the matter. 
 
 'M\\. You will farther perceive that these redoubtable committee men. 
 alter they had humbled the domineering Preacher, and refractory Trustees, 
 and got the power into their own hands to do as to them might seem good 
 in the premises, did do nothing at all. No ho.'Aj/»^, neither fur their zeal 
 to have the Quarterly Conference obeyed, or in honor to the majesty of 
 the members, or for the sake of the crying evil of the intnisions of colored 
 people in the Churches. BiU the moment we gave way (o them, they 
 wholly relinquished their object, and said not another Avord about the scats 
 in the Churches, or the necessity of obedience to the Quarterly Conference, 
 or to the members; thus demonstrating that they liad only been acting a 
 part, and using their appointinent as a Committee of the Quarterly Coufe- 
 rcuce, to agitate the Cluirch towards some other aim. What that aim was. 
 we then were wholly igiorant; but events shortly afterwards transpired to 
 disclose it. 
 
 What you say, on page 0, about a meeting of the male members, at 
 which I was present and spoke, misrepresents the facts. It was not "a viect- 
 ing of the male members of the Church," nor was it ever '■^called" at an\ 
 mcethig of the Chur(?h, society meeting, or meeting for public worship, or 
 in any open way that might have made it known to the members general- 
 Iv, or even to the Ministry of the Church. Hut it was a caucus of your 
 ■party, called among yourscli-es for party jmrposcs, vaul Mas the Hrst of pro- 
 l)ably several such meetings, held by you, that came to my knowledge. — 
 How I came to be there, and spoke, I will explain. Sometime on Monday 
 the 29th October, I was told by an old and respectable member of -the 
 Church, that he had reasoi) to apprehend the young men's prayer meeting 
 at Trinity School-room on Tuesday evenings, had been turned into a sort of 
 
 * It is a pity that those who seek so liard to justify themselves, should make matter 
 for fresh ohjcclions; perhaps it is a pity to ohject to them; but justice obhges us to notice 
 a particular!} glaring impropriety in giving/mri for the whole, of the resolutions of the 
 liourd of 'I'rustees, at page 5 of \oiir pamphlet. Tliere were three resolutions passed by 
 the Board, and certified to you, of which you have given the first and second only, which 
 were little more than introductory to the third, and principle one, which was as follows, 
 \iz: * 
 
 "Resolved, that the Trustees, in order to promote the peace of tiic Church, and pre- 
 vent any collision or misunderstanding with the Connnittee of the Quarterly Conference, 
 will not put any obstacle in their way, should they think proper to have the alterations 
 made; and that they be notified where the keys of the ditlerenl Churches may be had in 
 order to give them ready access." 
 
 Tiie omission of this resolution in your pampiilet, was grossly unjust to the Trustees, 
 and as such, higlily reprehensible, however much the justitication of tlie Committtee who 
 are of yourselves, required it. This Committee had taken great pains, b\ several hands, 
 to gel a paper numerously signed to authorise them to carry the plan proposed by the Q. 
 Conference into immediate elfect if (he Trustees sliould fail to do so. 'I'hey scandalize 
 both the Preacher and the Tiu'^tees. without mercy, for their alledged insubordination, 
 txit lo. themselves: 
 
caucus-meeting, where certain revolutionary measures were a«it;ilcJ. J 
 replied that if it was so it must be kjiown to Mr. Po} ; s, theloca! Preacher, 
 and I would immediately see him and satisfy myself of the faci!«. Mr. P. 
 told me there had beeu meetings, but they meant \vell in holding them, 
 and they did propose some changes, but he considered they were such as 
 would ])rove beneficial. He v.as sure nothing was intended against the 
 Discipline. After stating to me what was contemplated to be done, and 
 hearing my answer, he professed to be convinced that the measures pro- 
 posed, (about the same which they afterwards adopted in Trinity Church) 
 were inconsistent with the Discipline, and ought not to be ivrosccutcd. lie 
 told me they were to have a meeting the next evening (Oct. 20,) at 'l'rinit\' 
 School-room, and suggested (yea, he solicited it) that I should attend, and 
 explain the subject to the brethren at that meeting as I had explained it to 
 him, adding that he doubted not, I would convince them they More wrong. 
 I felt it my duty to do so, attended, and spoke at large to shew that the 
 excitement was unnecessary, and that such measures as I had learned from 
 Mr. Poyas (who was present also) they contemptatcd. were contvar\- to 
 the Discipline of the Church. 
 
 The meeting had been opened some time before I got there, and I re- 
 mained no longer than for the above purpose, and to give any explanations 
 which might be asked by individuals; but withdrew and left them, befoi-c 
 their adjournment. 
 
 Concerning the wonderful aftair of the reading of the paper in the meet- 
 ing in Trinity Church on the evening of Nov. 1"2, permit me to say, 1st. 
 That neither could you, or any one present, have understood me atfhe time, 
 as j'our memories now servo you to state the matter, or either by you, or 
 by some one not less careful for the purity of religion, I must have been re- 
 buked, then or shortly afterwards. Nay, I must have been punished for 
 my baseness. My Presiding Elder, was present, and the Rev. Messrs. 
 Joseph Holmes, Roddick Pierce, Hugh A. C. Walker, John Mood, and 
 VVhitcfoord Smith, besides not a fcAV of the oldest and most godly members 
 of the Church; and yet I positively affirm it never occurred to me, then or 
 afterwards, to make any excuse or apology to either of them for any thing 
 I said or did at the meeting, nor has either of them, to this day, found any 
 cause to object to me. 
 
 2iid. You are wholly wrong in your statement of the matter, and as I am 
 unwilling to charge 30U with a malicious fabrication, I must conclude that 
 a bit from the n)emory of one, and a bit from another, has been depended on 
 to make up a whole statement, without sufficient scrutiny among your- 
 selves. Your precision itself, is too precise to have been arrived at, at this 
 late day, without considerable trouble. You must have hunted up the par- 
 ticulars in a feverish heat, and accepted of their accuracy without due re- 
 flection. 
 
 To the best of my recollection, the paper which you say I read was not 
 the one I did read; nor did I read the paper which was read, after the man- 
 ner related bv you. I had two papers of the Committee, one the resolu- 
 tion adopted by the Corporation party at their meeting in the School room 
 on the 29th October, and the other a note from the Committee to myself. 
 The one being a sort of official document of your party, then just beginning 
 to shew itself as a party, I was induced to put among my papers, the other, 
 to my great regret, I did not consider of any future consequence, and did 
 
hoi preserve. Ami tins paper it was whicli I did read, and iiol tiie otbcr 
 wliicli you atHriu 1 read. But wliy was any paper read at all? Plainly 
 as evidence on the question, whether, or not, that meetinj; in wliich we 
 ■were then assembled, was a corporate meeting. The Presiding Elder was 
 denied the right of the chair on th'j ground (hat tin; meeting was a meet- 
 ing of the t^hurch in a corporate capacily; I resisted this, in favor of his 
 ri"ht to the chair, by maintaining that it was not a corporate meeting; I 
 ■would not have called a (.'orporate meeting, and had not called such a one, 
 but simply a meeting ol'thc male m-nibers of age of the Church. I was 
 asked if I had not boen required to call a corporate meeting, and did not 
 know that only such a meeting was d^'siied by those who recjuestcd the call.' 
 1 knew, and never disputed itiut the party wanted a corporate meeting cal- 
 led, but 1 was under no obligation to call such a meeting, against my own 
 conviction of what was proper, and the wishes of a mnjority ofthe Church, 
 though desired by a party among us. But I also aflirmed that even the 
 application for the call of a meeting was ;]ot so expressed as to require 
 that the meeting then present shoubi bo called as a corporate meeting; and 
 I referred accordingly, to the terms in which I had been requested by the 
 Commiitce to call a meeting, and certainly not to those terms in Which the 
 ■party meeting had expressed its resolution to raise a committee, d:c. and 
 in which not o!ic word was addressed to me, but the whole subject confided 
 to the Committee. The Committee's application to' me, theretbre, and not 
 the resolution ofthe party, was clearly what I had to do with, .ind what I 
 read from. But whatever paper it wan, did I read it after the manner affirm- 
 ed by you? Not at all. According to your representation, I read it to the 
 end, skipping the words, Hn its corporate capacity;^' and then affirmed that 
 no such words were in the paper. This representation is evidently con- 
 trived to suit the form of the paper which you say was read by me, but 
 which I did not read. The note of the Connnittce which I (/?rf read, was 
 formed of two paragraphic sentences; the first requesting me to call a meet- 
 ing of the male members of the Church, and the second accounting ibr that 
 request by referring to the resolution ofthe party meeting ofthe 29th Oc- 
 tober. The request to call, and the reasons for the request, I considered 
 different, in the nature ofthe things, and they were separately expressed, in 
 distinct paragraphs. Tlu' request to call a meeting, was the matter in 
 hand, and not the occasion which hud given rise to that request. I read 
 therefore, the paragraph in which tlie request was expressed, and not the 
 other one also, which I considered irrelevant to the question. Having 
 done so, and perceiving an expression of doubt, or surprise, on several coun- 
 tenances, I repeated the reading, as before, and added some such words 
 as you have said, that 'I read honestly, and if any one wished he might read 
 for himself.' I saw no one move as if coming to do so, but one (I think a 
 member ofthe Committee) said aloud 'Read it all,' or 'read it to the end.' — ' 
 1 then read both paragra|)hs ofthe note, and maintained the same position as 
 before, which was, that the committee had 'not required me to call that 
 meeting as a corporate meeting. As for what vou say of the silence and 
 astonishment which followed a detection of my falsehood, gentlemen, it is 
 only a rhetorical flourish, not founded on fact, but,, perhaps -'required for 
 your justification " y 
 
 Previously to calling this meeting I had been judiciously advised against 
 "Hi by one of the most intelligent and worthy members of the Church, on the 
 
l.i 
 
 ground that a party was organized and drilled tor attendance there, and 
 who, though not comprising more than a third part of the male members of 
 the Church, yet being ail certain to attend, and the members generally not 
 apprehensive of the evil, and therefore not so likely to be present, the party 
 might abuse the meeting to injurious ends. In consultation with the Presi- 
 ding Elder, however, we thought it not charitable to act on this apprehen- 
 sion; for the reason, tliat, whatever occasion had been given us for uneasi- 
 ness, we had no proofs of an intention to disturb the economy or organi- 
 zation of the Church, except as we might infer it from party meetings 
 which had been held, and their transactions kept secret. A meeting of the 
 male members as a corporation we were decided liot to en 11, on purely le- 
 gal grounds. 1st. wc were advised of its being doubtful whether the 
 (Jhurch was a corporation at all; and, 2nd, still more doubtful, wheth- 
 er, if a corporatior., its corporate capacity vested in the male members gen- 
 erally. We concluded however, it might be best to call a meeting of the 
 male members, simply as such, Avithout respect to corporation in any wise, 
 and in this meeting to state fully what we had learned on this question, and 
 if alter all, the meeting should decide on calhng the Corporation, Avell; but 
 we hoped it would rather be content to adopt some satisliictory measure for 
 settling thy questions about the corporation, before any* assumption of cor- 
 porate powers. And it was with these views that the meeting of the male 
 members of the Church generally was called, of which i have here been re- 
 marking. For i'urther particulars, and especially the proceedings of the 
 party meeting which was held after the disjuission of the meeting of the 
 Church, see the exposition, by myself, in November last. 
 
 HoM- can you pretend, gentlemen, that your election of the Trustees of 
 the Church, to act as your trustees, was done with a desire to continue 
 tJiem in office.' It might indeed have been an artifice to gain you credit, 
 and get you well rid of them; but nothing could be more unreasonable, 
 than to suppose they would give up their offices under the Discipline, and 
 put themselves in your power, when you Mere doing all you could to their 
 discredit? But because you electe.l the men 3'ou abused, and recognized 
 the Book of Discipline as the rule and governing principle in all cases not 
 particularly defined in your by-Joii's,^^ you have the conscience to appeal to 
 an enlightened and imprejudiccd public, "what more men could 2}ossibly 
 have done to evidence that they were not actuated by any sinister 7notive!" 
 After all your caucus meetings, there you were making by-laws to limit 
 the Book of Discipline of the Church; and for whom? For yourselves 
 alone? No indeed, but for the whole Church, in which you were but of 
 yesterday, and numbered not more than as onef to three of the male mem- 
 
 * If it be asked, why I called a meeting of the Corporation some six or seven years 
 ago, if its existence was so doubtful? l\ly answer is, 1 am not a Lawyer, and was not 
 informed on a legal question till I got legal advice. 
 
 t From this meeting, where such high functions were assumed, (please see the pro- 
 ceedings in the exposition to the Church) there was sent me an authenticated copy of 
 the proceedings, in which was a list of all the persons prc-icnt at the meeting. The 
 whole number thus authentically furnished, was under fifty persons; and in this number, 
 they included several (five or six) who disclaimed (both then and ever since) any con- 
 nexion with thorn, hut who stopped out of curiosity to Uhow what the schismatics intend- 
 ed to do. .\t that time there were one hundred and forty-five male members belonging 
 to the Church. And yet this most aristocratic party were only contending for "inalien- 
 able rights!" The list of names, and all documents used or referred to in this publicit- 
 
14 
 
 bers, cxcliidiii^ lliu iiaiii.>lr\ . ami not havin;f one elderly man, uv iiioie ihaii 
 one of a moderately long standing in the Clnirch, of your party! Yes, 
 there you were who had never, all of you together, contributed one dollar 
 of the* purchase money of the i)rop;n4y of llie Church, taking it wholly 
 into your own possession, out of the hands of the long tried, faithful and 
 godly men to whose management the Church had coulided it, and wished 
 it still to bo confided; and yet you appeal to an enlightened public for your 
 disinterestedness! Gentlemen, I wish you the best reputations you can 
 possibly deserve, and that you may deserve the best. 
 
 In your zeal to make me out a tyrant, you have given the following pas- 
 sage, (page 10 of your pamphlet.) '-But the preacher was not disposed to 
 remain quiet, and submit to the actio;) of the Church; and why? Because 
 the Discipline; provides, that where the Church is not incorporated, the 
 preacher shall a|)point trustees, and in case of a vacancy occurring, he 
 shall have the power to nominate, and the remaining Trustees shall elect. 
 And the old Board" (meanirsg the Board of Trustees in Charleston) "had 
 adopted a by-law, making him cliairman of the Board, cx-ojjicio. This lit- 
 tle power he was unwilling to have taken from him, and determined rather 
 than do so, he would expel every member of the Church, who should be 
 guilty of the heinous offence of doing what was calculated to lessen his 
 power. He contended that the Discipline vests all power in the hands of 
 the preachers, and that any action on the part of the members, would sub- 
 ject them to expulsion for disobedience to the order and discipline of (he 
 Church." 
 
 Your mistakes in -tlic above extract, are pretty considerable. 1st. I 
 never declined submitting to any act of tiik Church; but when your 
 party claimed to be '"tiik Chuuch," neither would I. or the majority of 
 the members of the Church, submit to the action of your i)arty so claim- 
 ing- 
 
 2. There is no such provision in the Book of Discipline, as you say 
 there is, that '■'■where the Church is not incorporated, the preacher shall ap- 
 point Trustees. 
 
 3. You know (hat I so loved and honored the power of being chairman 
 of the Board of Trustees, that long before the time of which you are 
 speaking, I had resigned it of my own motion, and greatly to the mortifi- 
 cation of some of you, who would still insist that I must be in it. (Sec 
 the letters in my exposition to the Church.) 
 
 4. As to my contending that tlu; Discipline vests all power iu the hands 
 of the preachers, &c. as you state it, you must have dreamt it. I never 
 said so, or any thing like it, for 1 could not without saying what I knew to 
 be untrue. 
 
 I object, in iotu, to your representation of the course pursued towards 
 you, or rather seven of you and two others, (Major Laval being then at 
 
 tion, may be seen by any one at the Methodist parsonage, corner of Boundary and Pitt 
 streetii, Charleston — the authors of the pamphlet excepted, who, of course, are suffi- 
 ciently well informed. 
 
 * 'riie property of the f^hurch, (except the Churches and burial grounds, which were 
 purchased long before these persons had anv connexion with us, and indeed before one 
 often of them were born,) has been derived from the burial grounds, or given to the 
 Church by legacy. In the strictest sense our remark is just; and we make it, to dis- 
 abuse the public mind, as to the pretensions of some people who have been prating 
 much about their rights, "inalienable rights." 
 
15 
 
 t'ohiuibiii,) tVoui the date of your schismatic meeting of tlio I'^th of 
 .November, till I left Charleston for Savannah. And you com|>el me to 
 prououiK-c it. geutlemori, a tissue of misrcprcsenialior.s from beginning 
 to end. 
 
 The ibllowing is a true history of the Avlit;!e matter, to the best of my 
 recollection. 
 
 Immediately r.ftcr tlie mectiiig of the l'2th November, I wrote to the Rev. 
 WiUiam M. Kennedy, then Presiding Elder of the (.'olumbia district, and 
 Avell known as one of the oldest and most inlluential of our Ministers, re- 
 questing hiui !o come to Charleston, and try if he could prevail to heal the 
 Avounds of the Church. He arrived just as the exposition I had made of 
 the progress and state of our difficulties was pas;'ing through the press. 
 
 By reference to the proceedii;gs of the schismatic meeting of November 
 12th, it will be perceived, that aUhough they had adopted a constitution for 
 the Church, in wliicli they took the right of electing a Board of Trustees, 
 and provided for the election of au Executive Committee, with full powers 
 over the ])ropcrty of the Church, yet as they had elected the Church's 
 Board to be ihrir Board of Trustees, and made no election at all of their 
 Executive Committee, the interference with the organization of the Church, 
 appeared rather nominal than actual. They did indeed pass a resolution, 
 declarin<7 that if the Trustees should not signify their acceptance of office 
 under them, v/ithin a fixed time, it should be taken as evidence, that they 
 declined their election ; but f.othing was alViinied as to what would then 
 be done. The whole groimd was lett open, and the only provision made, 
 was for an adjourned meeling on the evening of the 2d of December, with- 
 out any thing declaratory of their farther intentions. Meanwhile I ad- 
 dressed letteis of reproof to the members who iiad composed the meeting 
 of the 12th November, iiidividually, as follows: 
 
 ])ear Brother — It is \\ ith real sorroAv and pain of heart, that I teel my- 
 self compelled, in duty to the Church and i/ou, to reprove you for having 
 been guilty of "disobedience to the order and discipline of the Church," by 
 joining with others, on the 12th instant, in holding a meeting and passing 
 resolutions and acts contraiy to the order and discipline of the Church, and 
 in contravention thereof. 
 
 Forbearing ar.y remarks on the manner of forming the meeting, (which 
 Avas most otlbnsive and illegal) I beg your attention to the following brief 
 sketch of some of the most reprehensible of its transactions. 
 
 Assuming the style of the Corporalion of the Church, (a title assumed 
 without any show of authority,) and making a pretext of the act of 
 incorporation passed in the year 1787, the members composing the meeting 
 did set up a right to form rules for the government of the Church, and to 
 appoint, choose, and displace her officers, contrary to our usages and the 
 express provisions of the Discipline. 
 
 Particularly, they passed rules and iiy-laws which they declared should 
 be ''The rule of government of the Methodist Episco'pal Church in the 
 city of Charleston, in matters particuhuly set forth in them; and that they 
 be considered as repealing all former rules, usages, and modes of manage- 
 meut in the said Church, which may be repugnant to them." 
 
 They did, in the same evident assumption of a power above the Discip- 
 line, vacate the offices of the Board of Trustees held under the Discipline. 
 
16 
 
 nud elect (hcin in a wiiy conliarv to tljc Discipline, (See Dis. pp. 1G3, 
 1G4. Ed. 183-J.) 
 
 Tliey did piu^s and declare, that the Tnistecs should be anrntally elected; 
 contrary to the provisio.'s of the Disrij)!ine i:i the case. (See as above.) 
 
 They did set aside the responsibility of the Board of Trustees to the 
 Quarterly ConfcrcMce, by making them responsible to themselves, directly 
 against the Discipline, page 107. Ed. 1832. 
 
 And finally, they passed to the eliect, that the Book of Discipline shall 
 not govern in cases where it stands opposed to their rules. 
 
 Dear bi other, I admonish and beseech you, as you love peace and de- 
 sire to pursue it; as you fear God ar.d seek his blessing, withdraw yourself 
 from all participation in i)roceediiigs so ruinous to xXw. Church, and which 
 can be productive of no good, but much evil, to yourself individually. And 
 may God most graciously grant you the light of his couuteiiance, and bless 
 you with the abur'dance of peace for evermore. 
 Your faithful Pastor, 
 
 W. CAPERS. 
 
 I have said their meeting of the 12th November, was adjourned to the 
 2d December. It appeared to me, and the ministers with me, indispensa- 
 ble to anj' amicable adjustment, that the corporation party should not pro- 
 ceed to carry hito effect the by-luws adojjted at the former meeting, and so 
 set up officers antagonist to those who had been regularly appointed, and 
 in place, according to the Discipline. It was a principal object with us to 
 induce them to pass the adjourned meeting of December 2, without going 
 farther toward a revolutionary organization. Brother Kennedy, whose 
 interference at my invitation seemed to be well taken, applied himself earn- 
 estly towards this object, and on Saturday evening, November 30, he in- 
 formed me, that the leading nieml)ers of the party, had agreed to suspend 
 proceedings, |>rovided we would call a meeting of the male members of 
 the Church to adopt measures for the sei'.lemcnt of the questions, whether 
 tiie corporation of the Church exists or not, and vests, or not, in the male 
 members generally; ai^d also to express an opinion, to be submitted to the 
 Bishops for their sanction, as to the extent to which the Quarterly Confer- 
 ence should hold the Trustees responsible to it. It was understood that 
 they might come together on the evening of the 2d, according to their pre- 
 vious adjournment; but they j)ledged themselves to brother Kennedy to do 
 nothing on the subjects in dispute. With this positive imderstanding, no- 
 tices were publislied from all our pulpits on tho evening of Sunday, Dec. 
 3d. But when the schismatics met on Monday, the 2d, they at once re- 
 solved themselves independent of their engagements with us, and proceeded 
 to elect nine of themselves a Board of Trustees, and twenty-five an Execu- 
 tive Committee, to claim and maintain their '■'■inaVienahlc 7-ights" (the pro- 
 perty of the Church) as settled on tlicmsclves for themselves (and of 
 course for the Church) at their meeting on the 12th November. This pro- 
 ceeding blasted at a stroke all hope of adjustment, and brotherly confi- 
 dence. Tuesday evening (Dec. .3.) found us nonplussed and heartless. 
 We could oidy state in (he meeting which had been called for that eve- 
 ning, (and we did state) that being informed of the proceedings of the 
 corporation party on the previous <3veuing, and wMch were in utter viola- 
 tion of their pledge to the Church, as communicated through brother Ken- 
 
17 
 
 iiedv, it was impossible for us to propose to the present ineetiusf, vhat had 
 hsen contemplated a?; its business'. Brother KoMncdy rc-affirmed in pre- 
 sence of them all. what they had promised, as h^ had informed me from 
 them, and no man denied it. O le of them however said, that the meeting 
 oil the previous evtr.in •; had elected their Board of Trustees and Executive 
 Committee, under Kn nnpression that it was doing no more than had been 
 done on the 12th of NovcmbL-r, and did not 7nean by it to falsify their en- 
 gagements. And besides this, no explanation or excuse was attempted by 
 them. The only act of our meotiiig of the 3d December, was an appoint- 
 ment, at the suggestion of brother Kennedy, of a day of fasting, hnmili- 
 ation, and prayer. The appointment was made for Friday', December G, 
 and the prayer meeting held in Trinity Church. The members of the 
 Corporation party, however, did not attend. The next day, (Saturday, 
 December?) I took with me the brethren Hugh A. C. Walker, and Henry 
 Muckinfuss, senior, (according to the requirement of the Scriptures and the 
 Discipline, "take tctth thee one or two more") and saw severally, and con- 
 vei'sed with, the individuals who claimed to be the Board of Trustees, in 
 opposition te the Church's Board, except one (Major Laval.) who was at 
 Cohunbia, and another (Mr. Wm. G. Mood) who not having been present 
 in their meeting of the 12th of November, had not been privately reproved, 
 as should first be done. And when we could not prevail on them to de- 
 sist from their schismatic proceedings, I served each of them with a copy 
 of the following charge and specifications, and cited them to attend trial 
 on ^Monday, the 9th December, at 3 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Charges preferred against brother . 
 
 "Disobedience to the order and discipline of tJie ChurcJi.^^ 
 
 Specification 1st. You joined with others, and were aiding as one, to re- 
 fuse to the Presiding Elder, and did refuse to him, the right of his office to 
 preside in a meeting of the Church on the 12th ultimo — to the intent that 
 the ministry and other faithful members who held to their duty under the 
 Discipline, being forced to withdraw, you and those who had conspired 
 M'ith you, might, with greater certainty, adopt measures contrary to the 
 order and discipline of the Church. 
 
 Specification 2nd. After the meeting of the Church, above mentioned, 
 had been regularly dismissed with prayer and the benediction, as is usual 
 to our meetings, you did join with others, and were aiding as one, then and 
 there to hold a meeting, and did meet, under an assumption of the style of 
 the corporation, and did set up a right to form rules for the government of 
 the Church, and to repeal all former rules and usages contrary to those 
 which were thus surreptitiously adopted. 
 
 Specification 3rd. You were aiding, then and subsequently, to vacate the 
 offices of the Board of Trustees, as held under the Discipline, and elect, 
 and provide for elections, of a Board contrary to the Discipline. 
 
 Specification 4fh. You were aiding at that time Mith others, to set aside 
 the responsibility (if the Trustees to the Quarterly Conference, as is re- 
 quired bv the Discipline. 
 
 Specification "nh. You were aiding with others to pass and declare to 
 the efiect. tiiat the Book of Discipline shall not govern in cases where it 
 stands opposed to the rules adopted by the meeting afore=:aid. 
 
 Decrmher 7. 1833. 
 3 
 
 i^ 
 
 4 
 
18 
 
 Tlie following,' is a copy of a letter which 1 received during the atteruoon 
 yf December 7th, though it boars date two days earhor. I pn siiine the 
 interval had boen occupied in "retting signatures. I desiro the proposition 
 it contains may be remembered. 
 
 CHARLESTON, December o, 1833. 
 Rev. Dr. William Caper?. 
 Reverend and Dear Sir, 
 
 The under.>-igned members of the Methodist Episcopal Church iu 
 this city, viewing with deep anxiety the present distracted state of the 
 Churcb, arising from a difl'trence of opinion with regard to the Church 
 being an incorporated body, and if so, who are the incorporation, attended 
 the meeting in Trinity Church on 'I'uesday evening last, called by yourself, 
 in expectation that some plan would be proposed to settle those disputed 
 points. Being disappointed in this expectation, but being desirous that 
 some course should be adopted to d(>cide this controversy, propose the 
 following, which, if concurred in, we hope will produce this much desired 
 end, and so peace and harmony be restored among us. Let the disputed 
 (luestious with regard to the existence of the corporation, and if it does 
 exist, of whom it is composed, be referred to the three Jtoges ok 
 THE Appeal Court at the January session for their decision — such 
 decision, wlmtever it may be, to he final. If this proposition is acceded to, 
 we pledge ourselves to remain perfectly quiet as to the disputed questions, 
 until such decision is made known. 
 
 We are, very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN H. HONOUR, 
 W. W. GODFREY, 
 F. D. POYAS. 
 O. B. HILLARD, 
 HENRY W. SMITH. 
 ELI AS MEYNARDIE, 
 P. G. BESSENT, 
 EDWARD F. THWING, 
 ROBERT D. WALKER. 
 JOHN BROWN, 
 F. A. BECKMAN, 
 WxM. S. WALKER, 
 JOHN DAVIS, 
 WM. G. MOOD, 
 
 J. CLAFDIUS MILLER, 
 J. F. STEINMEYER, 
 ROBERT W. BIJRNHAM. 
 WM. McBURNEY, 
 JAMES D. KNIGHT, 
 JOHN KINGMAN, 
 STEPHEN THOMAS, Jim. 
 WM. P. LEA, 
 C. L. HAPPOLDT, 
 GEORGE M. KEILS, 
 WM K IRK WOOD. 
 GEORtJE S. HACHER, 
 JAMES E. GODFREY. 
 
 Concerning this document, we need interrupt the thread of our narra- 
 tive, at this place, only to remark, that it fell short in hid one important 
 particular, of being such as might have been acce[)tablc'. The signers 
 had formed an organization in the Church iiidf.pe.ident of :h<' Discipline, 
 and in direct opposition to th;it which existed under ih. Disciplii'c; and 
 we could not concur with them in a })roposition to let th.ni ^'■remain per. 
 fectly quiet," with this antagonist orguaizofion in the Church. Their 
 proposition was just what we had coiiteniilited doing before (h^y elected 
 their opposition Board of Trustees and Executive Committee, and what 
 they themselvss had defeated by that election. It is most '■^irrefragable 
 
 ^ 
 
19 
 
 eridence,^^ however, that the proposition which they aftected to scout ig 
 January, 1834, first came, in form, from them to us in December, 1833. 
 
 During the evening of the same clay (December 7th,) I received from 
 the persons who had been cited to trial, the following note: 
 
 ''December 7, 1833." 
 "Rev. Dr. Capers, 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 Having been cited to trial on Monday next, to answer to the 
 charge of "Disobedience to the order and discipline of the Church," we 
 claim the privilege afforded us by the Discipline, page — , Ed. 1832, to 
 bo tried by the Society. 
 
 As the judicial law is always so construed as to favor the prisoner, as 
 far as possible, mc presume the Ecclesiastical law will be couttrucd in 
 the same way, and no objection be made to this course of procedure. 
 We are very respectfully. 
 
 .1. H. HONOljR, 
 F. A. BECKMAN. 
 O. B. HILLARD, 
 W. W. GODFREY. 
 WILLIAM KIRKWOOJ). 
 GEO. W. KEILS, 
 .INO. KINGMAN. 
 •JOHN BROWN, 
 ELIAS MEYNARDIE. 
 
 To the above, I answered as follows. 
 
 "Dec. 7. 1833.'' 
 
 /)far Brethren, 
 
 God forbid that I should construe, or use the law of the 
 Church, either partially, or in pn judicc, towards you, or others. 
 
 The universal usage of 'ho Chtirch in large societies like ours, and the 
 invariable practice in this society, tbrbids my complyiug with your wish, as 
 expressed in your letter, to have you tried by the society. It would be a 
 precedent* of evil tendency; and with respect to yourselves, could not be 
 fiirly preferable to atrial by "a select number." It would be wholly inad- 
 missible to iiave your judges of ihose who iiref under censure for the same 
 iiiult tor which you are to b.' tried, and who have reasoii to believe that 
 their owii trials are shortly pe.idii.g. A-id if these are excepted, as of 
 
 * If these persons, or either of tliem. inight claiip a right of being tried by the whole 
 society, the saine might be cl<iined b' aiis other noused person, whenever accused, and 
 on whatever charges. Ihis, in a society so numerous as that in Charleston, would a- 
 mount to an nnpossibility of having the accused brought to trial; or would subject the 
 Church to incalculable trouble and vexation. The Discipline provides in the siuue clause 
 for both small and large societies, by requiring the accused to be brought to trial ''before 
 the society or a select ?minbcr.'" And such has been the sense of the words, as fixed 
 by universal usage, from the beginning. 
 
 t Letters of reproof had been written and delivered to about thirty persoiK, all of 
 whom were apprised by that fict, of their being under censure, and liable to be brought 
 10 trinl. for the same ofl'encc as the persons now about to be tried; but the application 
 lor a tri:d i)y the society, ^vas uudisgiiisedly iiiiead''d to get the benrfit of ilir Mito-; o1" 
 ihiKi' thirty jiersoiis. 
 
20 
 
 cuiuse (h(-'\ hihould be, I caiiiiot tlii.ik you would be more tuvoraMy situattd 
 before tlie society than belore "a select mniiber." Nor do I find either in 
 the Discipline, or the usages of the Church, that the persons cited to trial 
 have ever been considered as entitled to determine for themselves, whether 
 llie Society or a select munbcr should be their triers. 
 I am brethren, afl'ectionalely yours, 
 
 W. CAPERS." 
 
 Ou Sunday the 8lh December, while my mind was in great agony, (it 
 was a pain ot which I shall never be ashamed.) it occurred to me that tho' 
 I had utterly failed of convincing those wlio were cited to trial, of the great 
 evil of their conduct, and so induce them by argument to abandon their pro- 
 ceedings, ['erhaps the failine was chiefly owing to some undetected pride 
 in them, which kej)t them hood-winked lo their faults, and could it be sub- 
 dued by better feeUngs, they might be induced to relinquish what they had 
 done. I determined to draw uj) such a paper as I thought woidd preserve 
 the integrity of the Discipline, and fry the force oflove, j)leading with them 
 by tears and entreaties, (for it was a time to weep) for Christ's s.ike, for 
 the sake of their wives and ohildren, and even for my own sake. The fol- 
 lowing is a copy of the document, which I then drew up, to be presented to 
 thc;m for their signatures. 
 
 "We agree to retract the proceedings of the meeting of the 12th of No- 
 vember 1RS3, and of an adjourned meeting of the 2nd inst. so that such pro- 
 ceedings shall be as if they had never taken place; provided that the records 
 of the Church and the deeds of conveyance of the property of the Church, 
 and such other testimony as may be judged proper by a meeting of the 
 Church,bc submitted to the Judges of the Court of Appeals for their decis- 
 sion concerning the corporation of the Church, whetlier it exists or not? — 
 and if existing, in whom it is vested? and whether or not such corporation 
 has any legal right to tho property now held by the Church. And provi- 
 ded fiirther that if the .ludges decide that tho corporation now exists in the 
 male members generally of tlie Church, then a meeting of them shall be 
 called by the ministry for the purpose of adoj)ting such regulations as the 
 meeting may deem necessary, not interfering with the judges' decision of 
 the right of property, and subject to the revision of the Bishop or Bishops 
 attei'ding the South-Caroiina ( -onfereuce, who shall judge of their atrrec- 
 meat with the Book of Discipline. 
 V ''December 8, 1233." 
 
 Having shown the above to my colleaguos. Rev. .Joseph Holmes, Red- 
 dick Pierce, a/id H. A. C. Walker, and they approving it, I went first to 
 Mr. John Kingman. He objected to the word ''retract," in the first sen- 
 tence, a!:d 1 agreed to stri!;c it out, and change the form of the sentence so 
 as to read as follows — "He agree that the ^Proceedings of the meeting of the 
 V2/h Novrmher 1833, and of the adjourned meeting of the 2nd inst. shall be 
 as if they had never idkcn ■place,'''' 6fc. He then took the paper, and agreed 
 to sh -w if to the rest, and request them to meet nif; at Mr. Honour's, after 
 prcaciirtig that night. We met accordingly, and I lost no time to tell them 
 all my heart. I was pressed above measure. I told them I had not come 
 lo argue a question with them, but to entreat them for Christ's sake, to 
 s-n.ir-'tne. fo <pan> fhr-mselvcs, to spare their wives and children, the most 
 
21 
 
 painful coasequcaces, \Oiic!i were immiaeiit, and I apprehended inevitable, 
 if they persisted in maintaining their party organization. Yes, gentlemen, 
 this one thing jou state most truly, that I '^'tccpt and jn-ayed" and I must 
 do those of you who were present, the justice to say that you also "wept 
 and prayed." I shall never forget that time, and never repent it, and could 
 wish tlie same for you. It was asked, (I think by Mr. Godfrey,) why the 
 paper they had sent me the day before (see page 18,) might not answer, as 
 well as the one now oiTered for thoir signatures? And I replied, it could 
 not, for this one reason, that their paper supposed the Cluirch's connivance 
 at what they had done, by allowing their organization, though inactive, to 
 continue in the Church, and this we could not in conscience consent to. — 
 It was objected that if they should then accede to my proposition it would 
 probably be attributed to a fear of punishment — they being presently to be 
 tried; and to meet this objection I proposed farther to alter the first sen- 
 tence of the paper so as to express on its facethe motive by ichich they tcere 
 infturnced. 
 
 My proposition was acceded to, and the paper being signed by the indi- 
 viduals most concerned, and others, the citations to trial were withdrawn. 
 It was, together with the signatui'es, as follows:* 
 
 "//J kindness to the opinions and feelings of the Ministry and brethren, 
 we agroe, that (he proceedings of the meeting of the 12th iSovember, 1833, 
 and of the adjourned niijeling of the 2d inst. shall be as if they had never 
 taken place; provided, that the records of the Church, and the deeds of 
 conveyance of the property of the Church, and such other testimony as 
 may be judged proper by a meeting of the Church, be submitted to the 
 Judges of the Court of Appeals, for their decision concerning the corpora, 
 tion of the Church, whether it exists or not? and if existing, in whom it is 
 vested? and whether, or not, such corporation has any legal right to the 
 property now held by the Church. And provided farther, that if the 
 Judges decide that the corporation now exists in the male members, gen- 
 erally, of the Church, then a meeting of them shall be called by the minis- 
 try, for the purpose of adopting such regulations as the meeting may deem 
 necessary, not interfering with the Judges' decision, of the right of pro- 
 perty, and subject to the revision of the Bishop or Bishops attending the 
 South. Carolina Conference, who shall judge of their agreement with the 
 Book of Discipline, 
 
 'December 8, 1833." 
 WM. KIRKWOOD, 
 J. BROWN. 
 WM. G. MOOD, 
 F. D. POYAS, 
 (). B. HILLARD, 
 W. W. GODFREY, 
 JOHN KINGMAN, 
 ELIAS MEYNARDIE, 
 ASBURY KINGMAN, 
 F. A. BECKMAN, 
 WM. S. WALKER. 
 
 J. H. HONOUR, 
 HENRY W. SMITH, 
 J. F. STEINMEYER, 
 P. G. BESSENT, 
 J. CLAUDIUS MILLER. 
 JOSEPH A. HINES, 
 GEORGE M. KEILS, 
 JAMES D. KNIGHT. 
 JOHN T. SYME, 
 JAMES E. GODFREY, • 
 WM. McBURNEY. 
 
 * We respectfully invite any persons who may wish such a confirmation of the above 
 statement, to call at the Parsonage and sec for themselves the original document, with 
 
The above adjwstnieiit having been thus I'ormally ratilieil. Monday, the 
 9th December, v hich had been looked to as a day ot trouble and sorrow ot' 
 heart, proved to be one of the most happy that could be experienced. 
 Early in the morning, brother Walker, (one of my colleagues) went to in- 
 form the "select number" of their discharge, and I hastened to give the 
 particulars of the agreement of the previous evening, to such of the Tnis- 
 tees and elderly members as I could find. All received the information 
 with delight, and most of them with tears otjoy. The day Wiis passed as 
 a high festival of Christian sympathy. Brethren, who before had been 
 estranged from each other, were every where hastening to meet in love; 
 and if there had been cause, (as all consented there was,) to ascribe the 
 adjustment on the previous evening to divine interference, there was now 
 evidence on every side, that God was with us of a truth. The ecstacy of 
 this first da}' of reconciliation subsided through the week into confidence 
 and peace; and except one, or perhaps, two of our sisters, who said they 
 had been two much grieved to feel at ease in a class-meeting whose leader 
 had so recently been schismatic, nothing appeared from any quarter to 
 give the least uneasiness. On Sunday, the 15th December, notice was 
 given from the several pulpits, that at the close of public worship in Tri- 
 nity Church, on Wednesday evening, the 18th, there would be held a meet- 
 ing of the male members of the Church generally, which all were requested 
 to attend. The meeting was fully attended, more so than any similar one 
 I remember to have held in Charleston. Of those who formed the party 
 meetings of the 12th November, and the 2d Dec»:mber, the attendance was 
 particularly full, and except one leading individual who was not in town, 
 seemed to us universiil. We missed no other one of them. With respectto 
 the spirit and feelings which pervaded the meeting, they were the very best. 
 The sermon before the meeting had beeti on the text, "Behold how good 
 and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity;" {Psalm 
 cxxxiii.) and the meeting itself, exhibited the very spirit of that text. 
 Every thing was done with unanimity, and in the spirit of love. So we 
 expected it to be, for during all the ten days whicii had elapsed since the 
 adjustment at Mr, Honour's, on the evening of the 8th, no breath of dis- 
 cord had been heard, but all were looking to the present meeting as the 
 consummation of the Church's peace. Introductory to the business of the 
 meeting, my remarks were the kindest I knew how to make. Adverting 
 to the adjustment of the 8th, I ascribed it wholly to a spirit of mutual con- 
 cession for Christ's sake, did ample justice to the motives of those who 
 had signed the paper, (aa on all occasions I did,) and congratulated the 
 meeting on the restoration of harmony and love among us. 
 
 The following is a copy of the proceedings of that meeting, copied from 
 the Trustees' Book, in which the minutes were recorded by the jireacher 
 in charge, 
 
 "Minutes of a meeting of the male members of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in Charleston, held in Trinity Church, (agreeably to notices pub- 
 licly read from the pulpits of the several Churches on the previous sabbath.) 
 Wednesday evening, December 18, 1833, 
 
 the erasures and interliniations above mentioned, and the signers" iiuiiies. Tiie words 
 which were insertpd to accommodate their feelings, nnd whifli nr re not in tlie p;iper a? 
 at first drnwn nji. ;ire those in itnlirt;. 
 
23 
 
 "The meeting was numerously attended by the members of the Church, 
 und Avas opened with singing and prayer by the minister in charge, who 
 acted as cliairman. He adverted to the occasion of the meeting's being 
 called, which was to confirm and carry into effect certain stipulations which 
 had been agreed on between himself and certain brethren, (who also were 
 present as members of the meeting,) for the final adjustment of the difficul- 
 ties, with which the Church had been much, distressed, concerning lights 
 of corporation, die. - .,■ 
 
 "The object of the meeting being understood to be well known and uni- 
 versally approved by the brethren, he stated that he had drawn up a paper 
 expressive of that object, Avhich he would read to the meeting, and on 
 which, if no other should be oflered by any brother, nor any amendments 
 be proposed, the meeting might act by vote. He then read the following, 
 to wif: 
 
 'Whereas by an act of the Legislature of this State, passed in the year 
 1787, the Methodist Episcopal Church in this city was incorporated, and it 
 is now desirable to ascertain in tho most certain manner we can without 
 litigation in the courts, wlmt is the precise situation of the Church in rela- 
 tion to that act, therefore; 
 
 'Resolved, that a committee consisting of be and they are hereby ap- 
 pointed to obtain of the Board of Trustees any records of the Church in 
 their possession bearing on the case, and the original deeds or copies of 
 them, of all the property of the Church in this city, and to lay the same, 
 together with any additional testimony, which they, or either of them, 
 shall deem important, before the Judges of the Court of Appeals of this 
 State, as soon as may be convenient, — to the end that the Judges may 
 make up and express their opinion oii the following points, to wit: 
 
 '1st. Whether the incorporation granted by the Act of 1787 now exists, 
 or not. 
 
 '2(id. If existing, whether it vests in the members of the Church gener- 
 ally, or in the official members, or in the Trustees. 
 
 '3rd. Whether the property of the Church belongs to the Corporation, 
 and can be held and disposed of by Trustees elected by the corporation, or 
 not.' 
 
 "The above having been distinctly read to the meeting, and seeming to 
 be satisfactory, no substitute or amoiidment b>ing oflered, the blank was 
 filled with the imnibcr five; and the following bnthren were appoi: ted the 
 committee by nomination and election, one by one, viz. Samuel J. Wag- 
 ner, Wilham Laval, Abol McKee, John H. Honour, and John Kingman. 
 
 Upon the vote being put to the meeting <d\\ tho adoptior> of the above pre- 
 amble and resolution, they appeared to be unanimously carried. 
 
 It was then proposed to the meeting to detirnnne by vote how a record 
 of its transactions should be authenticated, and it was suggested as a conve- 
 nient mode that* the minister in charge should write down and certify the 
 same. Tiiis was put to vote and carried without opposition. 
 
 * 1 could wish that some other inodo had heen proposed for tlic aulhcntication of 
 those iniiiulcs; l)ut I refer to the book whence 1 have now copied them, for the proof 
 that they are here given, as they were tlien set down. 
 
24 
 
 Afier a few remarks l»y tlio minister in charge, chiefly expressive of his 
 happy feehiigs at tlie unity and concord uhich then seemed to prevail, the 
 meeting vas adjourned w ith prayer." 
 
 "Agreeably to the vote last above mentioned. I have recorded the above? 
 as the minutes of the meeting of the l"^th December 1833. And I hereby 
 certify that the same is a full and fuillilul record fifthe proceedings of said 
 meeting," "W. CAPKRS, 
 
 Minister in charfrc of Ihr M. E. C. Charleston, So. Ca. 
 ''December 19, 1833." 
 
 As a farther evidence of the harmonious character of this meeting, and 
 the happy degree to vhich brotherly confidence as well as peace had been 
 restored, I Mill mention the manner in which the Conmiitteo wn.s elected. — 
 The first nomination was that of Mr. Wagner (one of the Trustees) by one 
 of the corporation partv. Next, two nominations were made simultaneous- 
 ly, that of Major Laval (which was the one put, though at the time he was 
 absent at Columbia) was carried unanimously. I\[r. McKce (another of 
 the Trustees.) was nominated by one of the corporation parly, and Mr. 
 Honour, and Mr. Kingman by persons most opposed to their former schis- 
 matic proceedings; and each nomination was unanimously voted. P«rty, 
 indeed, there was now none. Either wo must suppose those who had been 
 a party, were arrant deceivers, (which we dare not,) or we must consider 
 the Mounds of the Church as then healed. Ten days before, Mhen nine of 
 the leading members of tiie party Mere on the eve of trial, and almost cer- 
 tain of expulsion from the Church, and the rest, generally. Mere under an 
 arrest Mhich uidcss they receded must eventuate in expulsion, — at that 
 aM'ful crisis, the paper copied on page 21, M'as signed by the nine, and by 
 thirteen others; including every individual of any consideration among 
 them, except Major Laval, who M-as absent from the city. And now, after 
 the lapse often days, in a general meeting of the male members of the 
 Church, all these persons attending and voting at the meeting, the agree- 
 ment of the Rth of December M'as solemidy ratified and established. What 
 more could have transpired to bind men by every consideration of religion 
 or honor to maintain this adjustment, and forbear to attempt any proceed- 
 ings of an opposite character? 
 
 We have several times mentioned Major Laval's absence at Columbia. 
 He returned to C'Imrlcston a fcM' days after our meeting oil the 18th De- 
 cember; and shortly aflerMards, 1 Mas told by one of the ' signers, (Mr. 
 Knight,) that some M-hohad not signed the paper of the 8th December, 
 Avere dissatisfied, and he apprehend<'d Mould protest agaiost the M'hole ad- 
 justment M'bich had taken place. Hc^ did not intimate hoMcver, that the 
 dissatisfaction extended to any Mho had signed the paper, but the contrary; 
 and the only reason be assigned as influencing any one to agitate the mat- 
 ter farther, M'as, that th*^ ])roceedings of the party mcetiiigs of Nov. 12, 
 and Dec. 2, could be rescinded only by a party meeting like those M'hich 
 had adopted them. I considered this too puerile fpr serious notice, and 
 let it pass, as probably a retreating flourish of one Mho having been the 
 prime mover of our difficulties and absent at their adjustment, thought some 
 shcAV of breath due to his importance. 
 
A few days afterwards, aud when I should have coasidered it criminal t© 
 suppose that any were heartless enough to violate the solemn eiigagemeuts 
 of the 8th and the 18th December, I set out for the Georgia Conference. 
 I was absent above three weeks; and a day or two after my return, Mr. 
 Knight, Mr. Kingman, and Mr. Honour, called at tiie parsonage, I knew 
 not in what capacity,) and informed me that the members of the Corpora- 
 tion party held themselves free from the obligation of their signatures on 
 the 8th December, and their votes in the meeting of the 18!h; — that those 
 members of the committee of th(! meeting of the 18tii December, Mho were 
 of the Corporation party, (and they hnppened to form a majority of the com- 
 mittee) had declined going to the Judges with the questions committed to 
 them; that they would throw themselves back oii the party proceedi;igs of 
 November 12, and Decembf^r 2; and woiild do ;ill (his for this only reason, 
 which was assigned, that a lawyer had ndvised them, tht; Judges could not 
 decide the legal questions in dispute, without a suit at law. Mr. Knight 
 also said in the co)irse of conversation, but to the best of my recolkction, 
 did not niter it a.s a cause of the re-orpanizntion of the party, (hat it was 
 thought I might have said more than I did say, in t'avor of their motives in 
 my remarks at the meeting of the 18th December, (but. positively, not one 
 word about any breach of promise.) To all this I replied but briefly, that 
 I had expressed myself at the time referred to, in the kindest manner I was 
 capable of, bating nothing to my knowledge; but if I had failed to give 
 satisfaction to any one, (not '^if I had done wrong " &c.) I was sorrA' for it, 
 and it ought to have been told me during the twelve days which had elaps- 
 ed after the meeting, and before I went to Georgia, when I might have 
 seeji to it. There was now no time to institute proceedings of any kind, 
 the Conference being at hand; and the whole matter must lie over lor my 
 successor. And this, gentlemen, was the last that I had to do, or saj', 
 touching your affairs. 
 
 You have done me great injustice; and that bv unworthy means. 
 
 1st. You represent me as leagued with the coloured people, to encoiw- 
 age their intrusions among the whites, in the Churches, "on account of 
 their wo/if //." And you also r-present rm, as, first advising the whites to 
 put intruders out of the Church, and thei;, when they had done so, sternly 
 rebuking them for following my advice. I trust it has bcii made appear, 
 that I am not guilty in either respect; but that you raised a cry against the 
 colored people only as a pretext, (such the facts do prove,) to form a party 
 in the Church for quite another purpose. And when under the pretext of 
 maintaining order in the Churches, you had stirred up strife, and were 
 driving the colored members away from the Church, I only did my duty 
 as a pastor, by reproving a rash act of some h;isty you <g men, and endea- 
 vouring to interpose M'ith Christian exhorUori to prevent an evil. 
 
 2nd. The real parties during all the agitation which disturbed the 
 Church, and resulted in your expulsion, were yourselves and those who 
 were led bv you, on one side, and the Trustees, supported by about two- 
 thirds of the male members, on the other side. Th(^ Ministry were in- 
 volved in it only as they were charged with the admi listration of the Dis- 
 cipline; and did all in th^ir power to save you from the consequences of 
 yotu* schismatic and revolutionary measures. And yet to assume for your- 
 selves popular ground, you have all along represented it as a contest bi-- 
 tweon the membership, struggling for their rights, and the Ministrx I'.nnfi. 
 4 
 
26 
 
 iircri' ir o\(.T lli( III. lleiicc vou liave not scnii)li'd lo iiso such o\piossioiis 
 liF. -'Thf j)j-paclicr was not. disposed to remain quiet and submit to the action 
 of the Church" (page 10;) \\\\vn by refenjiice to llic facts, it iiulisputubly 
 appears, that, besides the preacljcr, tliere were two-thirds, or more, of the 
 male members of the Charcli, who, Uke him, wore uot disposed "to re- 
 main qwiel and submit;" and many of the most respectabU-, aged, and 
 godly of ihem, were urging tho preacher to have you brou'iht to trial for 
 that very thing which you call "Hhc action of the Churchy' i. e. the pro- 
 ceedings of your schismalic meeting of 45 persons, Nov. 12. 
 
 3. In the same spirit of unrighteous crimination, you have invariably 
 imputed to mc the very worst motives for my conduct; and that, when the 
 facts, known to you, forbid the possibility of my being governed by such 
 motives. I will instance in two particulars. 1st. As early as the fourth 
 of September, which was the first moment that there appeared any likeli- 
 hood of an altercation between the Committee of the Quarterly Conlcr- 
 cnce, and the Board of Trustees, I resigned the place of Chairman of the 
 Board, and told the Committee 1 had dohe so. The correspondence be- 
 twccn the Committee and myself, (see my exposition to the Church in No- 
 vember,) proves that my resignation was not desired by the conmiittee; and 
 exhibits them as striving hard either to whip me back into the oflice of 
 chairman, or to urge me, as the Minister in charge, "to take the responsi- 
 bility," of interfering with the functions of the Board of Trustees. Here 
 then, most clearly, there was no act of power exercised by mc, nor any 
 sliow of a love of power; but my offence consisted in the very opposite of 
 these, i. e. that I had resigned the office of Chairman of the Board, and 
 could not be driven into it again; and that I could not be induced to inter- 
 fere with the proper functions of the lay authorities of th(! Church, by any 
 means. And yet you have the conscience to attribute mv whole course in 
 this business to a love of power and office! (see your pamphlet, page 3.) 
 That is to say, I loved power, and therefore could, not be induced to exert 
 it! — I loved to exercise my spiritual functions i;s Minister in charge, against 
 the rights of the lay members; and, therefore, could not be induced by all 
 the vehemence of the committee, seconded by a long list of names surrep- 
 titiously obtained, to exceed my province as a pastor, and dogmatize over 
 the Board of Trustees! — I loved an office, and therefore I resigned it! And 
 because I loAcd to hold the office which I had resigned, I could not be 
 urged to take it again! 
 
 A similar instance occurs at the 10th page of vour pamphlet; where vou 
 hold tlic following language: "The old Board had adopted a by-law, mak- 
 ing, him Chairman of the Board, ex officio. This little power he was un- 
 willing to have taken from him, and determined rather than do so, he 
 would expel every member of the Church who should be guilty of the 
 heinous offence of doing what was calculated to lessen his power." This 
 V'ou I'Tve p-ivpp to account for my not being disposed "<o rei(iai7i quiet and 
 sulmil I', the action of the Church," (i. c. your factious ineeting of Nov. 
 12, calif d b\ you, but never admitted by others to be, "the' Church.") 
 Now, v. as 1 holding the office of Chairman of the Board of Trustees at 
 the time of which you speak, or not? If not, (and you know, gentlemen, 
 that I V. us not,) how could an unwillingness to have it taken from me, form 
 the motive of my conduct? Will you say, tliat though not in the office, I 
 \\-Afi I'ookinij prosjiertively lo it? No, for more than two months before the 
 
27 
 
 time ot" which you speak, I had resigned it, and could Dof be induced to 
 take it again. Yes, two months and eight days before -your uotable ^^actloii 
 of the Church," when you took upon you to cut down tlie Methodist 
 Church in Charleston to forty-five members, (your uUra-aristocratic party.) 
 and made a new constitution for it, (the minority for the majority.) and 
 ■would force it upon us against our consciences — I say two months and 
 eight days before that memorable time, I resigned the ortice of Chairman 
 of the Board of Trustees, and would not afterwards be either induced or 
 driven to resume it. And this, gentlemen, was as well known to you as to 
 myself, though you have chosen to make the statements which I couM 
 wish you had spared me the trouble to expose. 
 
 It should not be surprising, if those who have been so wanting of jus- 
 tice, should also be found deficient of memory, ajid sutforing the evils of 
 a morbid imagination. To no better sources can be ascribed your mere 
 tales, of the paper I read in the society meeting — the semi-oaths I took at 
 Mr. Honour's, — and the sorrow I professed for having '*done wrong in not 
 fulfilhng my solemn promises." Of the paper read Nov. 12, I say no 
 more. Of the promises, (oaths,) said to have been made by me and not 
 fulfilled, I appeal to the evidence furnished on the face of the original doc- 
 ument, to prove that the feelings of the signers were protected against the 
 apprehended imputation of their being coerced, by an alteration in the phra- 
 seology of the paper, B.i\d not any thing promised to ho said by me at the 
 society meeting. Nevertheless, I repeat, I did express myself in the kind- 
 est terms at the meeting of the 18th Dec. and so as was evidently accept- 
 able at that time. The opposite, is an after-thought, whicli, Gentlemen, 
 whatever it may do for "your justilication," can never give you easier con- 
 sciences, or compose you for a happy death. 
 
 Touchuig your offences towards the Church, during my administration 
 of the Discipline in that Church, it appears, 
 
 1st. That you seized the occasion of the unlucky resolutions of the Q. 
 Conf. (favored as you were by the temper of the committee, who were of 
 yourselves,) to form a faction in the Church. 
 
 2nd. That under cover of being zealous for the Church, and the proper 
 management of her temporal affairs, you were holding secret caucuses 
 (chieffy with the young men who formed Mr. Beckman's and Mr. Mood's 
 classes,) in Trinity School-room; the object of which was, to assume the 
 right of the corporation of the Church, and on that basis, to take possession 
 of its property, and control its Discipline. 
 
 3rd. That having matured your plans, and got your party ready for ac- 
 tion, you abused the charity of the preachers (who could not think of you 
 as ill as you deserved,) to get a meeting called of the male members of the 
 Church; at which, you counted the attendance would not probably be so 
 full, but that your whole number being mustered, you might prove a ma- 
 jority. At this meeting, finding it to happen as you had expected, and on- 
 ly about half the male members present, you insisted on calling it a meeting 
 of the corporation, refused the right of the chair to the Presiding Elder, and 
 demanded an election of a chairman for yovirselves. 
 
 4th. That having thus obliged the ministry either to dismiss the meeting 
 or sanction measures contrary to their consciences, and the meeting lieir.g 
 dismissed in the usual way with prayer and the benediction, and the minis- 
 try and members not of vour party withdrawn, (excenf fiv*^ or six win re- 
 
28 
 
 iiiained to satislV themselves as to Avliat you were about to do.) — You le- 
 Kolvod your parly into the Corporation of tho Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in Charleston — :ulopted on this assumption, a Constitution (iufact a Con- 
 stitution, thoujxli called by-laws) for the Church, enacting it as the supreme 
 limiting law of Discipline, adopting the Churcli's Book of Discipline only 
 as secondary to vour bv-laws, and nullifying all rules or modes of manage- 
 ment which were of authority in the Church contrary to this new-fangled 
 by-law constitution. And so taking to yourselves, in all respects, conven- 
 tional authority over the Church. 
 
 r)th. That for all this, you would bear no reproof, heed no persuasion, 
 be convinced by no argument, either of your ministers or others. 
 
 6th. That when through the intervention of Mr. Kennedy, you had pro- 
 mised to abide a mcetinn of the male members of the Church on the 3rd 
 of December, and, in the interval, to forbear all farther proceedings, you 
 nevertheless did meet on the evening of the 2nd December, and carry fully 
 out your revolutionary measures. 
 
 7th. That when you had thus forestalled the Church, in violation of 
 your pledge to the ministry through Mr. Kennedy, and a day of fasting, 
 humiliation and prayer was appointed to implore the guidance of Almighty 
 God, you treated it with neglect; as if too confident in yourselves to ask 
 wisdom from above, or in contempt of the pious feelings of your brethren. 
 
 8th. That when you had driven the Church to the last extremity, and as 
 the only remaining means of preserving the integrity of the Discipline, you 
 were summoned to trial, and under circumstances that made your expulsion 
 almost <;ertain, you agreed to and signed a paper, on the 8th December, by 
 which you renounced your schismatic proceedings of the 12th of November 
 and the 2nd December, on the condition of your being released from trial, 
 and having the legal questions about the corporation referred to the .ludges 
 •f the Court of Appeals: — A reference which you yourselves h;id but just 
 proposed, only that you would not, then consent to renounce your antago- 
 nist organization in the Church. 
 
 On the 18th December a Church meeting was held for the purpose of 
 establishing, and providing for the execution of the stipulations which had 
 been agreed on between us. This meeting was attended by your party as 
 members in common with the rest of the Church; audits acts were done 
 with the affirmative votes of all who were present, yours equally with oth- 
 ers. But notwithstanding all this, you, first on one pretence, and then on 
 another, changing the reason as fast as you could find a better (as that 1st, 
 the proceedings of the 12th Nov. and 2iid Dec. being had in party meet- 
 ings, none but party meetings could undo them; 2nd. That the Judges could 
 not act; and 3rd. that I had not fulfilled my promise,) did violate, for a se- 
 cond time, your engagement with the CJiurch, and throw yourselves back 
 on your schismatic proceedings of Nov. 12. and Dec. 2. 
 
 And in this position, the conference year being at its close, I left you. 
 
 And now, gentlemen, I take my final leave of you. At your own leisure 
 you prepared and published what has obliged me to take the present trouble. 
 We reprint your pamphlet, and append it to our reply, that a full view may 
 at once be had of the whole case. We wish you no evil, and would do 
 you no wrong; but I have not spared you the naked truth. To you I Avas, 
 but am not. Nay, you hold me as never having been. You have now no 
 Knowledge but by second-sight. The past you have obliterated. Every 
 
29 
 
 christian, every manly tie that has bound between us, you have severed 
 and despised. Be it so. There is One Avho judges, and to Him I commit 
 my cause. 
 
 Having now answered, for myself, your cruel allegations, as in dutv to 
 religion I was bound to do, it is my purpose to take no notice henceforth of 
 any publications you may choose to make. Humbled by you for the un- 
 profitableness of my ministry, and praying God to forgive the wrongs you 
 have done me, I bid vou farewell. 
 
 W. CAPERS. 
 
 Note. — The references to the Exposition of the Schismatics have been made accor- 
 ding to the form of the pamphlet which they published, and not our republication of it 
 as appended to the present Exposition. The pages, therefore, will not be found to agree 
 with our references. The reader will please refer by the quotations made, and not the 
 pages given, to satisfy himself as to our correctness. W. C 
 
I IIK EXPOSITION CONTINLEI). 
 
 In tlie iircccJiiiji part ot" this painplilcl, Dr. Capt'is lias jxivcii ;i narration 
 <»r the origin and progress ot" the Schism in tlio Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in this City, up to the last Annual Conference, held 5th February, of the 
 present year. It becomes our duty to continue the narrative, as those who 
 in part arc held accountable for its unhappy termination, in the expulsion 
 of some, und the secession of others from the Church. In doing this, wo 
 shall take up the several circumstances in their order, as stated in the pub- 
 lication to which we reply. 
 
 We have been arraigned before the public as tyranls and aristocrats, and 
 our administration of Discipline, represented as partial, unjust, and arbitra- 
 r\'. Whether any one act, or any number of acts connected with our 
 course, will justify the apphcation of such epithets to us, or whether the 
 complainants have been actually oppressed, or have received only the re- 
 Avard due to their offences, we shall leave to the community to determine, 
 when they shall have read our explanations of whu;, from the representa- 
 tion of our accusers, may seem to la vour their side of the question. We 
 shall develope facls which have been omitted, (whether ignorantly or in- 
 tentionally, it is not our business to say,) in the pamphlet before the public, 
 and which will exculpate us in the judgment of every resonable man, from 
 the charges made against us by its authors. It is our purpose to correct 
 errors — to explain facts — and to bring to light the hidden or forgotten things 
 which have an important bearing on the case. For argument, defensive of 
 our economy, we bave not time, nor is it needed. Our administration of 
 the Discipline is called in (piestion, and to the defence of it we devote the 
 following pages. Conscious of having tried to perform our duty to the 
 Church, in the fear of (iod. and well knowing that we are sustained by the 
 facts — we believe that a full development will result in our unqualified jus- 
 tification. We ask nothing but a patient, impartial perusal. 
 
 At the first Quarterly Conference of the present year, a motion teas made, 
 that a Committee he appointed to examine the books of the old Trustees, and 
 report to the Conference. This was immediately objected to by the princi^ 
 pal memher of the Board, and the objection sustained by the President, Mr. 
 Bass, ivho declared the inolion out of order. Was such a thing ever heard 
 of beforel" We will make a remark or two, and leave it to our readers to 
 determine, which was the most extraordinary, the motion or the decision of 
 the President. 
 
 First. There Avas no necessity for the examination proposeil — the 
 Board having made a Report not three months before. Second. It was 
 not the usual time — the fourth Quarterly Conference being the time devoted 
 to the investigation of the acts of the Trustees. Third. The Trustees are 
 ■under no obligation to show their books, in obedience to everj' capricious 
 
 I 
 
31 
 
 demand. Fourth. The Discipline does not require ii\ but simply, that the 
 Board make "a I'eport of their acts during the preceding year." Fifth. 
 Why was not this motion made at the fourth Quarterly Conference of the 
 past year, when the Treasurer made ins report, as we are told, and omit- 
 ted some very important acts?" Sixth. It' was a "thing never heard of 
 before."* 
 
 The paper submitted to the Church on the IGth of February last, by 
 Bishop Emonj, comes next under consideration. '"The harmonious ad- 
 justment of all existing ditliculties in the Church in this city," was the ob- 
 ject of this arrangement. The following questions were submitted to the 
 adjudication of the Bishops: 1st. Whether an incorporation, cither of the 
 Trustees, or of the male members of the Church, is inconsistent with the 
 Discipline? 2. Whether, in case of such an incorporation, the principle 
 of electing Trustees by the votes of the male members of the Church, at 
 such times, and in such manner as might be agreed on, v.ould be inconsis- 
 tent with the Discipline, provided, it be the wish of the Church in this city 
 to adopt sucli a principle. 
 
 We arc informed by tiie gentlemen, (hat an interview took place between 
 Bishop Emory and "the Chairman and Secretary of the new Board of 
 Trustees, who had, on seiieral occasions, represented, the Corporation party; 
 in the presence of the Rev. Mr. Bass, Presiding Elder, and the Rev. Mr., 
 Kennedy, the preacher in charge." The obvious design of this statement 
 is, to make the impression, that Mr. Bass and Mr. Kennedy were the re- 
 presentatives of the Trustees. We are confirmed in this view by another 
 part of the narrative, in which it is said, one of the preachers (meaning Mr. 
 K.) was Chairman of the Board. Now hear the facts. Mr. Bass had 
 and has nothing to do — no connection with the Board of Trustees. Mr. 
 Kennedy had not. at the time referred to, entered upon the duties of the 
 station — the Annual Conference, at which he received his appointment to 
 this place, had adjourned but two or three days previous, and he did not 
 take charge of the Church here, until nearlj- or quite two weeks after. 
 True a by-law of the Board makes the preacher in charge of the station 
 ex officio Chairman. Mr. Kennedy had never met the Board, and the 
 charge of the station was committed to Mr. Martin, one of his colleaguels, 
 until his own return from Columbia. Mr. Bass, and Mr. Kennedy had 
 no right either to represent the Trustees, or to object to the plan pro- 
 posed by the Bishop — their approval was unimportant if the plan M^as 
 adopted as the basis of an adjustment by the parties concerned, and the 
 Bishops decided upon it. It is clear, then, that Mr. Bass, and Mr. Ken- 
 nedy, not only did not, but under the circumstances, cotdd not repre- 
 SKNT the Trustees in the aforementioned interview. If the preachers did 
 approve — their approval can not, with any sort of propriety, be interpreted 
 as the approval ot'the Board. Again — The Tinjstees were never consul- 
 ted as to their opinion of the plan, consequently never agreed, to it. That 
 they did not agree, we can prove from the Bishop's statement, in his re- 
 marks introductory to the reading of the paper in Trinity Chui'ch — the 
 paper itself — th(>ir letter and the statement of THE^R accusers. The 
 Jiishop said, in the hearing of all present, before reading the paper, that he 
 
 * See another reason assigned by the Trustees in the Appendix. 
 
32 
 
 could not say that the Trusters approved the plan — not having had the uppor- 
 Ixinity to consult tukm. 
 
 The paper says, "the bretlircu \\\\o claim llio exercise of corporate pow. 
 ers agree" thus and so. Why this exclusive clause if the Trustees did a. 
 gree?" 
 
 The Trustees in their letter to the Bishop a few days after he left the 
 city, say, "they had not the least intimation of such a paper previous to the 
 day on which it was read," and tlien add, "we cannot say that it meets 
 with our approval," and assign some reasons. (The whole letter can bo 
 given if necessary.) 
 
 We wish the following marked especially. If the Trustees did agree — 
 why did thry (the represetitalivt's of the ('orporation mLinbrrs) ask the Bish- 
 op previously to his reading thr paper in the Church, ''what security theii 
 (the corporation p-drty) had that the Trustees icould agree to the arrange- 
 ment." If it was "expressly understood" that the Trustees had consented 
 to the arrangement, and the gentk men knew it, as they give us to under- 
 stand they did, is it likely they would have asked the question above? 
 
 W'e have proved that the Trustees never did accede to the proposition; 
 they never had the opportunity to say a word upon the subject, except in the 
 way they adopted — by letter. 
 
 The question is asked "i/" one party considered tliemsehes pledged because 
 two members had agreed to the proposal, ought we not f« all conscience to 
 suppose that the otlier party shoidd be bound by the agreement of the preach- 
 ers?" Most certainly not. Because Major Laval and Mr. Honour pre- 
 scribe and dictate to their party, therefore tlie Trustees must be bound by 
 the agreement of the preachers! Strange reasoning this! 
 
 If the proposition of the Bishop did not meet tlie views of the old Trustees, 
 why did they not say so at the time lie publicly read itV It might be suffi- 
 cient to answer — they had more politeness than to interrupt an officer of tlie 
 Church in the performance of his duty. But we add — it was not the time to 
 file objections — but a few of the Trustees were present ,and they were not 
 at liberty to give fAeir opinion as the sentiment oi' all — there had been 
 no official meeting of the Board, and there could not have been, for the Trus- 
 tees knew nothing of the paper till read. Are not these reasons sufficient? 
 
 The "official 7iotic€" which the Bishop received is mentioned in such a 
 way as to insinuate very strongly that Mr. K. who is ex-officio chairman of 
 the Board, and ''who had frequently expressed his astonishment at the Bish- 
 op^s not sending on the decision" knew the reason and was therefore guilty 
 of a wilful deception. The authors of the pamphlet say, that Bishop E. 
 in a letter to Mr. Kennedy stated that he had received a letter from the 
 Trustees (the one before alluded to) and "he thought it unnecessary to for- 
 ward" the decision. We shall see how little these assertions correspond 
 with the facts in the case. 
 
 The letter to Bishop Emory was written by the direction of the wliole 
 Board, and so was official. But is Mr. K. a member of the Board of Trus- 
 tees? Is his name mentioned by the Bishop in his enumeration of those 
 whose names were signed to the letter? He says in his letter to Mr. Ken- 
 nedy — "some time in April last I received a letter from brothers McKee, 
 Bird, Just, Chritzburg, Muckinfuss, Seyle and W^agner. officially notifying 
 me." Mr. K. ibas not present when the Board direc'ted (he letter to be writ- 
 ten, nor was he iufornicd that any such communication had been transmit- 
 
■33 
 
 tetl until long after. The ofiicial character ofihe Board tloes net depend 
 vpon the presence of Mr. K. or any other preacher. 
 
 But the geatlenien of the Corporation "■felt indignant at the duplicity of 
 those in whose promises they had conjided.^^ In whose promises had tiiey 
 coafided? lu the promise of the Trustees? They mean tiie Trustees wo 
 apprehend — but we have proven already that they made none. In (he pro- 
 mise of the Bishop? Has he refused to comply? According to the view 
 before us, he was to send on the decision whether he could or not. He has 
 not refused to send it, nor liushe said that he thought it ^'■unnecessary^^ to 
 send It. His words are "I ii::ve hesitated as to the pro])riety of communi- 
 cating tlic judgment since in such circumstances it would probably not ef- 
 fect the obji'ct we have in view — the peace of the Church." But is hesita- 
 lion — refusal to commmiicate, or a d(!claration that he thought it "unneces- 
 sary?" But to what circumstance does he allude in the above quoted re- 
 mark. The foUowmg — "if the brethren on both sides did not agree to a- 
 bide by the measures stated in the paper, {not the decision of (he Bishops as 
 the gentlemen would have us to bi lieve) he did not think it likely that the 
 peace of the Chnrch would be promoted by (he communication of the judg- 
 ment, "I should be glad, sa}^s \\c, to know the wish of the brethren on (his 
 point." Where is the duplicity? Where is the refusal to comply? Was 
 the Bishop's promise to send the decision to extend only to the last day of 
 the two months spoken of by them? Did he bind himself down to hours, 
 minutes, and seconds? No, the plain meanijg of the thing was, he was to 
 send it as soon as he could. Why then has it not been transmitted? The 
 answer to this question will show loho has violated the articles of agree- 
 ment. 
 
 At a meeting of the Board of Trustees soon after the reception of the 
 Bishop's letter, the Preacher in Charge advised them by all means (o accede 
 to the plan, and request the Bishop to forward it at once. They approved the? 
 cou sel of the Preacher, and he was about to address the Bishop, when lo! 
 certain inflammatory resolutions passed by a meeting of the corporation par- 
 ty, were handed inland thus the whole arrangement was broken up. We 
 subjoin an account of the meeting at which the resolutions were past. 
 
 A meeting of the male members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 vas held at Trinity School Room, July 5th, 1834. 
 
 Brother .lohn Kingman was called to the Chair, and Wm. M'Burney 
 appointed Secretary. The Chairman stated, that the o!))ect of the meet- 
 ing was to confer together on a letter received from Bishop Emory by 
 Brother Wm. M. Ke;inedy, in reply to the letter recentJy addressed to liira 
 by Brother Joh H. Honour, on the subject of our Chnrch difficulties. . 
 
 The letter was then read by the Chairman, whereupon Brother John H. 
 Hoiiour addressed the meeti ig, and submitted the following Preamble and 
 Re-solutions, whirh were severally put to the meeting, and unanimously 
 adopted: 
 
 Whereas, a lettm* his been received in this city, from the Rev. Bishop 
 Emory, from which it appears that a Communicdtion was made to him 
 some time in April last, by the late Board of Trustees, in which they state 
 their disapproval of the paper read in Trinity Church, by the said Bishop, 
 on the IGth of Februar}' last, as a basis for an adjustment of onr Church 
 difficulties. Therefore. 
 
34 
 
 Be it Rfsoheil, That tl»c promise made by us to agree to the arrauge- 
 fiient stated in the abovcmeiitioncd paper, is no longer binding upon us, 
 inasmuch as the promise vas made conditionally, that the late Trustees 
 agree likewise. 
 
 Resotvff], That the refusal of the late Trustees, to accede to the propo- 
 sitions contained in said paper, is additional evidence of their determina- 
 tion to manage the temporalities of the Church, according to their own 
 discretion, without control, at all hazards, whether in conformity to, or in 
 direct violation of Discipline. 
 
 Resolccd, That we will not hereafter agree to aiiy proposal of accom- 
 modation, come from what quarter it may, that is not based upon the Con- 
 stitution and By-Laws of the Corporation ado|)ted. 
 
 Resolved, That we will not any longer suJfcr our rights, as members of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, to be trampled upon, or action on our 
 part suspended by unmeaning offers of accommodation; but will pursue all 
 proper methods, whether in Church, in Law. or in Equity, as may appear 
 to us most expedient for obtaining those rights. Provided, the same be not 
 a palpable violation of Discipline. 
 
 Resolved, That these proceedings, be signed by the Chairman and Secre- 
 tary, and a copy thereof handed to the Preacher in Charge of this station; 
 and also that they be laid before the Corporation at its first meeting. 
 
 Signed". JOHN KINGMAN, Chairman. 
 
 Wm. McBurxey, Secretary. 
 
 As our readers wHl perceive, these resolutions declare, "that the promise 
 made by them to the Bishop is no longer binding; that they would not 
 hereafter agree to any proposal of accommodation, come from what quar- 
 ter it may, that is not based upon the Constitution and hi/daus of the Corpo- 
 tion, that they will pursue all propt r methods, (of which they of course 
 are to be the judges) whether in Church, in law, or in equity, as may ap- 
 pear most expedient for obtaining their rights, provided the same be not 
 a palpable violation of Discipline." (Of course if the violation is not "pal- 
 pable," that is according to the dcfmiliou the gentlemen have given us in 
 another place, ^^evident to every body," thi. y will not hesitate. The viola- 
 tion would be a trifle; the discovery of it to be prevented if possible, as that 
 might be attended with unpleasant consequences.) In the above it is seen 
 that the members of the corporation party, absolve themselves from alle- 
 giance to every thing but the Constitution and by-laws, adopted _ by them 
 on the 12th Nov. last. This is th.' supreme law, and they are the supreme 
 power. Bishops, Presiding Elders, Preachers, Discipline and all, must 
 bow submissively — "no proposal of accommodation," is to be received from 
 any quarter, which does not recognize the Constitution as supreme, or 
 which itifringes the rules of their adoptio!). The assumption of a right to 
 legislate for the Church, contrary to her establish. ;d economy, must be ac- 
 knowledged — a constitution directly subversive of the long admitted and 
 well defined provisions and rules of our Discipline must be sustained, vt 
 war, pitiless, imnatural war, is proclaimed agaiest the Church by her ov.n 
 children. Was a procedure so irrregular, so disruptive of every tie that 
 ought to bind a Methodist, to be suffered without rebuke? 
 
 These very men, when received into the fellowship of the Church, de- 
 clared that they had read, that they approved the Discipline, and that they 
 
35 
 
 >rcre icillingto b3 governed bv it. Iftlioy had grown wiser; it" they were 
 dissatisfiad with our mode of ma.iagemr'at as a Cliurch, why not retire be- 
 yoad its control? Is the Methodist Episcopal Church to recognize this 
 self-constitufed legislature, and b.^nd her rules, approved as they are by the 
 Avise and good, and consecrated by success, and the testimony of cxpe- 
 perience, to their surreptitious creation? The Discipline was bom of wi- 
 ser heads than theirs, or ours, and has shown itjolf worthy of its authors 
 too long, to be now sacrihced as an offering to appease the discontent of 
 (rfciv ax2)lriiig fault -Jimlers. 
 
 '^Some years since, a Lady of this diy, rciiarhablc for Iter benevolence, had 
 made application to the Rev. W. ])[. Kennedy, icho was at that time preacher 
 in charge of the station, for divine scrince to be performed in the Poor House 
 of this city, as a co:npcnsa'ion for which, she promised to give for the support 
 of the ministry — One Hundred Dollars annually." The gentlemen are 
 %oise on this subject overmuch. Mrs. (xregorie did not make any suth ap- 
 I)lication. The preachers on this station hud commenced ])erforming di- 
 vine service there long before the iiitervicw between Mr. K. and Mrs. G. 
 She was apprised of this, and wished to contribute to the support of the 
 ministry here, on account of services rendered there, by the donation of one 
 hundred dollars yearly; but was informed that the ministry in this place were 
 provided for by the Church. She however made the donation year by year, 
 and with her consent the whole amount was sent to the Annual Conference 
 to assist in paying the delicient preachers. In her Will, without any sort 
 of reference either to the service to be |)erformed in the Poor House, or to 
 the transmission of the money to the Annual Conferciice, ai\d without any 
 restriction to the dividends arising fro?u this stock, she demised 20 shares in 
 the State Bank, of this City, in the following words — "I give and bequeath 
 20 shares which I have in the State Hank to the Elders and Trustees of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in this city for the vse and benefit of the min- 
 istry of said Church." One of the charges preferred against the Trustees 
 is founded upon the sale of these shares, to assist in paying a debt incurred 
 by the erection of a Parsonage ^for the use and benefit of the ministers on 
 this station. On this point we give the concurring opinions of the Attorney 
 General, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Petigru, as expressed in a letter to JMr. Ken- 
 ncdv. 
 
 May 28th, 1834. 
 
 Reverend and Dear Sir', 
 
 You recjuest my opinion upon the following clause in the Will 
 of Mrs. Mary Christianna Gregorio: — "I give and bequeath twenty shares 
 I have m the State liank, to the Eiders and Trustees of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church of this city, for the use and benefit of the Ministry of 
 said Church." The questions arising tVom this clause, upon which you 
 desire information, are the folloM'ing: 
 
 1. Is this donation for the use and benefit of the Ministry of the Metho- 
 (list Episcopal Church -'of this city,"' or of the Ministry of the Methodist 
 Church generally? 
 
 2. Have the Elders and Tnistccs a control over the stock, or over the 
 dividends only? 
 
 '^. Can thf Elders an<i Trustees sell the stock, and convert the nmnev 
 into aM\ other investment, without the authoritv of the Court of (.'han- 
 .-nrv' 
 
36 
 
 4. Can ihc Elders and Trustee?, if authorized to sell the stock, "pply 
 the money resulting from tho sale, to the erection of a Parsonage, "for the 
 use and benefit of the Ministry of said Church?" 
 
 1. Oil th-; first point, I do not think that it is difficult to ascerfiun the 
 intention of the testator. If she had designed, that this legacy should be 
 for the benefit of the Ministry of the Church, generally, she would scarcely 
 have vested it in the hiuids of those whose authority and duties were 
 entirely local. The presunipiion is, that she intended to create a trust, 
 within the administrative powers of those in whom she had iiivested it. 
 On any other construction, indeed, this legacy would be void for inirer- 
 tainty. Who are the Ministry of the Methodist Church, generally? This 
 denomination of Chrisiians exists in Europe, us well as America — in 
 every State in the Union, as well as in South-Carolina — and their Ministry 
 are co-existent and co-extensive with their denomination. Shall the Me- 
 thodi.*t Ministry then over the whole world take the legacy? ((r shall it be 
 confined to the use of those in the United States, or in the State of'South- 
 Carolina? Th(! words "said Church" hi the clause, refers, I think, to 
 "thi- Methodist Episcopal Church in this city" — and limits the legacy to 
 the Ministry in the city of Charleston. 
 
 2. Upon the second point, I will only remark, that the use and benefit 
 bestowed, is not of the dividends or profits of the stock, but of the stock 
 itself; and although the Elders ai.d Trustees may, if they please, use oi ly 
 the profits arising from the stock, I suppose, that tlie stock itself, without 
 bei;;g co'isumed, may as righifuily bo api)lied to the benefit of the Ministry, 
 as the dividends arising from it. 
 
 ' 3. On the third point, I am of opinion, that the Elders and Trustees 
 have the power to sell the stock, and io reinvest it in any other May, pro- 
 vided the reii.vesfment is made bo!ia fide, and under <i sound discretion 
 '•for the use and benefit of the Ministry." This would not be my opinion, 
 if the Trustees had merely a control over the dividends and j)rofits — such, 
 for instance, as the case of an executor, with respect to stock belonging 
 to an estate — or of a guardian, with respect to stock belonging to his 
 ward. Ill these cases, the trnstee can only touch the profits, alid the capi- 
 tal can only be changed by the sanction of a Court of Chancery. 2 Atk. 
 121. Harrison vs. Harrison, 2 Bro. C. C. 653. Bostick vs. Blakely, 1 
 Vess Jur. 297. Powles vs. Hubert, 4 Vess Jur. 497. Long vs. Stewart, 5 
 Vess. Jur. 800. — and in such cases, the ces tui que trust is entitled to 
 have the stock restored to hiin, or to have the moiiey produced. But the 
 case arising under Mis. Gregorit;'s Will, is entirely ditlerent from these 
 cases. Here, tho stock itself is given, and is to be "applied to the use and 
 beiUjfit of the Mii-istry. The manner or way of applying it, is not pre- 
 scribed or restricted. The legal estate in the slock is vested in the Trus- 
 tees, with a single restriction as to its u.tc — it shall be for the use and bene- 
 fit of th'j Ministry. If an executor has money in his^ hands belonging to 
 an esfiiie, jii'' he vesfs it in stock, may he not sell the stock, and reinvest it, 
 if he deems fit? Clearly he may; and so here, the Elders and Trustees 
 may s- II the stock and apply it to ''the use and beiiefit of the Ministry," 
 under ihe exercise of a prndent and sound discretion. For negligence or 
 carelessness i.i dischargi g their tnist, the Trustees may be amenable in a 
 Court of Chancery; bui its intervention is not necessary to authorize them. 
 to sill the stock. 
 
4. It" thi ;ibave views bo correct, is the vesting of the stock in a parson- 
 age for the habitation of the Ministry, such an appiicalion of it, for their 
 '•Uoe and hciiefit," as the law v.ill authorize. The three great necessities 
 of men, arc food, clofhi ig a;ui habitation. It ai)pcary to me to be imraate- 
 rial to the relief of which of these necessities theTnistees apply the stock, 
 provided the capital is not destroyed in the ajiplication. If vested in a 
 building without extravagaiice or waste, for the coiitinual and impartial 
 use of the Miuislry in Charleston, it would be difficult to conceive a more 
 advantageous method of appljing the stock for their "use and benefit." 
 The capital, by such an investment, would not be destroyed, and its interest 
 and profits (from the rent such an investment would save) may, strictly 
 speakiiig, bo said to be continually used by the Ministry. My opinion 
 therefore is, that the Elders and Trustees may invest the stock in erecting, 
 or in contributiiig to erect, a Parsonage for the habiiatioii of the Ministry in 
 Charleston. 
 
 Believe me, Reverend Sir, vour obedient servant, 
 
 R. BARNWELL SMITH. 
 
 Rev. W. M. Kenaedy, Preacher in Charge 
 
 of the Methodist E. Church in Charleston. 
 
 I have read the above, and concur fully in it. I should not suppose 
 there could be two opiiiious on the subject. 
 
 .1. L. TETIGRU. 
 August 2iih, 1834. ' 
 
 "The Board of Trustees of crery circuit or slat ion shall be responsible to 
 the Quarterly Conference of said. Circuit or station.^'' (See Dis. page 1G7.) 
 It is nccesssary to keep this clause in mind, in order to understand the case 
 nou; to be explaiied. 
 
 The Charges preferred against the Trustees, were presented to Mr. K. 
 Avith the request that he would bring them to trial not as Trustees, but as 
 private members. I^Ir. K. replied thnt he could not try them for their of- 
 ficial acts as individuals, and that as Trustees they were responsible to the 
 Quarterly Conference.. The Preacher in Charge could not have adopted 
 any other course without rendering himself liable to impeachnjcnt for a vi- 
 olation of Discipliiie. 
 
 The accusers acquiesced iu this view of the subject. (Although it may 
 seem u:iiraportanf, yet we would say, Mr. K. did not pre.ieribe the ^formal- 
 ities^' which we are told attended the presentation of the charges to the 
 Quarti:rly Coiiference.) 
 
 Three or four days previous to the sittiijg of the Quarterly Conference, 
 a committee waited upon the preacher ia charge, and delivered into his 
 hands a set of charges to be ha;ided by him to the Trustees, in order, (as 
 oneof the committee remarked) that they might be ready for trial. The 
 charges are as follows:* — 
 
 * With regard to the charges and specilicatious above, we would remark, that there is a 
 play upon words just lor the unrighteous nudtipiication of coniplair.ts. On the first charge, 
 it is sutiicientto say, that there is on the Journal of the Quarterly Conference, a resolu- 
 tion authorizing the Trustees to purchase and to sell property. Charge 2nd, "Breach of 
 faith." We have before proved that the Trustees never made a promise to Bishop Em- 
 ory, consequently never violated their faith. 
 
38 
 
 Charges and .Specilications against Samuel J. Wagner. Abel McKcc. 
 Henry Muckenfuss, Samuel Seyle, (Icorge Just, (icorge Clirietzburg, and 
 William Bird, acting as Trustees ot" the Methodist Ej)iscoi)al Church of 
 Charleston, South-Carolina. 
 
 CnAK(;i: 1st. — IJrcarh of trust and contempt for the Quarterly ^Meeting 
 Conference. 
 
 Specijicat'ion 1st. That they the said Sam'lJ. Wagner, Ahcl M'Kee, Henry 
 Muckenfuss, Sam*! Seyle, Geo. Just, (tco. Chrietzhurg and Wm. Bird, 
 acting as Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, did, 
 some time vithiiithe last year, .sell to Charles Clark, (a colored man) fif- 
 teen feet front and ■ feet deep of land, being part of the original lot of 
 
 ground on which the Methodist Parsonage now stands, coiitrary to the letter 
 and spirit of tiic Discipline, and of the (\i^eA creating the trust in this case. 
 
 Sperifiralion 2nd. Disposing of three hundred dollars, bequeathed by 
 Mrs. Elizabeth King to the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid, without 
 having first a|)plicd to the Quarterly Meeting Conference for instruction, in 
 accordance with their own by-laws — thereby violating their own regula- 
 tions, treating the Quarterly Conference with contempt, and virtually deny- 
 ing the right of control by the Conference, or any other known authority 
 in the Church. 
 
 Charge 2!)d. — Breach of Faith. 
 
 Specijication. That they, the said Samuel J. AVagncr, Abel McKce, 
 Henry Muckenfuss, Samuel Seyle, George Just, George Chrietzhurg and 
 William Bird, acting as Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 Charleston, did, sometime in the |)resent year, perform sundry acts of liigh 
 importance to the interests of the Church, such as pledging and selling cer- 
 tain shares of the State Bank, contrary to the intention of the deceased 
 donor, Mrs, Gregorie, and in violation of the plighted faith of the Church 
 to Bishop Emorv, that no official act of a temporal nature (ordinary du- 
 ties excepted) should be performed, u;iiil the decision of the Bishops on 
 the questions referred to them was known here, (the decisions not having 
 been known at the time.) 
 
 CiiARGK 3d. — Immorality and unchristian conduct. 
 
 Specijication 1st. That they the said Samuel J. Wagner, Abel McKee, 
 Henry Muckenfuss, Samuel Seyle, George Just, George Chrietzhurg and 
 Wm. Bird, acting as Trustees aforesaid, did, some time in the month of 
 April or May last, sell ten shares of State Bank Stock, ostensibly for the 
 payment of debts due by the Church, thereby violating a trust (the said 
 shares having been demised by the late Mrs. GregOric, to Trustees in trust 
 for a specified object, viz. the benefit or support of the ministry of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. 
 
 The pledge tliat no oflicial act should be prrfoniied, (ordinary duties excepted,) until 
 the decision of the Bishops arrived, was ne\er heard of until about the time the gentle- 
 men found it necessary for the promotion of a particular object, to charge the Trustees — 
 that is nearly or quite 4 months after it was >-aid to have been given, 'liiis, independent 
 of positive proof to the contrarv, is a suspicious circumstance. Ah to the sale of the 
 JSiiarcs, we refer our readers to the opinions of .Messrs. Smith and Petigni. The third 
 charge is only a corollary from the other two. It derives its existence from them, and 
 without them if is not. To show liovv recklessly these men deal out their' accusations, 
 wc would sav that two or three of the individuals named in the charges, were not mem- 
 liirrK nftlic Board at nit, at the time the acts recited, were prrformcd. 
 
39 
 
 Specificaiion 2nd. That they the said Samuel J. Wagnev, Abel McKee, 
 llcnry Muckcnfuss, Samuel Seyle, Gcorfrc Just, George Chrietzburg and 
 William Bird, acting as Trustees aforesaid, did, some time in the present 
 year, pledge ten shares of State Bank Stock, on a loan of money, and did 
 sell ten other shares of the same stock, being twenty shares demised by 
 the said Mrs. Gregoric, to Trustees in trust, for the benefit of the Minis- 
 ters of the Methodist Episcopal Church of this city, and known to be de- 
 signed as a permanent fund to aid in the support of the said Ministers, 
 and to secure the continued weekly perfornunice of religious services in the 
 Poor-House of this city, th(>reby perverting specifiecl uses and benefits, 
 contemning the obligation of trusts, abstracting from the resources of the 
 Stewards' fund, and inflicting a deep injury on the character and interests 
 of the Society, by destroying public confidence in them. 
 
 Signed, .TAMES E. WALKER, Chairman, 
 
 Samuel Kingmax, Srcretari;. 
 Charleston, June 14///, isiu. 
 
 I do hereby certify the foregoing to bo a true extract from the minutes of 
 the meeting held on the 7th .Tune. 
 
 SAMUEL KINGMAN, Secretary. 
 
 A day or two after the Committee waited upon the preacher, we heard, 
 accidentally, that they had been appointed by a meeting, to prosecute the 
 charges. They did not so announce themselves to the preacher, but sim- 
 ply as a committee to deliver the charges to him, in order that he might 
 linnd them to the Trustees. 
 
 When the Conterence came on, Mr. Kennedy presented the paper to the 
 President, Mr. Bass, telling him, at the same time, how* it came into his 
 possession. The President inquired at once, who are the accusers? He 
 was asked, "if the charges were not signed?" He replied, two names are 
 appended to the paper, the one as Chairman, the other as Secretary of a. 
 meeting — but who composed the meeting? Mr. Honour replied, that "the 
 paper stated the character of the meeting;" and then asked, "if there was 
 no resolution annexed to the charges?" The President replied. No, Sir. 
 No preamble? inquired Mr. H. No, Sir, rejoined the President — no pre- 
 amble — no resolution! exclaimed Mr. H. And when assured there was 
 none, he sat down blank and confounded. The paj)er purported nothi; g at 
 all, except that there had been a meeting, at which a Chairman and Se- 
 cretary were appointed, and charges against the Trustees prepared. And 
 now for this omission — this oversight of the authors of the charges — the 
 preachers are represented as leagued together to uphold the Trustees in 
 defiance of form and law and all righteousness. The President of the 
 Conference did not say, that "7J0 man not entitled to a .seat in that Confer, 
 ence, should enter the room.'" But he did say, that as there was neither 
 preamble or resolution attached to the pajjcr, authorizing the presentation 
 of the charges; and as the Discipline required that the "accused and ac- 
 cuser should be brought face to face," the members of that meeting should 
 sign the paper. . About this time Mr. Poyas rose and moved, that Major 
 Laval be called in. saying, " he will tell you — he will tell you who the ac 
 cusers are;" but the majority of the Conference feeling no particular need, 
 of Major LavaVs counsel, and thinking themselves perfectly competent to 
 transact their own business, paid no attention to the motion. Mr. Piercfe 
 
40 
 
 then moved that the moinbors of the Quarterly Confcrciico. \\\nt were pro- 
 sent at the meeting where the cliarpes originated, shouhl come forward and 
 sign the paper, or eome out in their responsible characters. The motion 
 irritated one or two into confession that thev were present; but one of 
 them at least va>i made to .sif down, as thnufihllessh/ leflinu out a skcket 
 which his more acute copartners iroiild ifiilingli/ hcej> from t/ic hnoulejge of 
 the Conference. 
 
 It is mentioned in the enumeration (if errors and sins committed by us, 
 that the accused '■'■were suffered to retain their seats, and speak and role and 
 malie motions. NVIiut |)ossihIe ohjcetion cfiuld (here be to this? Ilud thev 
 not a riglit to defend themselccs? They did not vote, nor (!i<i they ma!;e 
 any motion that we remember. They certainly were entitled to take part 
 in the discussion on thtar own case. The gentlemen themselves seem- 
 ed to think they had a right to speak, and objrct too, when their own trial 
 came on; and, at any rate, they used it almost to the exclusion of ever y one 
 else. Why should the saine privilege be denied the Trustees? "Be just." 
 and then, "fear not." 
 
 A motion made by one preacher and seconded by another which the 
 President decided without inquiring the sense ofthe Conference, is brought 
 to view as another item in the list of offenct^s. But like many others with- 
 out a reason. It was the undoubted right ofthe President to decide wheth- 
 er the paper was informal, or not. The object ofthe motion was to elicit 
 a distinct opinion. The chairman had once already given his opinion in 
 the case. But the author ofthe motion supposing either that he was not 
 heard, or that he had been misu.idcrsiood, (for, if heard and understood, the 
 objectors very impolitely, and, contrary to all order, contiimed a heated and 
 profitless debate,) and wishing to have it settled at once: moved that the 
 Chair decide distinctly on the point before us. The motion was not infen- 
 ded for, nor did it belong to the Conference. Their approval, or disap])ro. 
 val, had nothing to dn with the case — if they had approved, it would havti 
 just been saying that the President should do, what he had an indubitable 
 right to do, without their approval. In all deliberative bodies, who, we 
 would inquire, decides questions of order — if not the Chairman? 
 
 Mr. Honour then arose, (the gentlemen, say, cooly and deliberately — we 
 say, angrily,) and tore the paper in part, and said that he ^^would assuinc the 
 responsibility;^^ and asked if "</tfi charges icoidd be received as coming from 
 him?" He was answered in the negative. The "why and the wherefore" 
 were obvious, //e was not authorised by f/is meeting to asstune the re- 
 sponsibility, nor at that stage ofthe affair, did his pro])osition at all alter or 
 remove the objections in the case. The gentleman being defeated again; 
 begged leave to retire and was immediately followed by ten or eleven oth- 
 ers; all moving in the utmost disorder and confusion. Let us now throw a 
 little light on this extraordinary affair. 
 
 It was believed at the time, and is fully ascertained now, that the meeting 
 was composed of the corporation membfsrs. In this meeting the charges 
 originated — they were read — approved, and their presentation authorized 
 by all present. Who, then, in the name of common sense,' were the accu- 
 sers? In all good conscience, in the sight of God, and man — tJie members 
 of the meeting. Will they tell us that they simply meant by their votes and 
 resolutions — ^that if these things were so, they ought to be investigated? — . 
 Did they appoint a committee to prepare and prefer charges while they 
 
41 
 
 were utterly ignorant of the evidence by which thnse charges were to be 
 supported? Is it rehgion — is it common justice to have made allegations 
 agaiiist the Trustees, their brethren in Christ, atTccting not only their offi- 
 cial, but their moral character, without a sum of kuoM ledge, inducing a 
 thorough conviction of their guilt? They did accuse, actually believing 
 ihom guillj/ or obstinately determined lo eject them from othce, if possible, 
 right or icrong, and it may be trom membership too. In either case, they 
 were not proper voters. 
 
 Is it not a little surprising, that these very men, who complain so much 
 about trick and management, should be themselves the i^rriest adepts in cun- 
 ningl What was the appointment of the at"ores;iid Coniniittfe but :i partij 
 artijficel Why did they not select those who were members of the Confe- 
 rence? 'I'he plain intention of the arrangement, was to keep the ranks of 
 thair party unbroken, and so be enabled to muster their whole strength to 
 the work, of the uUer and irreversible condemnation of the Trustees. Why 
 did they call a meeting at all, if it was not to keep up, and strengthen the 
 organized opposition which has so long embroiled the Church? There was 
 no necessity for it. Two or three memb(>rs or even one might have drawn 
 up the charges, and preferred them, and there would have been no objec 
 tion — and the mrmbers of the Coisference, who belonged to the corpora- 
 tion party, might have saved themselves, from the guilt they haveincurred, 
 and that they ought to feel for having thus cunningly atf« nipted to put down 
 th!?ir really u.iotieading brethren. By the irregnhir course they adopted 
 they sought, and w<Hild have secunnl a dangerous advaiUage of the Trus- 
 tees — and we shoidd have gone down to our graves with the reproach of 
 innocent me'i upon us, if we had not macb an effort to rescue them from 
 the 5/iarp* which had been laid tor them. Neither the preachers nor the 
 Trustees, wished to evade an investigation. Why then it may be asked, 
 were they not tried? We answer, first, because of the informality of the 
 paper in its original foim, and secondly, because their accusers refused to 
 sign the papor, or to assume the responsibility in thijir proper characters of 
 substantiating the charges. The gentlemen themselves are the authors of 
 all the dijiculties which hindered the investigation. They called the meet- 
 ing, a id tJiey prepared the charges, and they omitted the Preamble, and 
 they forgot the resolution directi.g the appointment of a committee, and they 
 refus;!d to sign the pj'.per, and they deserted the Conference. All the Bish- 
 ops of the M. E. Church — the Presiding Elder of the District, and all the 
 Preachers on the station could not have prevei.ted the trial, if the charges 
 had been presented legally, without subjecting themselves to impeachment. 
 If then Me, (the P. E. or Preachers) have errtd, let us be charged. 
 
 This Quarterly Conference we are told, '■'■demnnstralid beyond the shadow 
 of a doubt, thnt all power is placed, in the hands of the nwmtry of the Metho- 
 dist Episcop tJ Church, and that the membership have no rights at all. when 
 put in competition with the will of the preachers. ^^ Let us review this won- 
 derful demo jstradoH. What power did ih:^ Preachers (exercise, that was 
 not ex,crcisedby every member of theConf ivnce? Unfortunately for the 
 assertion, the "dcmoistration" embrac( s theTrustees, as well as the Preach- 
 ers — the Class-leaders, as well as the Trustees. We were all members of 
 the same body, invested with the same rights. Suffrage in every case 
 M'asihe prerojrative of all. and of luich. The preachfrs. it is true, did take 
 (j 
 
42 
 
 lilt* uu}>:l |Ji*uiiiiiieiit part in the controversy, but not because of'any exclusive 
 riphls. If the defeat of" the advocates ot' an unrighteous cause, by a state- 
 ment of facts, and fair reasoning upon the Discipline — is proof, "dcmonstra- 
 iion''^ of the proposition above we have yet to learn it. 
 
 It is a most outrageous offence, that the preacher in charge should liave 
 called the Church together after the adjournment of Conference, to impart 
 some information concerning the acts and doings of the 'J'rustees. Hear 
 the reasons for this ai)|)ointmenf. 'I'he acts of the Hoard had given much 
 oflence to some of the members. Many garl)led — exaggerated reports 
 were in circulation. They were most industriously handled to cast discre- 
 dit upon the Trustees, and thus to keep up the wretched excitement which 
 we had so long dt'plored. It had been expected, that a full and fair invcs- 
 tigation before the Conference, woid<l have corrected these errors — but this 
 was defeated by the chicanery and injustice of their accusers. Moreover, 
 the whole Church, new side and old side, had an interest in the matter; 
 and it was hoped, that a plain impartial statement of facts, might allay the 
 tumult that raged around. We charitably believed, that the Corporation 
 members had rather be convinced, that they were misluken, than that the 
 Trustees were really guilty of the thi:.'gs alleged against them. For wc 
 knew then, as well as we know now, that the schismatics, in their excited 
 feeling, had sutiered impressions to ripen inXo Joels, that reports, no mat- 
 ter by whom ^tarted, or by w hom supported, had been received as iritths — 
 that appearances, dim and misty, without any sort of examiiiation, had 
 given rise to opinions and to actions, as if they were clear, visible, tangible 
 realities. 
 
 We drew up a statement from the books of the Board of those particu- 
 lar acts, which had been so grossly perverted to mislead the people. It 
 •was a plain unvorijishcd statement. It was due to oxrsklves, for we had 
 been told agai:i and again to our faces, that we were leagued with the 
 Trustees, to uphold ihem right or wrong. We should certainly have been 
 lacking in a proper regard to ourselves as men, and especially as Ministers, 
 if we had not, when the means were so completely in our hands, have 
 rescued our characters from the gross imputatioiis of thq schismatics. 
 The Trust( ' s had nothing to do with it. They never saw thr paper until 
 tiie evening on which it was r< ad. It was not intended as a defence of the 
 Trustees. 0:!e of the prominent charg'. s Wiis not alluded to at all — 
 ntmiely, "breach of faith;" and the rest W(!re referred to, not as charges 
 which had been prefr rred, but as reports which were in common and wide 
 circulation to the injury of the Church, and which, as Pastors of the So- 
 ciety here, we were bound to set riglu. The i^K .1 that it was a defence of 
 the Trustees, is held forth 01 ly to hide h sober truth — th:it these geiitle- 
 mcn were angered that the members should be disnhused ol' the impres- 
 sions made by their louse ai;d unguarded saying,-. Suppose it was a de- 
 fence, what //ooJ man \\ou\ A object 16 tht- vii dication of his neighbour's 
 character — if he had been honestly, though falsely accused? But preju- 
 dice had so blighte<; — withered — kiii«-d ;•!! broiherlv ieeliug-r-tiiat it was 
 outrageous, in their eslimation, for the Trustees to appear less odious than 
 they had represented them. Too full of 1 rejutlrce to admit conviction — 
 too proud to acknowledge error, and determined to compass ii certain object, 
 which the proceedings of the evening seemed to put a little farther beyoad 
 their reach — vexation and rage took full possession. 
 
43 
 
 With ail impoliteness and effrontery vliich liave no apology and no par- 
 nllel. Mr. Kennedy was repeatedly interrupted in the performance of a 
 Christian and ministerial duty, by intermedkrs with other mens' business. 
 To every inquiry he replied, "this is not the time to answer — another time, 
 In'ethren, another time — if I give permission to o!;e, I must to another, and 
 to all — and this is not the time or the place for debate." But the gentle- 
 men very dexterously ir)tered, that when he liad fiinshcd, he meant that 
 ••they should b?. heard." We ihi'.ik this inference has been drawn since 
 the meeting — probably about the time the pamphJet was rcritten. Mr. Ken- 
 nedy made one statement very unfortunately for such an inference — 
 namely, that when he concluded, Mr. Dunwody would address and close 
 the meeting. But this fact would have proved rather an incumbrance to 
 the inference, and so has been omitted, or perhaps it \vsisfo7-gotten. When 
 Mr. Kennedy ended his commuoicatioa, and Mr. Duuwody, whose, grey 
 hairs, independent of his characler for piety and sense, should have com- 
 manded respect, rose to perform the part assigr.ed him, he was rudely 
 stopped by Major Laval, who, regardless of place — of character— of reli- 
 gion — and of order, began a tirade of abuso and inveclivc — ^tslRed about 
 outrage a:id injustice, and would have proceeded to, wo know not what. 
 But as we felt tio particular desire to hear ourselves abused — and. did not 
 think eve7i the Major any more entitled to audience than his coadjutors, ho 
 was reminded that others iiad been refused the liberty to speak, and that it 
 could not be gra;itcd him. However, with a peculiar delicacy of feeling, 
 he continued his harangue. As om* exhortation had failed, we concluded 
 to try THE POWER OF SONG. Mr. DunM'ody was urged to sing, "Like 
 begets like," and so this extraordinary effort gave rise to what may be 
 considered this extraordinary measure. The device succeeded to perfec- 
 tion. The orator ceased and retired, followed by his party. His attempt 
 to speak was an inadmissible interference with a-sothcr man's duties — an 
 u dieard of violation of order in our Society me tings. The Cimrch was 
 not under Major Laval's control — ha did not coll the meeting — nor was he 
 entitled to peculiar privileges. If he had been suffered to proceed, wc 
 should have been accessary to converting the Church of Cod hito an arena 
 for religious gladiators. Wc -chose the least of two evils: and who can 
 conden?! us, bvit the disappointed, speaker and his adherents? 
 
 Not long after the new Board of Trustees (as they style themselves) met 
 and appointed a Committee to wait upon ih<,' Preacher in Charge, and to 
 deliver tiie following paper: 
 
 "At a meeting of th^^ Board of Tru-si^ s of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Ch urch, h-ld at the re-sidenco of the Chairman, Wednesday evening, July 
 23d. 1834, the f .lj..wi:ig Resolutions were adopted: 
 
 "Resolved, That Wm. Kirkwood, Wni. G. Mood and J. H. Honour, be a 
 Com.ninee to wait upon the Preacher in Charge, and request him to call a 
 ganeral meeting "oF the Church, male and female, at some early day, for 
 the purpose of laying before them a full statement of the difficulties which 
 n jw exis' among us, a id the causes of their origin; and on his refusal to 
 call such in^.'ti.ig, that tbs Committee be instructed to take such measures 
 as they may deem proper to procure one. 
 
 '^Resolved. 'J'hat the Committee be instructed to inform the Piefiflicr. tbat 
 we propose the tbilowing plan for conducting the meeting: 
 
14 
 
 '•TliL* charges preferred against the persons claiming to act as Trustees, 
 ri.ider the appointment of the Preacher, be read, and (he proof in support 
 of them l)rought forward: — that the accused be perniittcd to nialio their 
 defenc', and thiit the accusers rejoin — certain named persons to speak on 
 each side, and no o'her he allowed to interfere. 
 '•Krum llie Minutes, 
 
 •J. H. HONOUR, Secretary.'' 
 
 In the account the gentlemen give of this paper, they omit the instnic- 
 tions given to the Conimitiee. Why so? Every one "that docth truth 
 conicth to the light." If the Preacher refused to call a Church nu cting, 
 the Committee were authorized "to take such mejisures as thry 7iiifiht 
 deem expedient, to procure one." Is this Discipline/ It was the unceas- 
 ing cry of these men, we love the Discipline — we do not intend to violate 
 it. What means this assumption of power? Who, acconiing to Metho- 
 dist economy, has the right to call and superiiitend Church mceti.gs, but 
 the Minister in Charge? But, forsooth, we are Trustees, and ire mean to 
 have a Mew order of things; and so the Committee f}iust call the C'hnrch 
 together. But this was inserted in the paper (for they knew the Preacher 
 Mould not grant a reques-t so unreasonable — so uiuiecessary) oidy to 
 frighten him into compliaice. It was omitted in the pami'bUt, h st the 
 community should ask, "why did not the Committee call the meeting? ai.d 
 they should be com|)elledto answer, "it would have been a palpuble viola, 
 tion of discipline.'' ^*Therc is policy in war." 
 
 The Preachers finding that the schismatics were taking higher and 
 higher ground at every ste|), aiid they having declined to w.iit aiiv loi ger 
 for the decision of the Bisliops on the case, concluded to m;;ke one more 
 effort to arr«'st them in their ill-advised career. Accordiigly, sei t th< m 
 nearlv word for word the following paper, as a decision — as a private re- 
 proof — and as an entreaty to cease from their disorganizing movcn)enls: 
 
 ^'Dear Brethren, 
 
 "Having received a conrmujication from you, purjiorfing to 
 b'j the transactions of a meotitig of scvrral m-.\le nu-mbers of ihe.Melhodist 
 E. Church in Charleston, wherein it is Resolced, ihat said menjbcrs are no 
 longer bou.id by a promise made to Bishoj) Emory — That they will not 
 hereafter agree to any proposal of accommodation, come from what quar- 
 ter it may, that is not based upon the Constitution and By-laws of the Cor- 
 poration adopted — That they will not any longer sulfcr their rights as mem- 
 b -rs of the M thodist Episcopal Church to be tram|>lednpon, or action on 
 their part suspended by unmeaning oflers of acconnnodatioi. — But that they 
 will pursue all proper ni(;thods, whether in church, in law , or ecjuitv, as 
 may appear to them most expedient, 6cv. Provided the same be not a j)alj)a- 
 ble violation of Disci|)line. 
 
 "Now, therefore, permit me, tos ay to you, and through you to the several 
 mrmbers com|)osing said mef-ting — that since it is ma;:ifest bv your Res- 
 olutions, that you no longer look to tiie counsel and d;'cisi(»n of the B;sh. 
 oos on the matter in controversy — You should of course as members of the 
 Methodist E. Church in Charleston, abide the decision of the Preacher in 
 Charge, on points of Discipline, until said decision can be set aside, by the 
 pow^r that hold«< him responsible for his administration, in this view of 
 
45 
 
 the subject, I judge it my duty to furnish you with a decision ou the case. 
 In which, (I am happy to say,) I have the hearty concurrence of my wor- 
 thy colleagues Brothers Martin and Pierce. Suffer me first to say, tliat 
 the Coastitutio.i ai*.d By-hnvs adopted by you on the 12th Nov. last, are 
 not ooly independent of, and cojitrary to, the proviso, of the Discipline un- 
 der which yon claim authority for your acts (iiiasmuch as that applies only 
 Avhen a new Board is to be created. But the power of the Gen. Conference 
 is assumed in that you declare the Trustees ripso'.sible (iiot t(^ ihe Q. Con. 
 as the Discipline enjoins,) but to the mile members of the Chinch in their 
 corporate capacity. The power to alter, amend, repeal, ^c. bcloigs exclu- 
 sively to the delegates of the several A iumal Coatereuces, in Gen. Confe- 
 rence assf^Tibled. The economy of our Ch'irch, has ordained, and recog- 
 nizes no oth:'r Legislative body. In conformity with these views, my de- 
 cision is — That your organization on the V2'A\ Nov. last, and acts under 
 and in pursuance of that organization — whether on the 2nd Dec. last, or 
 subsequcatly — As a palpable violation of our Discipline, and not to he toler- 
 ated in memhers of our Church. This, therefore, is, to admonish and en- 
 treat you, I trust la the fear of God and in Brotherly affection, to desist 
 from the course you have taken. And am I not authorized to expect this 
 from the proviso connected with the resolutions to which I have refered. — 
 As to thj eiid you propose with regard to the a[)poi;tmcnt of Trustees, if 
 brought about accordi:)g to the provisions of the Discipline for its amend- 
 ment, &c. we have nothing to ob)( ct. But we do hope you will see that 
 the grouid you hive taken, canm)t b j maintained without sacrificing the Dis- 
 cipline. Yuu have left yourselves room for an honorable retreat. Avail 
 yourselves of it. Spare the Church — spare us — for we watch for your 
 souls as thev who must give account. 
 
 WM. M. KENNEDY, Prear/jcrm CAar^f. 
 WM. MARTIN, >^„ 
 
 GEO. F. PIERCE, \ ^^"^"S"es. 
 ''Metlml'ist Parsonage, Charleston, July 2Z, 1834." 
 
 This affectionate communication Avas rewarded with contempt. This 
 was the last effort of iiearlv twelve month's forbearance on the part of the 
 Church. We wish it to be remembered, that this was intended as a test 
 of their willingness to be governed by the Discipline; and if it had suc- 
 ceeded in bringi'.ig thcin to a pause, the past would have been forgiven and 
 forgotten. They had already, it is true, trampled upon the Discipline — of 
 this we forewarned ihem, and told them that their course, if persisted in, 
 could not be tolerated. We determiiicd beforehand, if this plan failed, to 
 charge tliem wiih "Disobedience to the order and Discipline of the 
 (Jhurch." This determination was formed several days before the suit in 
 Law was inslituted, or even heard of. The very day after the reception of" 
 the paper above, in the most reckless opposition to, and the most determin- 
 ed CO itqTii)t for (ho co.istituled authorities of the Church, the gentlemen pro- 
 ceeded to levy upon the property of one of the tenants of the Trustees. In 
 accordance with the viiiws given above, the following charg(^ and the several 
 specifications of it, were handed to each on JMo.iday, the 28th July: 
 
 "Charce. — Disobedience to the order and Discipline of the Church. 
 ^^Specification 1st. Takiig a part in a meeting, calling itself tlie Church, 
 in its corporate capacity, and which assumes the right to do aAvay at plea- 
 
46 
 
 sure the order and modns of management prescribed by the Discipline, to 
 remove from office the Tnistees: to fill their places; cliaiigc their responsi- 
 bility; <Scc. 
 
 '^'■Upecification liiui. Recei\ ing appointment as Trustees under the assum- 
 ed authority of said meeting, thus organizing a Board for the transaction of 
 the business of the Church, in opposition to the Board appouited under, and 
 acknowledged by the Discipline. 
 
 ^^Specification 3rd. After a written avowal of your determination not to 
 perform any acts that would be a palpable violation of Disciphnc, a:id after 
 having received from the Preacher in Charge a Dtrisiou, declariig the 
 course you have adopted, to be a palpable violation ot Di.^cipline, you have 
 gone to law with the Trustees, by levving on the property of one of their 
 Tenants, thus giving evidence of a determination to pursue your own course 
 in defiance of the constituted aulhoriti/ of the Church. 
 
 W.M. y\.'KkSSEl)\, Preacher in charee. 
 \VM. MAKTliN. 
 G. F. PIERCK. 
 
 "Methodist Parsonage, July 28th, 1834." 
 
 Will the community receive the ridiculous statement made in the pam- 
 phlet as true, namely, that we were so anxious to have the accused expel- 
 led, that we cited them to appear at the Parsonage, at 9 o'clock, A. M. 
 Tuesday, 29th, when we must have ki.own very well, according to their 
 account, thai the trial bei'ore the Magistrate, would come on at 10 the same 
 day? One hour to begin, continue aid fii ish an investigation, that we ex- 
 pected would consume hours, if not a day! We chose 9, A. M. intention- 
 ally, that we might have time. We had been inlbrmed, that the suit before 
 the Magistrate, came on Wednesday, 30th; and we still believe, that this 
 was the^r«< appointment. The change as to the day, was eflected by 
 the accused themselves. Wc yielded patiently to the "insidious attempt" 
 they made to defeat the Church trial, and prepared citations for 4. P. M. 
 In the mean time we received the following letter: 
 
 "Rev. W. M. Kex-nedy. 
 
 "Sir, 
 
 "The undersigned have your notification to attend at the Par- 
 sonage, to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, to respond to a charge. You are per- 
 fectly aware, that we are business men, and that you could not have cho- 
 sen a more inconvenient hour; an hour, too, that is unprecedpnted in the 
 annals of the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, 
 and one at which we cannot possibly attep.d; in addition to which, the no- 
 tice is quite too short. From these several considerations, wc shall expect 
 that the time will be changed to an hour post meridian, at some I'uture day. 
 You will also understand, that we claim the right guaranteed to us by the 
 Discipline of trial before the Society. (See Dis. pp. 21 and 87. ed. 182S.) 
 An immediate reply is re(juested. 
 
 "^'ory respectfully." . 
 
 We just remark, that in going down to the City-Hall, betw ccn 9 and 10 
 o'clock, A. i\r. astonishing to fell, we saw these' "husiiicfis men. who could 
 lint poftaihly atleiid.'" a1 fho I^H-simagc. all tnieniployVd and \vai(ing lor the 
 
47 
 
 opening of the Court. On the demand tor a trial before the Society, we 
 Mill speak after a while. 
 
 It is said, that the Trustees made themselves defendants in the case. 
 Not so. The act of the prosecutors made the Trustees the defendants. 
 They have admitted, that the questioii before the Court was, as to the right 
 of property. It is plain, that the right did not vest in Mr. Lyng — he was 
 but the tenant. The fact is, it the case had been properly worded, it would 
 have been — the schismatics plaintiffs against the Trustees of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, to whom, aiid to their successors in office, the property 
 Mas demised in trust for the Church. When the case came up in Court, 
 the Miigistrate, after a little discussion, declared that he had no jurisdic- 
 tion over the question iiivolved. But as the prosecutors and their attor- 
 ney seemed to thi;ik ditlercntly, he postponed a tinal decision, until the 
 next day, in order that he might investigate the validity of his opinion. He 
 did so, and stated next moriiing that he had seen no reason to change his 
 vicM's, and so the case Mas dismissed. For tiieir failure here, the preachers 
 received censure and abuse in no small measure, as it' we had some century 
 ago, perhaps more or less, enacted the laM^ Mith a prophetic vieM, to their 
 pai'ticular discomfiture. VVher. the court adjourned on Tuesday, wc cited 
 them to trial at 4 o'clock P. M. the same day. 
 
 The Committee chosen by the preacher, consisted of the following indi- 
 viduals — eleveu in number. William Wightman, Sen. Thomas McMillan, 
 .Tohn DeBoM-, Sen. Thomas Surtis, James Burns, Thomas P Williams, 
 Frederick Bi.rroMs, Daniel Richbourg, Samuel B. Webber, Francis B. 
 Moore, Jacob C. Miller. 
 
 We here say, that Me selected the most impartial, inotrensive men that 
 Me could find. They m ere all sober, grave, considerate, exper'eixed men. 
 Tm o of them are comparative strangers, and never had any connection with 
 the difficulty. One of them known to be intimate Mi;h some of the accused. 
 ]\lr. DcBoM' has a son and other tamil\- relations M'ho belong to the party; 
 Mr. Miller has three sons on that side of the controversy. Were these in- 
 dividuals likely to be viiidictivc and cruel? Does a choice of such men 
 look hke packing a jury? True, some of them did not attend, but surely 
 this M'as not our fault. We chose them and tirged them to attend. None of 
 them, that we kucM', had ever made any decided expression of their opinion 
 on the controversy, — with one exception, and he M-as chosen to fill up the 
 Committee. Much to our regret, only seven of the number summoned, at- 
 tended, namely. — Wm. Wightman, John DeBow, Sen. James Purns, Fred- 
 erick BurroMs, Samuel B. Webber, Thomas Surtis, Thomas McMillan. 
 
 The portion of the Disciplir.e, page 87, referred to in the letter of the 
 accused to Mr. K. reads thus:* "Hom- shall an accused member be brought 
 to trial? Ans. Before the Society of Mhich he is a niembc^r, or a select 
 NUMBER OK TUEM." It is ucccssary to state for the information of those 
 unacquainted Mith our economy, that on our circuits Avhere the societies 
 are small, it is customary to bring an accused member before the wliole so- 
 
 * The Discipline as refered to by the accused, pages 20 and 21, reads, ''■The Gen- 
 eral Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our 
 Church, under the folloioing limitations and restrictions,^' see p. 20, ed. 1832, 
 after specifying several, it says, — "neither shall they do auiay the friviles^es of our 
 members of trial before the society, or by a select number ofthein," see page 
 21, ed. 1882. 
 
48 
 
 ciety, (evnii then there is no rule to require it,) but in our station?, where 
 the societies are generally larger, it is NEVER done. The manifest i«. 
 convenience of the thing is the reason. Moreover, if one nieinhcr had u 
 right to demand a trial before the whole society on any charge however 
 important, any other member might do it on any charge however trivial. 
 If indeed such a right were vested in the members of the Church, it would 
 be a difficult, if not aw impossible matter to try, suspend or expel any mem- 
 ber for any oH'encc. Sn|)pose the rule to say "the whole society," then if 
 the whole society were not present, (a thing altogether out of the question 
 in a place of this size.) the accused might demur in some cases with a con- 
 siderable show of justice, and thus elude at any time the penalties of the 
 Discipline. For if he were tried before a part only, it would be a com- 
 mittee at last, and so fall short of the rule. Suppose a societv to consist 
 of 200 members — a njember is charged — the society is called together — 
 only l.iO attend — on the division 90 are against, 60 for him — the accused 
 objects and pleads the rule. Would not the plea be a good one? The 
 preacher calls the Church together again — a larger or a smaller number 
 attend — the same difficulty is started — again ar.d again the same scene is 
 acted over, and at last the culprit, the reproach of the church, escapes. 
 
 The framers of the Discipline foreseeing these difficulties, (with many 
 others that might be mentioned — some of which will appear in the farther 
 explanation of this case) wisely clothed the Preacher in Charge with a 
 discretionary power. It would hardly be regard, d wise policy in the State 
 Legislature to enact that every murderer should be tried by the whole IState, 
 or everj by the whole district, touui or city in \\ hich he resided. No; he is 
 tried by a jury (a committee if you please) of his peers, and who objects 
 to the arrangement? True, he has the right to challenge his jurors, and so 
 may the accused in the Methodist Church, if he can show any sufficient 
 reason. The objections urged by the accused in the present case, were but 
 the petulent words of nic:) v. ho wen; co:iseious that the day ol' justice had 
 come and found them without an excuse. Laws are made tor the bad and 
 not for the good. No man that lives a Methodist — a Christian — ever has 
 any reason to complain of the strictness of the Discipline, or the power of 
 the preachers. None complain but those who by their sinful life or their 
 revolutionary movements, subjrct themselves to trial and expulsion. If there 
 ever was a case that exhibited most luminously the wisdom of our discipli- 
 nary policy, it is the one before us. 
 
 'riic gentlfimen tell us that they were perfectly willing the trial should 
 have taken place -'i;! the church, with open doors." Why were they will- 
 ing? Will the conmiuiiity believe that when these men were demanding a 
 trial before the society, one of them acttudly had a paper in his jochet sign- 
 ed by oxk iiundkk.d and eioiitkcn members who Imd solemnly boundthem- 
 seliics to supp.rt the accused, and thi.t they hud connnittn s travi-rsing the 
 city north, south, east ai.d west, to procure sig;,atun;s? This was packing 
 a jury with a witness. If they did not get a majority to sign the paper, it 
 was not their f tult. They showed a willing mind. 
 
 The prcachr did art as chairman; but in that capacity he was only the 
 agent of the Discipline — w hich itself defines the crime and the penalty. 
 Ho had no vote iii making up the decision of the committee, nor could he 
 kave any. The committee in this case, as always, was composed of an 
 odd number. It is the prerogative of the committee, according to the Dis- 
 
43 
 
 cipline, to aay guilty er n»t guilty; — if they say giJilty, the preachei'liiia no 
 alternative but to declare the penalty annexed to the crime by the rule, er 
 to refer the case to the Quarterly Conference. The accused, if dissath' 
 fied, ham the right of appeal. 
 
 In reference to the "portentous roll" we would make a remark. When 
 the demand for a trial before the society was refused, Mr. Honour drew 
 from his pocket several sheets of paper attached to each other by wafers, 
 and the signatures evidently so arranged as to make a delusive impression, 
 (for many of them were an inch apart) and flirting it out as a sort of alarm 
 FLA'*, declaring that near two hundred names were on it, gave us to under- 
 stand that if we expelled them, (the accused) all mIio had signed the paper 
 would withdraw. Mr. Pierce then observed in words not precisely re- 
 membered, but to this effect, that "the exhibition of that portentous roll 
 would not intimidate us, or frighten us from our conscientious judgment of 
 discipline and duty — that we would proceed with the trial if we did not 
 leave a dozen members in the church in Charleston." The plain meaning 
 of the manoeuvre was to deter us from farther proceedings. To overawe 
 us by bold unqualified assertions that the majority of the members approv- 
 ed their course and would share their fate, was the unvarying expedient of 
 these men. When their ingenuity in reasoning was exhausted, and incon. 
 trovertible arguments and facts were set in order before them, they supplied 
 the defect of the one, and leaped over the obstructions of the other, with 
 the triumphant exclamation, "we have the majority.'" as if mmibers sancti- 
 fied error and screened them from the censure of the Discipline. But 
 were the majority in their favor? Let the number of the seceders speak — 
 145 or 50 out of 650. It was, the gentlem(ui think, presumption in the 
 Preacher in Charge, to decide on the controversy contrary to the opinion of 
 "a large number of the members, supported by high authority," as we are 
 told they were. They are ignorant, perhaps, that the Preacher was sup* 
 ported by the highest authority. Independent of authority, the Preacher not 
 only has the advantage of as mature ajudgment, as belongs to any one of this 
 "large number of members," but of a long experience in the administra- 
 tion of Discipline. As the authors of the pamphlet seem hard put to it to 
 find an instance of presumptio-i, we will kindly supply their lack. The 
 caption of the "portentous roll," reads thus: 
 
 "We, the undersigned, believe that the brethren who have been cited to trial 
 for performing certain acts as Trustees of the Corporation of the Metliodist 
 Episcopal Church, have acted in perfect accordance imth the Discipline: 
 and they have our entire support. If, therefore, tli£se brethren are expelled 
 from the Church for these acts, you will consider us no longer members." 
 Appciided to this, were the names of men, women — boys and girls. Some 
 of these, we doubt not, know not what an Act of Incorporation is — neither 
 its origin, '\i» object, or tlie powers it confers. They know not how a 
 Board of Trustees in the Methodist Episcopal Church is created or perpe- 
 tuated. S )rae of th-m are old members it is true, and to these we accord 
 the respect that is due; but we do not surrender to them our right of inde- 
 pendent thinking. Some of the signers are of five years standing — othei's 
 of four, three, two — others of one, a!;d some have been on probation only 
 three or four months. And these assuming an arroga: t dictatorship over 
 the regular administrator of the Discipline — as if their opinions were 
 anthoritv and law, sav "wr bemevj;" thuS aitd 90, and if 3*dti dortt^ 
 
.30 
 
 art acrordinjr to i>\ir judgment, tee will quit the Church. Is uul this prc- 
 siiinptiou ("/yMO <li.ri(") i:i vory deed and truth? 
 
 After tlic |)aper and the signatures were prtsfcnU'd, the accused kit the 
 room. I)ut Were informed as they retired, that the trial would stdl proceed. 
 As aufiiorily lor this, sec an cxirart froii) the Discipline below.* Major 
 Lival tlicui called on all to bear him witness, and told us, (saying, "we 
 might receive it as a threat, for hv intended it as a threat;'') that if we 
 ''proceeded to try and expel them,'' we, niiglit expect "to appear in th«^ 
 newspapers and CouruHouses of the land." To this vaporous bravado wo 
 replied, "very well, sir — jjroceed — we are ready for trial." 
 
 The Committee tried the case, and six {^*not five'') signed a verdict of 
 guilty. The seventh said, there was no doubt tliat the accused had viola- 
 ted the Discipline; but he thought we ^'ought to bear with the hoi/s," and 
 so refused to sign the verdict. We beg leave to say, that "a diHercnce of 
 opinion" was not the ground of expulsion; but rejieated and palpable vio- 
 lations of the Discipline. They were wplcome to their oi)inions, if they 
 Mould have let the Discipline alone. 
 
 The Periodicals published under the direction of the General Conference, 
 are referred to in the pamphlet, and were presented by some one on the 
 day of trial. We would simply say, the Christian Advocate and Journal 
 i.s not the Discipline; nor are the membsirs of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, under any obligation to receive as orthodox, every opinion which 
 the editors may insert. ^i'hey are under authority as well as we. 
 They are responsible to the General Conference for all they publish. If 
 Dr. Bangs, in an editorial article, had denied the inspiration of the Holy 
 Scriptures, we prei^ume (he geiitlemen would not have foit themselves 
 bound to tur/i infidels. But, because he happened to say something that 
 fell in with their mode of thi.iki ig, he is sovereign, infallible aulJiwily. 
 (W^e intend no disrespect to Dr. B. i:i the above.) 
 
 But, notwithstanding the gentlemen called meetings and dechiimed upon 
 the corruption of the Trustees, and the injustice of the Preachers, and per- 
 Verted the plain meani.ig of the Discipline, to secure the support of the 
 members; and although Committees were appointed to go from house to 
 house to get all they could to pledge themselves, for tlieir vindication, yet 
 with this zeal in making prosilytes on their part, wo can show most clearly 
 that the result of a trial before the Society, would have be.en just the same 
 as before the Committee. To make the case more apparent, we will. say, 
 ♦he Society consists of G50 members, (though there arc a few rnore.) One 
 hundred and fil\v, we will say, (though not quite So. irjqny) as provtn by 
 the result, coincided with ihnin full;/ in opinion. Cwiseque; tly, "five hun- 
 dred against them. But, we will alhjw one hundred more "tcj agree at least 
 that they ought not to have been expelkd. The, result would still hcive 
 leen their condemnation — 400 against 2.j0. . Biii of courye ih? 118 Avho 
 had given their verdict already in writing, would not huve been outitlcd to 
 Vote — they would have been set-aside. f Besides signing.tho paper, acon- 
 
 ' "If the accused perhon evade a trial by absenting himnelf uftcr a sufficient 
 notice given him, and the circuinntatiees of the accusation he atron^ find pre- 
 sumptive, let him be esteemed as guilty, and be accordingly excluded. (See Dis. 
 p. 90. ed. 1832.) '- 
 
 t The gentlemen seem to have overlooked litis fact- Thfey knew not, that thev were 
 digging a pit for themselves, or if they did, tlicy intended to avoid it, by witholding the 
 
51 
 
 si(leral)lc munbcr of them were in the same couderanatioii — liable to the 
 same charge — and would have been expelled but for their secession. Sub. 
 tract tiie 118 from the 250, and the case would have stood 132 for them, 
 400 against them. Or, even on a more liberal and altogether unwarranted 
 calculatio;i — namely, allowing them 350 — ihen subtractiiig the 118, it 
 would leave 232 for them, and 300 against them; and so the result would 
 have been their cxi)ulsion. Will the public suffer thcniseivcs now to be 
 imposed upon by the declarations of these men about pariialify — "packed 
 juries," and "the mockery of justice?" We speak the words of "truth 
 and soberness," when we say, that we have done these individuals no 
 wrong. We have not b?en respecters of persons. We have meted out a 
 lardy justice. "Patience had her perfect work." Our difficulties had ar- 
 rived at this crisis, either the economy of the Church must have been 
 abandoned — the claims of the Discipline outraged with impunity — a com- 
 bination of disorganizers legalized, or these gentlemen expelled. We love 
 the Discipline. It has a place in our hearts. We have vowed to keep it, 
 and to enforce it. What then, as honest, conscientious men, could we 
 have done, but adopt the course we have pursued? We have acted deli- 
 berately, advisedly, and in the foar of God, and for the interests of the 
 Church. Our motives may bc^ impugned; but with us, it "is a very small 
 thing to be judged of man's judgment.'" "He \hdijndgeth tis is the Loi-d.''- 
 
 The complimentary epithets (with which the last p;!ge of the pamphlet 
 abounds) of arbitrary — -despot ie — aristocratic — Russian Autocrat — Cham 
 of Tartary — arc all duly appreciated. We have paid their lull value — an 
 utter ioflifference; and have consigned them to that undisturbed, repose. 
 which the gentlemen seem so ardently to desire for themselves, in that, 
 the}' ask once and again "to be let alone." 
 
 We will mention here, what seems to us a little extraordinary. 1st. The 
 property owned by the Jilethodist 'Episcopal Church, has bsen received 
 through individual benefactions and intermeut fees. Tov/ards her per- 
 manent funds, not one of these gentlemen have contributed a cent — ihev 
 had no right to them, or to their proceeds, except in virtue of their relation 
 to the ( 'hiirch as members. Mon^over a large portion of tlu property 
 was bequeathed to the Church as she is constituted by the Discipline, and 
 came of course legitimately under tlij control of the Trustees as appointe<l 
 under the Discipline. Indeed it was willed to the Trustees and their 
 successfirs in office, for the upo and benciit of the Church as she is and 
 not into the hands of those who claim the exercise of corporate powers; 
 lor the use of the Church as they would make her. But these men, not only 
 attempt to gx^t the control of the property owned by the Church indepen- 
 dently of them, and without any thanks to tht ir liberality; but they a't. niDt 
 itbylhc enactment of rules to suit themselves; by repealing all former 
 modes of management repugnant \o\\v' rules — in a word, by the abrogation 
 of the Discipline in every particular ihnx would conflict with the bove men- 
 tioned attempt. 2rid. The last Quarterly Conference "demonstrated" that 
 all power was in the hands of the- ministry of the M. E. Church; proved 
 that Me were despots. After a "demonstration" which left not a "shadow 
 rf a doubl" could they have neetfed more evidence? Could any thing be 
 
 paper. Doubtless we should not have heard it from tliciii, if ihoir request for a trial he- 
 fore the society had been granted. VVeliad. however, received intelligence of tlie meet- 
 ing arid its proceedings. 
 
52 
 
 ch-'iULi- than such a ••(Icuionsliatiuu?" Should \vc not h:ive been justilietl in 
 fhiiikiiig that these men so patriotic, and ciiivalrous, and republican, and 
 ]turo, Would have at once severed their connection with such a govern- 
 nient? Would tiiey not have feared to rouse the thunders of a throne so 
 tremendous in its power — so omnipotent m U.s wilP. Was it not exceeding. 
 Iv'adventurous to dare a ministry so puissant by their coiitumacious oppo- 
 sition .' Has oppression only felt intolerable since their expulsion? Or did 
 thev love despotism so well that nothing short of this last resort coK\\y\ force 
 thtin from its communion? We certaitdy could not have kept tluin in the 
 V\\\\xc\\,i>oiccrful as we are, if they had been disposed to withdra\\. Why 
 then did they not leave? The distant hope of ejecting the Trustees from 
 office and getting into their place, gilded their chains with its brightness, 
 and thev forgot the heaviness of their bondage in the splendor of their pros- 
 pects. The idea of being Trustees uiider the authority of an independent 
 constitution, dazzled their fancy, and the glory of that day, when the Disci- 
 pline should be immolated and tin; triumphant corporators Jo as they ftleas- 
 cd, inspired them with fortitude for what (we suppose they thought) the 
 //r/e/" endurance of their monstrous wrongs It was not until they were foil- 
 ed at law — cut off from the possibility of success, and expelled the Church, 
 that this hideous despotism looked so menacingly upon their ^'inalienable 
 rights.^^ Tyranny could be endured while the Genius of the Corporation 
 whispered soothingly o{ future freedom — while there was a chance for 
 power, and hope bid these oppressed and trampled subjects "be of good cour- 
 age," all W'as tolerable, but these gone, they bid '^a final farewell to the 
 Church" that is, being interpreted, what the ^^demmistration" and the love of 
 liberty failed to do, their expulsion has done. 
 
 Once more. We are told that the coiiduct of the "Preachers and official 
 members in going from house to house, to induce those who have seceded to re- 
 turn, merits the severest reprehension." Our oidy difficulty here is, we the 
 preachers; (we cannot say as to the official members,) have done no such 
 tiling; hut whether we art; not the more guilty on that account is a ((uestion 
 Ave feel very much incliaed to decide in the affirmative. We ought to have 
 sought the wandering diligi-ntly, especially those who were persuaded to 
 secede. We hope the geiitlcmen will excuse us for ditiering with them in 
 opinion, for we must say we think it would have been very "becoming" in 
 lis to have left the ninety and nine who were safe in the fold and to have 
 go.ie forth even from "house to house" to seek the lost ones — who we verily 
 believe were enticed away. 
 
 '-Hare not the preachers declared that the Almighty had come into the 
 Church and winnowed the chaff from the wheat]" We answer, no. It is 
 reported that one of th<; preachers made this offensive remark hi a society 
 ineetiiig. He upon whom it is charged utterly denies it. He has no re- 
 colloctlo!! of having made it himself, and on inquiry of many who were pre- 
 8e.;t, who u .hesitatingly say, they heard no such observation, he is confirm- 
 ed i I the bi luf that he did not. Besides it is very improbable, from the 
 fact, that he rose to speak with the determination not to say any thing that 
 could offend — that he did not believe the seceders to be chalT, for many 
 valuable members are amoiig them, and that he did exhort the members to 
 mourn rather than rejoice in the departure of thpsc who but a few days be- 
 fon;, were brethren in the same Church with our selves. He M'ould hard- 
 i ^ M.fV'-' Vvffn c'' hirotisistent its ti) exhort the people t* meurn the separation 
 
 ^ -^ 
 
53 
 
 of the chaff from the wheat. If however the gentlemen are anxious for llie 
 appellation, we certainly have no right to object. 
 
 The request "to he let alone" comes with a very bad grace from men, one 
 of whom writes to one ol' our own people a letter so abusive of us as the fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 "To Mrs. Church, 
 "Madam, 
 
 "I was informed on last evening, (hat you have on several occasions 
 lately, spoken evil things of me. I know your zeal in defence of the corrupt 
 ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church in this place, and their road- 
 jutors, but am unwilling to believe that you would knowingly injure the 
 character of any one without a cause. I have not heard the particulars of 
 what you said, when I do, I shall proceed strictly according to the require- 
 ment of the case. It is hard to support a bad cause. You are on the side 
 of one that is tottering through rottenness at its root — it must fall — the God 
 of truth is against it, and who can resist his arm? I am unwilling to bring 
 the per.alties of the law upon vou, but if I am urged to it. the blame is on 
 your own head. ' W. LAVAL." 
 
 A Major, thus insulting a woman — a itidowf Oh! CHIVALRY! But 
 suppose the lady addressed, did say evil things of him — why abuse the 
 preachers? Why drag us into the condemnation? She did not speak by 
 our direction! Corrupt as we are, such infective is wholly gratuitous, and 
 out lof place. But how consistent, to rebuke evil speaking by evil speak- 
 ing; to condemn sin by sinning. Reproof comes pointless from one who 
 "condemns the wrong and yet the wrong pursues." "Consistency is a jewel." 
 
 A fact somewhat remarkable, and indicative too, of the spirit and disposi- 
 tion of the men, is, that the preachers have oeen abused for actions they 
 never performed; condemned for words they lever uttered; had motives 
 imputed to them, which under the circumstances, it was impossible for them 
 to feel; have been charged with the faults of ohers however venial, as if 
 they had been our own, and crimes of the greatest magnitude; have been 
 held responsible for all their impressions though but the offspring of a suspi- 
 cious temper, or the mere creatures of a morbid inagination; have been de- 
 nounced as presumptuous, and arbitrary for having explained the law, and en- 
 treated the transgressors "to cease to do evil;" have been held up as captives 
 to the lust of power, because we loved the economy of the Church more than 
 the by-laws adopted by the corporators, and have been declared tyrants^ 
 despots, because by the enforcement of Discipline, \\>, put down a turbulent 
 faction which arrogated to itself the title of "<^ Church," and required an 
 implicit submission to all its measures, the Discipline to the contrary notwith- 
 standing. 
 
 The gentlemen are very much disposed to class thimselves with the se- 
 ceders, and the declarations they make as to the reisons of their "final 
 farewell," would, if true, justify the conclusion that <Acy had vnthdravm be- 
 cause their "inalienable rights" were jeopardized by the aristocratic minis- 
 try of the M. E. Church. We wish to disabuse the public mind of any 
 such idea. The gentlemen who have signed the pamphlet "in behalf of 
 the (seceders not) members," were expelled on a charge of "disobedience 
 to the order and discipline of the Church." It was not the power of the 
 ministry which drove them away. Their forfeiture of membership was 
 
54 
 
 the penalty of tlicir ollciicci"-. They did uot leave vohiiitarily. Tht y eluiiji 
 to this '■'dcs'potir'^ govenimeiit until its ollicors, in obi'dience to its hnvs, 
 pronouiiff'd llie sentence of their exrommunicalion. They wouhl have sa- 
 crificed their "inahenable ri:/;hts," it' reniaininy niembers cuukl luive dojie 
 it, it' vr wouki liavc j)ermitted them. Their abomination of the despotic 
 govenuneiit is tlie efikct of their expulsion, and not the cause of anv 
 thing — unless if be the confusion of (heir ideas. Look at their hiconsis- 
 lency. Iii one sentence they would have their readers to believe (hat the 
 power cont'erred \i\Hn\ the preachers by the Discipline was the reason of 
 their dissatisfaction — but we fnid again ihat the real reasoa Avas (jnite a 
 ditl'creiit thing. Pray what is the burden of coni|)laint.' Why, that they 
 Jiave been expelled. And is this a calamity? Is a despotism a blessing and 
 freedom a curse? If the ministry oftlie M. E. Cliurch are so tyrannical, we 
 certainly have conferred a favour iu putting the gentli.meu beyond the 
 reach of their oppression. If the Discipline is so intolerable, why should 
 the authors of the pamphlet lament so Iqudly — complain so bitterly, now 
 that they are released from the obbgafion to obey it? Are we to be reck- 
 oned their enemies because we hare smitten oti' their fetters, and sent them 
 forth to rejoice in their freedom? But the "Discipline gives the power" to 
 the preachers, say the schismatics. Why not rail against the Discipline 
 then, instead of denouuciiig us? Men who have shown so much love for 
 power as to usurp it, should not abu.'^e those who come J airly and honest- 
 ly by it, according to their own admission. But what is the proof of the 
 assertion, that the ministry hate so much ^^power?" Of course the preach- 
 ers choosiiig a committee, and the expulsion of the gentlemen. In their 
 letter to Mr. K. they said th<? Discipline guaranteed them th>: right of trial 
 by the society. Now they frhange their ground and say, the ^*despotic 
 power given to the ministry fy the Discipline" forever bars their reunion to 
 the church. The onl) proof they can show of any such power, is the 
 preacher's right to choose !he committee — the ver}' proposition they but a 
 little while ago stoutly and sternly denied. 
 
 The gentlemen say thf^N *'7iever can again consent to become members" 
 and assign as a reason tieir '■^present knowledge of the power given to the 
 ministry by the Discipline." And is a love of liberty the reason — the only 
 reason? No. "After subh forms of trial and expulsion, such persons shall 
 have no privileges of sofciety or of sacraments in our church, without cox- 
 TRiTioN, CONFESSION, ft/id PROPER TRIAL." (See Dis. p. 91.) The persons 
 expelled, and who wotU make the world believe that their knowledge of 
 our power j)revents tli(iir return to the church, cannot return (power or no 
 power) but on the colditions above. 
 
 But the discovery of the fearful truth that the ministry have all the pow- 
 er, has been as sudden as it is extraordinary. Have they been groaning 
 under oppression during the whole period of their membership? Were their 
 "inalienable rights'' sacrificed — burnt up upon their admission into the 
 church, and just n^w had a resurrection from their ashes? These indivi- 
 duals have been members of the church for years — the Discipline has been 
 the theme of tlxif panegyric, and the preachers the objec;-. of their af- 
 fection — the whol/i Methodist economy has been landed by fhem as the 
 j)aragon of ehurca svstems — indeed through the whole of this difficulty 
 they have reiterated llicir avowals <jf attachment — to be called Reformers 
 was an insult: but lo! almost in the twinkling of an eye. the Discipline as 
 
the code, and the preachers as oflicers iiiidcr if, have slarted up into an w//rfl. 
 despotism! — the absolute monarchies of Europe can hardly aftord a parallel. 
 Were the gentlemen insiiicere in their professions? If not, what has produced 
 this mighty change/ The system is the same — the power of the ministry 
 has not been augmenfod. What new light have they received? Absolute' 
 Jy none at all. Th>' whole of this ado about despotism — arbitrary power — 
 is a mere sham employed iov popular effect. It is worthy of remark here, 
 that wc have never known a member of the M. E. Church who walked 
 with his God and lived above censure, that found fault with the economy 
 of the church. The complaints always grow out of personal errors* 
 which expose the offender to pu!iishment, and not out of our ecclesiastical 
 policy. The Discipline is a "praise to them that do well, and a terror (an 
 oticnce only) to evil-doers." 
 
 But why have nearly 150 members withdrawn from the church? "In 
 consequence of the arbitrary and despotic proceedings" of the ministry, 
 say the gentlemen. They (the secedcrs) have "heard and read'' many a 
 time of the power of the minis! r}-. "but were slow to believe it, until they 
 were made to feel thai poirer to its full extent.'' Tuey maue to feel it? 
 Pray tell us wherci.i? Did we charge the?n, or try them, or expel them/ 
 What power have we exercised in their case? Was it "arbitrary and des- 
 potic" to accept their resignations? But ihey have felt our power "to its 
 FULL EXTENT." Really, we can't see Itow or tell when. Their secession 
 was voluntary, as fir as we are conceriied. We have very good reason to 
 believe, though we woidd not assert it positively, that many of the seccders 
 signed the "portentous roll" under the conviction that when the preachers 
 saw the lo.ig list of namts, they would be so IVighiened at the prospect of 
 losing so many members, as to withdraw the charges and stop the prosecu- 
 tion. The}' declared (and it is co.tfirmatior. wethi, k of the above) "if the 
 brethren cited to trial were CTpelled," they would resig'.u The effect antici- 
 pated by the accused and the signers, was not produced by the exhibition 
 of the paper. The experiment failed — it was too late to retract — aiid those 
 who signed the paper had to bide the coi-scquences. 
 
 The reasons assigned for not impcachi ig Dr. Capers, ara as extraordi- 
 nary as they are unsatisfactory. The first roason is — lui was to be trans- 
 ferred to tho Georgia Co iference, and the exposition of his aristocratic 
 government of the Church here, might m;iteri<illy itff ct his usefulness 
 there. We ask an e' lightened community if this is a, satisfactory i\;ason. 
 Is it a reason at all? Dr. C. was anie lable to the South-Carolina Con- 
 fercnce until its clos: — yea, until his appointment in Georgia was amioun- 
 ced by the Presidiiig Bishop. Did his co;iirniplated traisfer obliterate the 
 acts, which were the ostensible reasons for his impeachment? Did a state- 
 ment in the newspapers, that he was to hQ stationed in Savannah, alter, or 
 modify, or exteimate his otieuces? But these would-be accusers did not 
 wish to affect his usefulness in Georgia. Now, either this kind forbear- 
 ance was determined on, according to ths:;ir showing, from a regard to Dr. 
 C, or from an attachment to the interests of the Church. In either case 
 the reason is puerile, inconsistent and absurd. If it was from a regard to 
 
 * Trne, the intimate ronipanions and acquaintances of those arraigned and expelled 
 may join in the hue and cry against tlic Discipline and the ministry, as in the present 
 case — but it is because they love their friends more than their church. 
 
56 
 
 Dr. C then it would seem to us, that his reputation iti Soutli-Carolina, is 
 a.s dear to him as his nputalion in Georgia. No doubt he prizes both 
 ahke. His good name, iis a Minister, is as important to liim in Charleston, 
 as in Savaiurah. Notwithstanthng, if he had remained, no mcrcv would 
 have been felt or shown. Is this consistent? 
 
 But suppose the latter to have been the reason — then we would apply 
 the same argument and inquire — if the interests of religion are not as im- 
 portant in South. Carolina as in Georgia. Does Dr. Capers value his vst- 
 fulnx'ss there, and feel inditVcrent about it hcrel Do they (his accusers) 
 love the Church in Savannah, and despise the Church in Charleston? Is 
 this consistent? Will the public receive a reason involving in it such ab- 
 surdities as '■^satisfactory " We trow not. If Dr. C. was guilty in any 
 respect of a violation of the Discipline, consistency and duly both would 
 have said, charge him before the body to which he is responsible for his 
 administration. But no — he was going to Georgia. Alas! for a had 
 cause. 
 
 Secondly — the reason for arraigning "his conduct before the public now" 
 is wholly gratuitous and unfounded. We state most positively and unequi- 
 vocally, that Dr. C. has given no advice, nor has he been consulted on any 
 step we have taken. It is true he has been informed of the progress and 
 final result of the difficulties here, and that he approves the course we have 
 adopted. But is approbation of an act after its commission advice how to 
 perform that act? is sanction afterwards — recommendation beforehand! — 
 We presume that Dr. C. has not informed the gentlemen what station he 
 expects to fdl next ye^r, nor do we believe them to be discerners of spirits. 
 The first paragraph in the appendix is decisive proof that the store of rea- 
 sons was and is bankrupt. AV^e rept;at. Dr. Capers had nothing to do with 
 our proceedings, and we challenge the authors of the Pamphlet to prove the 
 contrary? 
 
 In reference to the case of the Local Preacher, it is said that he was 
 notified to attend at Sumnierville on Thursday, Aug. 7th, to answer to a 
 charge preferred against him. (It is sincerely hoped that he did not au- 
 thorise this statement, for he knew better.) What the amount of the note 
 sent him was, is not now recollected — he was afterwards however, the 
 same day, in conversation distinctly told, that there was not any positive 
 APPOINTMENT. The facts here are as follows. The charge was handed 
 to Mr. Poyas (the accused) on Monday the 28th Jul}^ On the 31st, Mr. 
 Martin and Mr. Pierce went to see Dr. Jones, (who was to be one of the 
 committee) in order to make arrangements for the trial. Dr. Jones was 
 requested to see Mr. Ste|)hen Williams and Mr. West Williams as early as 
 he could, to know whether they would serve on the committee, and if they 
 would, he was authorised to make the appointment at any place most con- 
 venient to themselves, and not too far for us to go up and come down the 
 same day — at SummerxnUe if he coidd. Dr. Jones was to communicate to 
 us in three or four days the result. He was however prevented from visit- 
 ing the brethren according to promise, by the heavy rains which fell ;<bout 
 the first week in last month. Mr. Martin went up again on Wednesday, 
 the 6th inst. to see Dr. Jones, and to learn what arrangement he had made. 
 The Dr. informed him of his failure, and the reason of it, as stated above. 
 On Wednesday night Mr. Poyas was informed of the disappoinment as to 
 •the dav. On Monday. 11th. we received a letter from Dr. Jones, stating 
 
57 
 
 that he luid seen the brethren, and tlie appointment was niatle at Mr. Ina- 
 binet's, (not to or in or at Cypress Swamp, but hcyond it,) on Wednesday, 
 the 13th. We wish it to be distinctly marked, that not one ov 
 
 TIIE PkEACIIERS had ANT TIIINU TO DO WITH THE I'ARTICULAR DAY OR 
 
 I'LACE OF APi'OiNTJiENT. Thus it wiU be Seen that Mr. Poyas had seven- 
 teen days tor prcj)aration, and received information in due time of every 
 arrangement. 
 
 The reasons assigned by the accused for his non-atte!idance, in a com- 
 munication to the Committee, were — first — "My accusers have no riglit 
 to carry me out of my own society, or the pUice where the olience is said 
 to have been committed." When asked, after the trial, by one of the 
 preachers, where he found this reason, lie repHed in evident confusion, "that 
 it was customary, in Courts of Law, to try the culprit where the oflcnce 
 was said to be conmiitted — and that he had not read the Discipline on the 
 subject until afterwards." Thus acknowledging his first reason to be worth, 
 less. We presume his friends will not differ from him in judgment. Se. 
 cond. "The investigation can not be gone through in time for my retm'u to 
 the city the same day; consequently, it would be extremely hazardous to 
 comply." Third. "As my Mitncsses will not venture so far into the coun- 
 try, I am cut ofl' from fair investigation." The hazard of the trip then is 
 the reason. This is strange. Were not the Preachers involved in the 
 same difficulty? Did they not run the same risk? Did they lay a burden 
 upon him and his witnesses, and refuse to touch it? Did they not take a 
 full share? Self-love must have blinded the objectors. Do they not tell 
 us their consciences are clear. Do they not appeal to the Searcher of 
 hearts for the rectitude of their intentions? Why then be afraid? Con- 
 science makes men cowards sometimes. When a bad cause is about to 
 come to an issue, prudence or policy, or both, lift their warning notes 
 upon its advocates, and cry '^retreat." Again. We are told it was with 
 ''dijictdty" he prevailed upon his witnesses to consent to go with him even 
 to Summervillc. Why Avere they so reluctant — so hard to be persuaded? 
 Were they afraid? Of what? Sickness? No. Almost every day some 
 persons from the citj'^ go up there, and some even venture to stay all night. 
 What, then, was the reason? We shall see in the sequel. The indivi- 
 duals expelled not (on a ^^similar charge," as they say) but the same have 
 endeavoured to impress the public mind with the idea, botli before and in 
 their publication, that if they could have obtained a fair trial, the result 
 would have been their unqualified acquittal. This, as we have shown be- 
 fore, is but a. pretext — but it answers a purpose. It serves as a nail to hang 
 complaints upon. It was very important, then, that this pretext should not 
 be destroyed. If Mr. Poyas should have attended with his witnesses, and 
 it should have so happened, that he was found guilty, why, thought the 
 complainants, the community will say, "did not the local Preacher have a 
 fair trial on the same charge?" What, then, will become of our pretext? 
 It will never do for the accused to go — and so they told him. Do we say 
 thus without authority. No, indeed! Mr. Poyas told the Preachers he 
 was "advised" or ^^persuaded," by those he esteemed good friends, "not to 
 go." But this is not all. The accused was requested, if his witnesses 
 would not go with him, to bring them to the Parsonage, and every particle 
 of testimony should be taken down, and laithfiilly delivered to the Conmiif- 
 tec. The appointment was made to meet at the Parsonage, at 4 o'clock . 
 8 
 
58 
 
 V. M. Tuesday, the 4tb. Mr. Poyas came alone. ^^ hen asked, why his 
 ■\Mtiiesscs did not come, he replied, they did not like to come to the Parson- 
 age. A most pottnt reason surely. Was it hazardous.' ^^ as it risking 
 their lives unnecessarily] Once more. He was then retjuested to get his 
 witnesses to write down all the testimony they thought important, and to 
 bring it to us, or send it to us, and it should be laid before the Committee. 
 It w;is not done. We now ask, what more we could have done? Was 
 there any shufTling on our side? Let the community judge now, who evaded 
 (>■ fair investigation. It is stated, moreover, that the Preacher met the 
 Committee, and acted as Chairman; and on his c\ \r,\r{v statement a verdict 
 of guilty was rendered. The Chairman did not state th(; case. Mr. Pierce 
 explained the charges, and stated in the strongest terms, the grounds on 
 which the accused attempted his justilication. Mr. Poyas had as fair a 
 trial as he and his coadjutors \Mjuld allow? We now recapitulate, for we 
 wish to be understood. There never was any positive appointment at 
 Summerville, consequently no change; the Preachers had nothing to do 
 with the time or place of appointment. Mr. Poyas was exhorted to take 
 his witnesses with him — when they refused to go, — he was asked to bring 
 them to the Parsonage, and have their evidence taken down, when they re- 
 fused to come, — he was told to get them to write it down any where, and 
 send it to us. Mr. Poyas had 17 days for preparation and timely notice of 
 every arrangement; and, we now add, told the Preachers he really believed 
 we wished him to have a fair trial. 
 
 As an expiring effort, the opening of a letter, a sealed letter too, (by the 
 by it was a mere note) is introduced, in order to cast odium upon the Prea- 
 chers on this station. The letter (if it must be called so) was addressed 
 to Dr. Jones, who, it was supposed, would be one of the Committee, and 
 was enclosed in the communication containing the reasons of the accused 
 for not attending. What was the fair inference? Surely, that it was the 
 property of the Committee; or, at the very least, the conjecture was a pro- 
 bably one, that it might contain information which the author wished to be 
 given to the Committee. The contents of the note afi'ord proof enough, 
 that it was for the Committee. The substance of it was a request, that 
 Dr. Jones* would use his influence to get the accused a fair trial. With 
 whom, pray, was he to use his influence, but with the Committee? Mr. 
 Poyas, unasked, told one of the Preachers, after the trial, the contents of 
 the note; and but for the PreacJier^s honesty, he would never have known 
 that it had been opened. There has been no attempt at concealment in any 
 case, for we feel no guilt. "Darkness" is a fit covering for "ei"?7 deeds 
 alone. We may not be so astute in cases of casuistry, nor so skilled in 
 points of etiquette as our accusers; but we have too much sense to make 
 our enemies our father confessors. 
 
 Mr Poyas has acted an exceedingly unworthy part, in the use which he 
 has not only permitted, but doubtless authorized his friends, to make of this 
 circumstance. When informed by Mr. Pierce, of the fact — he expressed 
 no dissatisfaction — no surprise. He knew the character axiAform of the 
 letter (as it is called) and if he thought we had acted amiss, he lacked the 
 courage characteristic of a noble and generous spirit to tell m* so, but- 
 
 ♦ Dr. Jeaea was prevented from attendiog the trial fcy his jprefefsieiial eBgagCmeMfs. 
 Hi*" ptece wis supplied by Mr. BradwelK 
 
retailed it to those, who it seems are willi ig to magnify audi pervert auy 
 thing which can be used to our iujury, — has escaped from the responsi- 
 biUty of charging us with blame, by throwing the burden of it upon his 
 bolder partners, who we charitably believe are ignorant of the real facts in 
 the case. 
 
 Mr. Poyas has returned evil for good — injustice for mere)'. He knows 
 very well, what co.icessioas ho made to the preachers in aconver-ation with 
 them before his trial. We disdained to use them against him, and told 
 him so, b!)th before and after. We will even now save him from the mdig- 
 nation of his party, by withholding wh.it he said. We leave him to the re- 
 flections which his conscience may awaken within him; and submit the 
 case without a fear {^'■incredible as it may seem") to the judgment of our rea- 
 ders. 
 
 To conclude the whole matter, we say, that the course of the schismatics 
 from beginning to end, was irregular, self-willed and precipitate. The 
 peace of the Church was sacrificed by them, in their attcinpt to stride over 
 law, and order, and usage, to the absolute control of the Church prop( rtv. 
 They pretended that the sole object of their manoeuvering was simply to 
 fix the responsibility of the Trustees. To do this, a party, a fuere minority 
 of the Church, assumed conventional power, and proceeded to alter the Dis- 
 cipline which declares the Trustees responsible to the Quarterly Confe- 
 rence, and to adopt by-laws (they call them) making the Trustees responsi- 
 ble to themselves. But the constitution they formed, and under which they 
 claim authority for all thyir subsequent acts, not only empowered them to 
 displace the Trustees and to elect others; but to elect every officer of the 
 Church. If there was no sinister design in this, why insert it? It could 
 imt have been an oversight. Why did they ordain that their constitution 
 should bii supreme, a.:id the Discipline subordinatel Did they not adopt the 
 Discipli:ie as the rule, the only rule, when they joined the Church? Could 
 they refuse to be governed by it, without laying themselves liable to expul- 
 sion? The whole contrivance — the meeting — the constitution — all have a 
 suspicious asp*'ct, indeed the object is plain. "A way-faring man, though a 
 fool" can understand it. Each successive movement has made it plainer 
 and plainer still. Poioer, supremacy, was the object. 
 
 Aiul how do they attempt to justify thsir factious organization? What 
 apology can they m ike for wounding their Saviour in the house of his 
 friends — for desolating the peace of th(' Society — for exposing the Church 
 t'» the saeer of the ungodly, and the scorn of the infidel? Why the 
 "Trustees would not show their books;" they were refractory. For ar- 
 gument sake, admit it to be true — and is this a suflicient justification — 
 is it an excuse for their ruinous course? Is oae evil to be sanctified by 
 another? Is wrong to be neutralized by wroiig — obstinacy by rebel- 
 lion? The Discipline prescribed a remedy for the diiriculty, but this 
 did not suit their purpose. It was too regular and common. place, and 
 to have api)lied it. might have l:;ftthe gentlemen out of power. This would 
 have b3c:i the ruin of plan, aud hope, and prospect. The government of the 
 Clmrch must bo remodeled — the Trustees pj/Z out of ojfice and the schismat- 
 icf. put in. "All former modes of managmn nit" must be repealed tlmt would 
 hiiider such an arra::g(>ment. Nothi ig short of this coul.l be satisfactory. 
 In view of all their revoiu'.ionary measures, the Church suffered patient- 
 ly — exercised an almost guilty forh(>arancc — adopted every possible rxpo- 
 
60 
 
 diffjit j'liorf wltlie surrender of licr authority — warned, entreated, advised, 
 but all to no cflcct. '■'■Becousc seutenre against their rr?7 irorhs iras 7wt exe- 
 cuted speedily, there fare their hearts were fuUy srt iti them to do evil.'' Ev- 
 ery attempt ;it conciliation \v;is regarded as flowing from a sense of weak- 
 ness. Forbearance was construed into an acknowledgment of their claims. 
 Meetings unholy in their tendency were kept up — the faction strengthened 
 — the Church rent and torn with strit'e — the ordinances of God's house 
 neglected — various attempts made lo intimidate the preachers iiUo submis- 
 sion to their views, by gloMing preilictions of the ruin of the Churrh if they 
 did not succeed — the claims of the Discipline set at nought — advice spumed; 
 entreaty mocked, and various other evidences of a reckless determination to 
 be Rabbis at all hazard-^, indicated most clearly the real object of their ever 
 to be regretted combination. Finally, they declare that nothing would 
 satisfy them, but the (Mitire recognition of their constitution and by-laws; 
 they were independent — they intended to be the legislature of the Church; 
 they were Hhe Chtireh'^ absolute and infallible. Nobody understood the act 
 of incorporation but themselves. The Disci|)line was a sealed book to all 
 others. Th(;y only were wise, and good, and worthy to be entrusted M'ith 
 power. All rise were fools, and base. Gentleness and favor could not 
 learn them righteousness. The interposition of an authoritative decision, 
 was but a cobweb in their onward march. The Church could bear no lon- 
 ger. She was compelled to vindicate her Discipline, by their expulsion. — 
 She would have been recreant to herself if she had surrendered her authori- 
 ty. Her interests demanded decisive measures. The time for prompt and 
 energetic action had come. The result has demonstrated, that she acted 
 wisely in the application of the painful, but necessary remedy. Harmony 
 is restored. Order reigns and wo trust "the set time to favor Zion is at 
 hand." 
 
 Our economy as a church is no secret. It is before the world. "He 
 that runs may read." We deceive no man. It is required of all who en- 
 ter on probation among us, that they rend the Discipline previous to their 
 admission into the fellowship of the (.'hurch. The requisitions and sanc- 
 tions of it are explicit. The schismatics trampled upon the one, and defied 
 the other. As to our administration, we feel that we are sustained, by the 
 facts and necessity of the case. We stand upon the high ground of duty 
 and truth. We fear no scrutiny. Our proceedings have been impartial, 
 fearless, and just. We have not been partisans, nor have we acted hastily. 
 If we have been oppressors — there is a tribunal to which we a7*e amenable. 
 Like Job of old, we ask nothing more than to be ^'weighed in an even ba- 
 lance." WM. M. KENNEDY, P. C. 
 
 WM. MARTIN. 
 
 GEORGE F. PIERCE. 
 CJiarleston, September, 1834. 
 
 J\ofc. — We have been informed that if we replied to the pamphlet of the Schismat- 
 ics and dared to contradict, any of their statenients — the whole would be established by 
 oaths. We have written in view of their being unable to make any other reply. — 
 We have a specimen of their affidavits before us. V\'c know what, and why wc have 
 written, and fear no consequences. 
 
61 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The scliismastics have so commingled their accusations against the 
 Preachers and Trustees, that the vindication of one, necessarily involves 
 the vindication of the other. We feel it unimportant, conscquentl)', to say 
 much in self defence. We appeal from the perverted statements of our 
 accusers, to the facts as they have been stated and explained in the pre. 
 ceding pages. One or two brief remarks will suffice for us. 
 
 The Trustees affirm, most positively, that they never did refuse to abide 
 by the decision of the Bishops upon the questions submitted to them. In 
 our letter to Bishop Emory, (which has been made an apology for renewed 
 action on the part of the Corporation party) there is not a sentence or word 
 which authorizes the idea, that we were disposed to rebel against the au- 
 thorities of the Church. We had no opportunity while the Bishop was in 
 the city, to express an opinion concerning the plan set forth in the paper 
 read by him to the Church, as the basis of an adjustment of the then exist- 
 ing difficuhies. We would have considered it a favour to have given our 
 views before he left, but wa could not, as the paper was read on Sabbath, 
 and he let\ on Monday morning. Accordingly, we wrote to him, and said, 
 that we could not approve the plan as stated in the paper. We did not 
 say, nor did the Bishop so understand us, that we would not abide the de- 
 cision. The Bishop's letter to Mr. K. is conclusive proof on this point. 
 He quotes our words, "disapproval of the plan," and then adds, "if the breth- 
 ren do not agree to abide by the measures stated in the paper. ^^ It seems to 
 us, there is a broad and clear diflerence between the disapproval of the 
 paper, and a refusal to abide the decision. Even if we did not approve the 
 decision, it does not follow that we must disobey it. The truth is. we should 
 have been compelled to abide by it, or have withdrawn from the Church. 
 This the gentlenicn know, and yet circulate the absurd statement, that wc 
 refused to abide by it. Such a refusal would have been the signal for 
 our expulsion. 
 
 Tlie letter of the Treasurer of the Board, is so quoted by the authorsTof 
 tiio pamphlet, as to convey the idea, that he and the Trustees had no proper 
 regard to the order and decencies of society, in that they paid no attention 
 to ''the accommodation of gentlemen tvho occasionally visited the Chiirch.''\ — 
 The declaration is unfounded — unauthorized by the facts in the case — and 
 
62 
 
 unsustained by tho letter which they have so grossly perverted. It " h:is 
 been throughout the uniform pohcy of the gentlemen, to put the -worse 
 possible construction upon every thing which could be converted into a 
 party instrument. To show the fallacy of the charge, they bring against 
 us on this subject, we would refer to the journal of the Quarterly Confer- 
 ence of the "JSJ of October, 1829, when, at the suggestion of the Trustees, a 
 list of the leaders was made out, and a Committee appointed to prevent 
 the intrusions complained of, — it was proposed that this arrangement be 
 continued from time to time, the appointments being made each quarter 
 until all the leaders had served, ('riie most of the Trustees arc leaders.) 
 The majorily of those chosen belonged to the Corjwration party, so called. 
 Why did they not do their duty? Why roll the burden of their sins upon 
 us? Is this Justice? 
 
 It is boldly reported, and confidently believed by some, that the Trus- 
 tees have refused to show their books? At the third Quarterly Conference 
 of the past year, wc brought the Journal pf the acts of the Board, and pre- 
 sented it to the Conference. When asked for what purpose it had been 
 brought, we replied, to give mformation to the members, particularly con- 
 cerning the expenditures in erecting a Parsonage. Mr. Honour, the Se- 
 cretary, was requested to read it. He did so. And now these men come 
 forward and say, the Trustees would not show their books. Why did not 
 these gentlemen incorporate this gross offence — this glaring sin, (as they 
 profess to regard it) in the charges preferred against us? The reason is 
 obvious. The motion which was made for the appointment of a Commit- 
 tee to examine our books, and which was objected to by one of us, and the 
 objection sustained by the President, is exhibited as evidence, that we were 
 conscious of our corruption, and dreaded investigation. The President 
 said that, according to Discipline, the fourth Quarterly Conference would 
 be the proper period for such a motion. The Trustees objected mainly be- 
 cause they had been informed by a friend, upon whom they could rely, 
 previously to the sitting of the Conference, that such a motion was to be 
 made, and that the intention of it was, to get and keep possession of the 
 books. This corresponded so exactly with what we knew to be the wish 
 of the Trustees of the Corporation, (as they style themselves) from the 
 fact that they had once already authoritatively demanded the surrender of 
 the books, that we believed it. We still think that the motion was n party 
 artifice to accomplish party purposes. 
 
 In the financial department of our Church, there are two classes of offi- 
 cers — the Stewards and the Trustees. The first receive all the public — 
 class, and sacramental contributions — the two former are applied to the 
 support of the ministry — the latter exclusively to thi; poor. The Trustees 
 hold the real estate in trust, tor the Church — keep the houses of worship 
 with their premises, and the Parsonage in nipair — receive the rent and in- 
 terment fees. The Stewards and the Trustees are entirely distinct; to each 
 specific duties are assigned. We make these remarks, because the impres- 
 sion has gone abroad, that the Trustees hold the propt^rty, and receive, and 
 disburse at pleasure all the funds of the Church. We know our duty and 
 we have tried to perform it. That we have failed to satisfy those who 
 were determined not to be; satisfied, and who wished to fdl our places, with 
 €tdarged powers derived from their independent constitution — we do not con- 
 sider at all marvellous. We have labored for the Church long and faith- 
 
63 
 
 fully, without fee or reward except the testimony of a good ^conscience 
 and of this our enemies cannot deprive ns. They have done us great in- 
 justice, only to originate a pretext for their schismatic measures. We now 
 dismiss the subject and commit our cause to Him whojudgeth righteously. 
 
 ABLE McKEE, 
 
 SAM'L. J. WAGNER, 
 
 HENRY MUCKINFUSS, 
 
 SAMUEL SEYLE, J. Trustees. 
 
 GEORGE CHRITZBURG, 
 
 GEORGE JUST, 
 
 WILLL\M BIRD, 
 Charleston, Sept. 1834. 
 
 t^ 
 
The following, is a reprint ot'the second pamphlet of the secedcrs, (call- 
 ed "A Rejoinder to an Exposition ofthe late schism in the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church in Charleston,") to which tlie preceding Report, and Docu- 
 ments, have reference. 
 
 A REJOINDER. 
 
 At the close of the Exposition made by us in August last, ofthe causes which led to 
 the secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church in this city, we remarked, that with 
 that exposition the controversy on our part ceased, unless we were compelled to renew it 
 in self-defence. Wo hoped to have been spared the trouble of doing so; for although 
 ne expected that all the arts of sophistry would be put in requisition to explain away 
 our statements, we could not believe it possible that men "professing godliness," howev- 
 er suspicious we might be of their profrssioiis, would be so reckless as publicly to deny 
 the facts themselves. Their having done so however, necessarily compels us again to 
 appear before the public, to make some brief remarks upon the book published by Dr. 
 Capers, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Martin and Mr. Pierce, and to point out so«)c ofthe most 
 prominent misstatements; to notice them all would occupy more of our time than wo 
 have to spare to the performance of so onerous a duty, and would swell this publication 
 to 8uch a size, as would tire the patience ofthe reader. In doing this, we hope to man- 
 ifest that our religion is "not in word and tongue only," by endeavouring to avoid the 
 example so bountifully set us, of vituperation and abuse. 
 
 The first thing we shall notice, is Dr. Capers' denial of having read the paper at the 
 meeting ofthe corporation ofthe church, held on the 12th November, 1833, as set 
 forth in our previous publication, page 8. 
 
 lie observes, "To the best of my recollection, the paper which you say I read, was 
 not the one I did read; nor did I read the paper which was read, after the manner re- 
 lated by you. I had two papers of the committee, one the resolution adopted by the 
 corporation party, at their meeting in the school room, on the 29th Oct. and the other a 
 note from the committee to myself. The one being a sort of ofiicial document of your 
 party, then just beginning to shew itself as a party, I was induced to put among my pa- 
 pers, the other, to my great regret, 1 did not consider of any future consequence, and did 
 not preserve." 
 
 Can any man hope to impose upon an intelligent community by such a "puerile" 
 statement as this? Why was one paper, admitting for the sake of argument that he had 
 received two, more of an "ofTicial document" than the other? If he deemed it so im- 
 portant to preserve owe, why destroy the other? Strange indeed, that he who has so 
 carefully "put among his papers," every trifling communication, however unimportant, 
 and which arc spread out in such an imposing manner in his publications, should have- 
 destroyed the only one which could establish his innocence ofa grave charge publicly 
 made against him; and made too, at a time when we could not possibly know but that 
 this important document, which was so clearly to convict us of falsehood, was in liis pos- 
 session and would be brought forward against us! But he flatly contradicts himself about 
 this same paper. First, he tells us that one was a "sort of otflcial document of the par- 
 ty," and he preserved it; but on the very next page he asserts that this same "othcial do- 
 cument" was so irrelevant to the matter in hands that he did not read it at the meeting, 
 but chose rather to read the one which was so unimportant that he did not think it worth 
 preserving. But again, why did he not say one word about this .second paper when he 
 published his first pamphlet? Turn to page 19 of it as republi.shcd, and read, "a few 
 days after this date, iho follow ins; paper was handed me by the committ(!e mentioned 
 in it," and then follows the identical paper which we charge him with having read in a 
 perverted manner. Is there a single word said about any other paper! and if there had 
 been another, can any person believe for .i moment that he would have omitted men- 
 
 III 
 
:ioning il: He doe> i>oi ».iy the coininiucc tnclottui, bui iiamlid Imn ilu.- jjiijiur. If 
 tlic eommittco uaitcd upon liiin in pcr>;on, as lie adiniu tlioy did, nnd liandtnl iiiin tlie 
 pnper contnin'mg the proceedings of tlifi meeting, wliorn \v:is the proprietv of writing a. 
 note? l*»d they write to explain the object of tiicir rail, dclircr their aim note prrson- 
 nlly, aii'l thfn hiving thus introduced themselves, and stated in writing the object of 
 their viiit. deliver ihc utlu r paper; IVi-po'^t^ i<»us! Tlie Doctor is very careful however, 
 not to a-vcrt positively that hf did not re-^A il»»» pnper, l)«t says, "to tlie bp«t of his re- 
 collection'." Is his memory so vorj- treacherous that lie e.-mnot with eertainty, reniom- 
 her a transaction of sueh great impcriancc? If so, why not wet it refreshed by "a bit 
 from the memory of one, and a bit from another" of his friends, so as to render the mat- 
 ter certain? Mjs communication is dated "^^avannah," I ut as it was published hero, and 
 he superintended the publication, we presume his ol jecl here was to obtain the support 
 of his friends. Were ihf'y unwilling to givf' it? 
 
 But we unhesitatingly ailirm, on the authority of the commiitee themselves, that no 
 paper was handed to biin, save tiie one pui|.orting to be the p-i'T'^^ditigs of the meeting, 
 as published both by Dr. Cnpers r.nd ourselves \V( have ass.^rted that he did read the 
 paper published by us, and that he read it in the manner stated. Thi.s he denies. Here 
 then we are at issue; who shaii determine between hs.' We have at least this advan- 
 tage; we are eight to one. But wc refer to liio aunexed affidavits in substantiation of 
 the truth of what we say; and wr beg leave to premise, (though we have no 7tw"»A to 
 enlist the f^ympathies of the public on our behalf,) that we too have "sons atnl 
 daughter."-;" and that our reputations arc as dear to us, as Dr. Capers' can be to him,- and 
 we will add, that if condemned by the community, in which we have spent nearly all onr 
 lives, we cannot run off to "Georgia," or any where else, but must stand and bear the 
 contumely and disgrace which must come upon us if found guilty of intentional falsehood. 
 
 STATE OF SOUTH-CAROLINA. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, AV. Laval, Wm. Kirkwood and Oliver B. Hillard, 
 who, being duly sworn, severally depose, and say, that they, as a committee, appointed 
 by a meeting of the male members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held on tlie 29th 
 October, 1833, under a resolution requiring a call of tlie church m ils corporate capaci- 
 ty — did call on Dr. Capers at the Parsonage house, and presented him with a certified co- 
 py of the resolution, published in the pamphlet by Dr. Capers last year, and referred to 
 in this controversy; that after some conversation on the subject. Dr. Capers requested to 
 be allowed time to communicate with the Presiding Elder, the Rev. Henry Rass, which 
 tvas readily acceded to by the committee. Deponents farther state, that Dr. Capers' 
 last remark to them, on leaving, was, "If you will meet and elect your Trustees, let me 
 beg you to make them responsible to the Quarterly Conference, and not to the church." 
 They furltier testify, that they did not then, either individually, or as a committee, give 
 any note or other paper to the doctor, except the Renolution in question; neither did 
 they previously or subsequently, give, send or write to him any note or paper otlier ihaa 
 the one aheady mentioned. 
 
 W. LAVAL, 
 
 WILLIAM KIRKWOOD. 
 O. B. HILLARD. 
 Hworn to before me, this 24th Sept. 1834. 
 
 WM. ED. IIAYNE, Q. U. Sf J\'of. Pub. 
 
 •STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, > 
 
 City oj Charleston. 5 
 Personally appeared before me, the undersigned persons, who beiitg severally sworu, 
 declare, that the paper read in Trinity Church, on the 12th November, 1833, by Dr. 
 William Capers, was the same paper referred to in the pamphlet published by our com- 
 mittee, as the resolution of the meeting of October 29tb, 1833, requiring a meeting of the 
 church in its corporate capacity, and th« same as publish«Hl by Dr. Capers, in lii.«i pam- 
 phlet dated November 28, 1833; that is to say, tJte words as read by Dr. Capers fioni a 
 paper held by him, and which he said was tlie resolution handed to him by the commit- 
 tee, were verbatim those which were contained in the resolution as slated by the com- 
 mittee, and acknowledged by the doctor in his first pamphlet. Deponents fnithev de- 
 clare, that Dr. Capers did deny that there was "one word of corporation in the vvhoK; 
 paper," that he omitted the reading of the words "in its corporate capacity," at the same 
 time declaring tkit he "read honestly, and if anv one doubted it; he miffht rome and read 
 
2J 
 
 for Iiimself.'' They fuither teslify, that he again read the paper, iucludiug the wcrdd 
 previously omitted, saying, "I care not what it says, I did not call a corporation meeting." 
 Furthermore, deponents declare, that the statements as set forth in our pamphlet, tOHch- 
 jng the transactions of the meeting of the 12th November, 1838, are substantially true, 
 and to the best of our belief specifically so. 
 
 OLIVER B. HILLARD, THOMAS A. HAYDEN, 
 
 JOHN BROWN, CHARLES W. HURST, 
 
 W.S. WALKER, W.LAVAL, 
 
 W. W. (iODFREY, J. H. HONOUR, 
 
 JOHN T. SYME, GEORGE M. KEILS, 
 
 EDWARD M. MOOD. J. F. STIENMEYER, 
 
 WILLIAM KIRKWOOD, JOSEPH A. HINES, 
 
 JOHN KINGiMAN, HENRY W. SxMITH, 
 
 F. A. BECKMANN, C. L. HAPPOLDT, 
 
 J. LAVAL, Jr. THOMAS HONOUR.* 
 
 SAMUEL NORTON, 
 The above affidavit has been sworn to before me, this 24th Sept. 1834. 
 
 THOMAS MARTIN, Q. U. [l.s.] 
 
 The next misstatement which we shall notice, is one that is repeated several time* 
 through the book, viz: that we wore always ui a minority of one third of the male 
 members. In a note on page 13 it is said, "the whole number," (of the corporation 
 party) "was under fifty persons;" and "at that time there were one hundred and forty 
 five male members belonging to the church " "The list of names;" we are told "may 
 be seen by any one at the ?>Iethodist Parsonage, corner of Boundary and Pitt streets, 
 Charleston, th( authors of the pamphlet excepted.'" And why except them? because 
 they are "sufficiently informed." True: they are sufficiently informed to detect any im- 
 position which may be attempted, by shewing the names of persons who, either sever 
 were members, or who have died, resigned, or been expelled ye:irs since. 
 
 It is not a great while ago, that Dr Capers charged a preaclier in the annual conler- 
 ence, with having returned to the conference the names of persons as members of the 
 church in Charleston, who were dead, or had removed ten years previously. Have the 
 proper corrections ever been made on the book.' But if we were always a minority of 
 "one third of the male members," why so fearful at all times, to submit a question to 
 the decision of the members? It will not do, gentlemen, your bare assertions are insufli- 
 cient; we want proof The best evidence ,■/•(■ can give, of our number, is that sixty tivo 
 (not forty five,) male members have seceded from the church; and now we challenge 
 you in the face of this community, to publish the names of (we will not say one hundred 
 twenty four, which number you ought to have to shew that we are a minority of one 
 third) but of six<j/ male members remaining in the church. No equivocation if you. 
 please; come out openly; your refusal to do so, will be construed into something worse 
 than a "rhetorical flourish."! 
 
 . On page 16 is the following. "It was a principal object with ns to induce them (the 
 corporation party) to pass the adjourned meeting of December 2, without going further 
 toward a revolutionary organization. Brother Kennedy, whose interference at my invi- 
 tation seemed to be well taken, applied himself earnestly towards this object, and on Sa- 
 turday evening, November 30, he iiiforined me that the leading members of the party, 
 had agreed to suspend proceedings, provided, we would ciill a meeting of the male mem- 
 bers of the church, to adopt measures for the settlement of the question," &c. "It was 
 understood that they might come together on the evening of the 2d, according to their 
 previous adjournment; but they pledged thtmselves to brother Kennedy, to do nothing 
 on the subjects in dispute." We ask, who pledged themselves? J\~ot us certainly, nor 
 any other person that ever we heard of before. We liope Mr. Kennedy did not make 
 this statement; if he did, we would respectfully ask these Reverend gentlemen, if either 
 
 * 3Iany whose namos are not .subscribed to this affidavit, are Avithlield in consequence of 
 thfir not h.aving been pres.-nt during the ivkole of ihr proceeduigs. Wo presume the truth of the 
 iitatemeni will not be denied by ths "godlif' men v.ho were present. 
 
 t Sine .' writing thf above, we have fully ascertained that the invitation to sec the "list of 
 names" of the '■^ one hundred and fort iif':€ male metnbers.," is anrm;>ty bravado, intended for effect. 
 Several gentlemen, not "'authors ofthe pamphlet," have called at the "Methodist Parsonage, 
 comer of Pitt aud Boundary ><trefts." for that purpose, and wcro fll t!nt i(i';> ■•hurrh books w^ro 
 prirntr, and no' gnhjc- fto the thsjitction offv'n/bodir'.'! 
 
21 
 
 ortiieiii ever preaclietl from a text whirh may Iip found in Kxodus xx. IC. And again on 
 page 17, it is said, "Brotlier Kennedy re-aftirrntd in presence of ihcni all wiiat they had 
 promised, as he had infonned me from them, and no man denied it." Why will men 
 be so disengenuous? Mr. Kennedy re-alTirmed «« snrh thing; but wlten repeatedly 
 urged by Dr. Capers to speak, he ni.-ide some remarks which were deemed incorrect, 
 and as soon as he tlnished, IMr. Kirkwood arose to put him right, when the Reverend 
 Doctor took his hat and walked ovt oftht: church while the gentleman was speaking. 
 
 "On Sunday the Stli December, while my mind was in great agony," &c. page 20. 
 Perhaps we can give a better reason for this "great agony," than the one assigned by the 
 doctor. A meeting of the male members of the church in Columbia, was held a few days 
 previous to this date, on the subject of our church difficulties, which was attended by 
 members of the Legislature from various parts of the ^^tate, who were members of the 
 church, (that body then being in session,) and some resolutions passed not very grateful 
 to the doctor's feelings. These resolutions were forwarded to him, sealed, in a letter 
 from the chairman of the meetinjr, requesting that the pnp(!r might be open<d and read 
 only at a tneetitin; of the members. \Ve have incontcstible evidence, that this docu- 
 ment was given to Dortor Capers on llu> same "Sunday, the 8th December;" but i( 
 7iever was read to the mevibers; nor did we ever hear of it throvgh him. May not 
 the reading of this document have produced the "agony.''" Out we liave introduced this 
 paragraph to remark upon some of its misstatements. Speaking of the meeting at Mr. 
 Honour's house, he says, his "proposition was acceded to, and the paper being signed, 
 the citations were withdrawn;" leaving the natural inference that the paper was signed 
 in his presence, and the citations withdrawn that night; but such was not the fact. The 
 members positively refused to sign the paper, and l>r. Capers left the room without a 
 single signature being affixed to it ; obser\ing as he went out in an apparent "agony," 
 "Brethren you may not care about being expelled from the church, but I do; and I can- 
 not, and will not expel you;^'' and his making this remark, together with the feelings 
 manifested by him, were the only reasons why the members signed it at all, one of them 
 observing, "Let us sign it, for if we refuse any longer, it will kill Brother Capers." He 
 then followed the doctor, and informed him that the paper would be signed. The doctor 
 immediately returned to the house, and then made the \oluntary promises mentioned in 
 our former pamphlet, and which we repeat, he never fulfilled! He then left the house. 
 The next morning the citations were withdrawn, but the paper was not delivered to him 
 until the Tuesday following. There is no "deficiency of memory," no "morbid imagi- 
 nation," but the plain sober truth respecting these promises; and when "Mr. Knight, Mr. 
 Kingman and Mr. Honour, called at the I'arsonage," they announced themselves as a 
 committee, though he pretends not to know in what capacity ihey called, and told him 
 very distinctly, that they were sent to request the return of the paper signed at INIr. Hon- 
 our's house, and gave as a reason, that he had failed to fulfil his promise, (oath if he 
 pleasss.) 'i"he statement on pages 20, 21, about his entreating us to spare ourselves, 
 our wives and children; and the reply to Mr. fiodfrey's question, that the church could 
 not connive at what we had done, reads very prettily, and is well calculated for ef- 
 fect, but unfortunately, it is nothing but a "rhetorical flpurish;" no such words were 
 ever used. The paper was signed purely from "kindness to the feelings of the ministry," 
 and we also "appeal to the evidence furnished on the face of the original document, t» 
 prove" that such was the fact. He did entreat us to apare him, and put it in his power 
 to undo what he had done; that is to withdraw the citations; and in confirmation of this, 
 he stated to se\eral of the signers the next morning, th;il he had received a letter from 
 Mr. Kennedy, iir<;in:r him not to bring ns to trial. Will he publish this letter? 
 
 In the preface to the book it is stated (and the initials of Dr. Capets and Mr. Kenne- 
 dy are affixed to it) that "near the close of the month of November last, the minister 
 then in charge deemed it proper to lay before the members of the church, a succinct ac- 
 count of the rise and pro;^rcss of these difliculties in the church up to that time. This ac- 
 count, which was furnished to the members generally, was never contradicted j« any 
 of its statements; but, as far as wc have understood, was admitted on all hands to 1><.' 
 faithful in its farts." And again on page 9, "jVtmp o/ «/.«.• statemmts were con- 
 tradicted at that time, nor subsequently to my knowledge ; on the contrary, I under- 
 stood from various quarters, up to the time of my leaving Charleston, that you all admit- 
 ted it to be a faithful account of tlu- transactions therein set forth." Thi.> we positive- 
 ly afiirm to bo untrue; instead of its being admitted on all hands to be faithful in its 
 facts, wc constantly asserted that many of the statements wen? incorrect; and wc said 
 ea in ibe n^iines' and ino>;« niifriiii\ oral manner to "Mr Kenn<'i'v. \>IieM lirvr r>n Dr. Ca 
 
25 
 
 l)eis' inviiation iu November last. Will he deny ii? And do not these Reverend gen- 
 tlemen know that a repli^ to the pamphJet was in preparation, and nearly ready for 
 the press, and its publication pic\ ented only in consequence of the arrangement which 
 took place at tlie meeting held at Mr. Honour's house ou the evening of the Sth 
 December! 
 
 On page 10 is the following: — "Some time on Monday, the 2Slh October, I was told by 
 an old and respectable member of the church, that he had reason to apprehend the young 
 men's prayer meeting in Trinity School Uoom on Tuesday evenings had been turned in- 
 to a sort of caucus meeting, where certain revolutionary measures wore agitated." That 
 such "caucus meetings" were held, we give the most unqualitied contradiction, the ap- 
 prehensions of the "old and respect.ililo member," to tlie contrary notwithstanding. 
 The first meeting ever held in Trinity iSohool Kooni, wason the evening of the 29th 
 October, at which Dr. Capers was present. It is perfectly well known that all our meet- 
 ings were held witii open doors; and on every occasion some of Dr. Capers' friends were 
 either at the door or windows; and so devoid of common decency were these persons, 
 that when gentlemen finished speaking, they would hiss or clap their hands as if in a 
 Theatre. Strange indeed, that "revolutionary measures" should be "agitated" in a 
 public building with open doors. 
 
 With regard to what is said on pages 6 and 7, respecting our reasons for not impeaching 
 Dr. Capers at the .Annual Conference, we shall only say this much: If the doctor is in 
 earnest iu his expressions of doubt rc:<pectiiig our statement, we refer him to two of his own 
 Bishops, — Andrew and I'n)ory. Ask them what was said at the lirst conference, which 
 was held with the "Schismatics," (a connnittee of nine) and why ihey urged his pres- 
 ence as they did; they may bring to his recollection the reason why he so jiertinaciously 
 refused to go into the room, although Bishop Andrew, at the request of Bishop Emory, 
 went out and urged his attendance. 
 
 In a note on page 10, Dr. Capers remarks — "It is a pity that those who seek so hard 
 to justify themselves, should make matter .'or fresh objections; perhajis it is a pity to ob- 
 ject to them, but justice obliges usto notice a particularly glaring impropriety iu giving 
 part for the tr/jo/r, of the resolutions passed by the iJoard (of Trustees;") and then 
 follows a resolution of the Trustees notifying the committee where the keys of the church- 
 es might be found, if f/ifj/ should "think proper to have the alterations made." It is a 
 "pity" that Dr. Capers had not read over bis first pamphlet, before he wrote this note; 
 he would have saved himself from the charge of gross inconsistency. Does he not know 
 that this resolution of the Trustees was a mere feint.' What authority had the commit- 
 tee to make alterations in the churches.' Had the Quarterly Conference appointed them 
 to have the work done? The reader will please refer to the doctor's letter to tlie com- 
 mittee, in his republished pamphlet page 1 i, and he will find the following. "You seem 
 to consider this (the object of your appointment,) as having been that you, in the name 
 of the Quarterly Conference, should etfecl the change of the sittings in the churches; but 
 such was not the object of the Quarterly Conference.^' ^'.flny change apjiertain- 
 ing to the buildings, teas appropriate to the functions of the Board of Trustees.'^ 
 "You were appointed for the purpose of formally communicating to the Trustees, the re- 
 quest of the Conference, respecting the sittings for Iree coloured people, and for the pur- 
 pose of obviating the dithculty, which it had been suggested might arise, from the Trus- 
 tees not having money in hand to defray the expense of"the contemplated change." "The 
 duties appropriate to your appointment, farther than representing the wish of the Confer- 
 ence to the Board of Trustees, as above stated, were wholl}' contingent, and consisted in 
 this, that in case the Trustees should be unable to furriish fnotici/ for the loork, yoU 
 were to raise it for them by subscriptio7i. The resolution under which you were ap- 
 pointed, proves explicitly that 7io other duties lucre assigned you." 
 
 With regird to what Dr. Capers chooses to term our"oirenccs towards the church;" 
 "forming factions in the church;" "getting our parly ready for action;" "abusing the 
 charity of the preachers" &c. &c. &c. we let pass for just as much as they are worth. 
 Enough has been said to prove most incontestibly to every unprejudiced mind, that our 
 former statements are facts; and that we have been most shamefully vilified and misrep- 
 resented. We are perfectly satisfied that the "tie that has bound between us" should be 
 severed. We rejoice to know that there is "One who judges," and cordially unite with 
 Dr. Capers in this one thing, to commit our cause into His hands. 
 
IIFJOLNDEII CONIINrKI). 
 
 Ill our vfply to Dr. Capers, \vn liavc necessarily iiitrodueed several parts of llic "Ex- 
 position com iniied," a produelion from the /in/jri/j// pen of Mr. Ceorgo F. Pierce, de- 
 i^igned forelVecl, and supported by the fostering hands of Messrs. Kennedy and Martin. 
 We will now particularly direct our attention to the "continuation" of the "narrative," 
 (although the suicidal character of the new work is manifest to our viewl and for truth 
 sake, shew that the Scriptures arc true, althou-^li men may in; f.ill'ble, that indeed "all 
 are not Israel, who are of Israel." The ntc-sity of this lemark is painful, and although 
 the force of that exclamation, "() that mine enemy would write a book," has never be- 
 fore been presented to us in such glowing colours, as it does in this instance, yel we pro- 
 fess (if "Sffii.tmatics^' can be believed) not to rejoice that such an evil has come upon 
 our enemies. We repeat it, we believe the book works its own destruction; but wliilc 
 its sponsors 
 
 With Parthian art, shoot arrows as they fly, 
 Intent on killing, though themselves should die, 
 
 we feel it a duty wc owe to truth, to society and to our friends, again to buckle on our 
 armour, and while our chief efforts shall be of a defensive character, we will be ready for 
 offensive measures, when, and we trust only when, the necessity of the ease shall de- 
 mand it. 
 
 The Ilevcrend gentlemen commence with remarks on the proceedings of the Quarterly 
 Conference, in reference to the motion for an examination of the books of the Trustees; 
 this will be treated of in it» proper place, (and we trust satisfactorily so) in our notice of 
 the "Appendix," signed by the Trustees, to which we ask the serious attention of llie 
 reader. 
 
 The next subject which they bring into view, is one to which we also invite the parti- 
 cular notice of our readers; it is one on which the right or wrong, the truth or fallacy 
 of the statements on both sides depend; one which, when rightly understood, will de- 
 velope the true character of the whole controversy, according to our humble opinion, and 
 prove inconteslibly, that a ■l)ook of a hundred and more pages, lias been published more 
 with a view of concealing facts, by the mullifaiioiis character of extraneous matter which 
 has been thrust into it, than with any rightful expectation of acquittal, in the judgment of 
 a discerning, and impartial public. We allude to the paper submitted by the Bishop, to 
 the church (page 31 Exposition continued.) 
 
 In orderto aid in a proper understanding of the case, it will be well perhaps to present 
 a brief synopsis of the rise and progress of the tiilliculties in the church, up to the time 
 when this papor was ^/ruu^ji and submitted by the Bishop, and which led to the pro- 
 position contained in it. The outlines are these — The mulattoes, or a certain set of 
 them, had encroached on the privileges of the white mend)ers; their arrogance was re- 
 buked by thrusting them from the seats they occupied. Dr. Capers', who had advised 
 the measure, and suggi;sted the node of doing it (by a call of the (juard) rebuked the 
 brethren for executing it; the matter was referred to the Cinartcrly Conference; the Con- 
 ference adopted a resolution, supported by tin; Doctor and the Presiding Elder, directing 
 the Trustees to make such alterations as would prevent similar outrages in future. The 
 committee appointed by the Conference requested a call of the lioard of Trustees; the 
 call was made; the committee attended, and were told there was no quorum — one more 
 was necessary — one more could have attended (Mr. .S. J.Wagner,) if he had employed 
 the time ingoing to the meeting, which he occupied in writing a long letter explanatory 
 of his objections to enforce the resolutions of the Conference, the chief of which was the 
 loss of peace which the Church would sustain, if the mulattoes were oflended; the objec- 
 tion was potent; the Committee were told by Dr. Capers, that he would converse with 
 the mulatto chiefs, Ilolloway, Clark and others, on the subject; if they agreed, well — if 
 not, nothing ought to be done. Ilolloway, (a coloured man) called on him, remonstrat- 
 ed against the acts of the Conference, and threatened to leave the church if the altera- 
 tions were made: nothing was done — the members sought redress, and found it could on- 
 ly be obtained through the exercise of their chartered rights; they resorted to the act of 
 incorporation; were resisted by the Doctor and Trnstees; cited to trial for "disobedience 
 
to the order aud discipline olliie cliurch;" refused a trial before tlie society; vvlieedled 
 into the signing a paper by tears and solicitations, which effected a suspension of further 
 proceedings until the arriv;il of the Bishop in the city. Previous to this, however, the 
 paity of the Doctor and old Trustees, busily employed themselves in defaming the cor- 
 porators, (so called); the I'arsonage had become a ''School for scandal;" "godly men 
 tmd women," were continually pouring surmises and reports into the eare of the preach- 
 ers; Dr. Capers hiuisclf declared to one of the committee, that scarcely an hour passed, 
 but some one carried him intelligence of evil intentions against himself; to one of his in- 
 formers, he himst.'lf gave tliacognomcn of "tcifnanaitt;" the church tottered; at this 
 juncture the liisliop arrivedV and entering liy oin 7-equtst into an investigation of the 
 troubles in the church, held fri (jucnt consultations witli both parties, or their representa- 
 tives, separately, and finally proposed, what appeared to him a sure basis for the peaceful 
 adjustment of every dilliculty. We believed he was honest; we have never doubted it; 
 we professed to desire nothing that the discipline, fairly and eqnifahly adntinistercd, 
 could condemn; we were honest in oj/r professions, and in proof of being so. agreed so- 
 lemnly to abide the; decision of the Bishops on the matters in question, be that decision 
 what it li'ould: we had previously to this, put into the hands of the Bishop, such evi- 
 dence of what our intentions.were, with such proof of the extent to which our claims un- 
 der the act of incorporation would be carried, that he was not only satisfied, but positive- 
 ly, aud in the presence of more than one, said (in reply to a direct question from one of 
 the committee whether the proceedings already had, or which were proposed to be had 
 under the organization of the r2lh November, and 2d December, 1833, were a violation 
 ofthe discipline) "Brethren, I perceive a great difficulty in the church here, hut it is 
 at together with the members; \{ cither party \\oa\d yield the aifficuify would vajiish." 
 The proof of this is within the reach of the gentlemen; we give it fearless of contradic- 
 tion; it is the language of Dr. .John r.mory, a Bishop of the Jifethvdist Rpiscopal 
 Church; a man whom we believe to be above the little artifices practiced by some who 
 occupy a less elevated station. While on this subject, we will mention another declara- 
 tion ofthe Bishop, lest we should omit it hereafter; we think it essential, because we 
 have heard from some who have read the ])amphlet ofthe gentlemen, that it appeared to 
 them it was contrary to melhodism to have churches incorporated; it was this — ftlr. 
 A n, a gentleman ofthe Bar, who was present at one of our interviews, by there- 
 quest of the liishop, enquired if it was contrary to the discipline of the IMethodist F-pisco- 
 pal Church, or if it contravened any rale, or subverted any part of their economy, to ad- 
 mit of incorporations in their churches.' The Bishop's answer was cnipliatically, "No, 
 we have churches incorporated in various parts ofthe country." The evidences in sup- 
 port of this, are Messrs. \V. Laval and J. II. Honour, and J. A n, H. B y, Es- 
 quires, Attorneys at Law, of the one part; and Bishop Emory, Henry Bass, P. E. and 
 AV. M. Kennedy, preacher in charge, on the other part.* If further proof be necessary 
 on this point, we offer one whose testimony will be conclusive with the sponsors ofthe 
 "Exposition continued," at least. We call on Dr. Capers. In page 13, line 10, ofthe 
 "Exposition," he says, "a meeting of the male members, as a corporation, we were de- 
 cided not to call, on purely legal grounds.'" And again in a note on same page, he 
 says, "If it be asked, why I called a meeting of the corporation some si.x or seven 
 years ago, if its existence was so doubtful, my answer is, I am not a hiwyer. and was not 
 informed on a legal question, till I got legal advice." A full, clear, and undeniable ad- 
 mission, tliat the discii)line did not sulfer violence by incorporations. "But the charter 
 was void;"" so say Rlessrs. ymith and (Mimke; doctors will differ. Pray, gentlemen, did 
 either or both of you ever beguile a tedious moment in looking over the second volume 
 of Kent"s Commentaries, title corporations, pp. 251,252? The evidence there makes 
 iiard against your ex parte statement. 
 
 The disci|)line then does not restrict corporation in its churches. So says Bishop 
 Emory; so says Dr. Capers; so writes Dr. Bangs; so the General Conference determined; 
 (ALL METHODISTS;) SO Say the facts existing in v;uious States and Territories, known 
 and afTirmed by centlcmen of this city and others, visitors. 
 
 Having established i\\\< point, which the disingenuousncss ofthe gentlemen alone has 
 made doubtful to a few, we proceed to examine the second point in the case; which in 
 our view is this: Were the acts ofthe "Schismatics" "palpable violations of the dis- 
 
 * Justice to 15isluip Emory, w lio had said that to be nsrful, he mnst avoid becoming a partisan, 
 dcniand.s of us ifip acKiiuwltdgenient, that ho carefully avoided any departure from this rule in 
 his conference with u.-<, as far ns was prarticabl'', considering the questions A\liich were pro. 
 jxiunded to him fri'in time 1" time. 
 
28 
 
 ciplincr" The Ufvcrciid gcuileuicn .iliinn they were; and ufier au exordium of vulgar 
 abuee, and vilifying ppilhets, discreditable to ^fntlemen, and much more Kcrlcsiastics; 
 after borrowing from the kennels all tiic slanj; terms peculiar to lowness of breeding, and 
 pouring them in unmeasured wrath upon our heads; after denouncing us, (some of wjjom 
 nave more than twice told the years which two of them have seen) as "Sciiismatics," 
 ''adepts in cunning;'' "practising chicanery ;" "unjust;" "gladiators;" "culprits;" &r. 
 &c. &c. they gravely produce the following charge and specifications in support of the 
 case so modestly presented: viz. 
 
 "Charge. Disohclienoe to the order nnd discipline of the church. 
 
 Specification 1st. Tnkiiij; n pari in anifctinc. ■ ailing itself the church in its corporate capaci- 
 ty, and which aJl.snm^s ih" right to do away at plrn>iiirc 4ho ordT and modoii of managfrnent 
 prescribed by tlie disciphne, to remove from ofTicc the Truwiccs; to fill their places, change their 
 respon.sibility. fee. 
 
 Specification 2d. Receiving appointment as Trust'H'.^ under the assumed authority of said 
 meetinp. thus organizing a Board for the transaction of the business of the church, in opposition 
 to the Board appointed under, and acknowledge<l by th'' discipline. 
 
 Specification 3d. After a written avowal of your determination, not to perform any acts that 
 would he a pnlpalde violation of the discipline, and after having received from the Prcarherm 
 charge a dfciniun, declaring the course you havi; adopte<l<, to be a.pulpable violation of discipline, 
 you have gone tu la\v \\ ith ih.; Truftecs, by levying on the property of one of their tenants, thus 
 giving evidence of n determination to pursue your own course, in defiance of the conMituted au- 
 thoritii rif (he chuTch. 
 
 WM.M. KKNNEDY, 
 WM .MARTIN, 
 G. F. PIERCE. 
 
 Methodist Parsonage, July 28, 1831. 
 
 After this unaccountable discrepancy between their words and actions, their assertions, 
 pledges, appeals, and abuse; and the matters set forth in their cliargo and specifications, 
 amounting at most to the sin of denying (w/«//(6i7//y in Mr. Kennedy, (wiiich we will 
 .show we were right in doing) the gentlemen, instead of pursuing the subject, by adducing 
 the proof necessary to substantiate their cliMige. indulge themselves in a mirthful digres- 
 sion: Their favorite pastime oi abuse is taken up, and we are cliarged with insidiousat- 
 tempts to defeat the church trial, by changing the day of trial before the Magistrate's 
 court, from Wednesday to Tuesday, (see page 46 of their book.) Fie, gentlemen! such 
 sportiveness is unbecoming your profession, besides, it is hazardous; jou have ventured 
 on dangerous ground; your play-fellows have unwittingly tun;bled you into the very pit 
 which they dug for you to thrust us in. Changed (he day of (rial! Yes, we acknow- 
 ledge the fact; we did change the day of trial in one sense; not as "an insidious attempt 
 to defeat the church trial," but as an open expression of our indignation at the insidious 
 attempts you made, to defeat the Court trial, ^^'ednesday was not the day first ap- 
 pointed, but Tuesday; and as it was deemed important that we should be put out of 
 the church before tiie trial could take place, Mr. Abel M'Kee and Mr. Samuel J. Wag- 
 ner, (two Trustees) waited on their Attorney, and persuaded hiin to procure the consent 
 of our counsel, to have the trial postponed til! Wednesday: and he, not suspecting the 
 device, yielded to the solicitation, and authorised the postponement, u-hen we immedi- 
 ately received our citations for 'V\jksv ay. One of our committee calling on our 
 counsel to state the attempt which had been made to interrupt our attendance at the 
 court, learned for the first time, what had been done; we then insisted, that the day first 
 named by the Magistrate, should be the day for the trial; and to prevent the preachers 
 from meeting and thrusting us out of the church, for non-attendance at the Parsonage, (as 
 we had good reason to suppose they would) we had them cited to attend the Court on 
 Tuesday. Intent however, on their purpose, they itistructed their Attorney, to arrest 
 the trial, which was eflected by a legal process, that took the case from the Magistrate's 
 court, into a Superior Court, which iias not yet met. This is the manner in which we 
 were "foiled," as the Reverend gentlemen assert we were: we prefer it much t« the tri- 
 umph they obtained, a triumph somewhat tarnished by the loss of reputation, for the Ma- 
 gistrate emphatically declared from the Bench, that the arrest of proceedings in his court, 
 was eflfected by a ^'breach of faith on the part of the defendant.^' Quere. — Who 
 are the Defendants now? (See page 47, lines 3 to 10, of "E.xposilion continued.") 
 
 With a consistency cquil to that just noticed, the gentlemen have hopped, skipped and 
 jumped from pagcol of their Look, to the COih, backwards and forwards, like little wan- 
 ton boys who pluy unmindful of the tusk before them; they first try to establish their right 
 by promising to do so, then make the attempt; discover that it is onerous and perplex- 
 iiyg: cavil at words because the signification dont suit their views; are filled with ire: snf- 
 
29 
 
 tor jiassioii lousurp the place ol' reason, wound icligiou, drag young and old_before' their 
 potential bar, and doom them all to woe remediless. (Forgive us our trespasses, as we 
 forgive them that trespass against us.) 
 
 The next gambols of the gentlemen, are to be found on page 53 of their "Oniniunt 
 (jatherum;" the versatility of their genius is tiierc admirably displayed, and the facile 
 manner in which they change 
 
 "From grave lo gny, from lively to severe" 
 
 is happily illustrative oi ivcU trained minds. The little discrepancies which are discov- 
 erable occasionally between the grave rebukes, and the listless practice of like offences, 
 is but the sportiveness of exuberant imagination. The exhibition of the note or "letter" 
 to the "woman," "a widow," is also ingeniously introduced to heighten the illusion, and 
 continue the variation of "lights and shadows." ('J"he writer of that letter, takes this 
 opportunity to say, that in a moment of anxious solicitation by a friend, he yielded his 
 own judgment, and did that which has been to him from the moment aficr he sent it, to 
 the present time, a cause of deep and sincere regret; it was following a bad precedent.) 
 The adroit manner in which they evade the motive for introducing the letter in the 
 book,sho\vs them to be gentlemen of considerable tact, and deep penetration. There- 
 quest "to be let alone," is decyphered by them to mean, not to be abused: that would 
 indeed be hoping against hope; it would have been asking a rest, which '■'hope, when 
 bidding us he of good cotirage,^' never promised; and which "fanci/ i>i the splen- 
 dour of its brightness, dazzling vsivith our gilded chains," never once cheered us 
 with the expectation of obtaining. The gentlemen do themselves and their friends great 
 injustice, in supposing that we would suspect them for a moment, of being idle, whilst a 
 reformed church was rising full in their view. The liistory of reform in i3altimore, and 
 that in Cieorgia and Alabama, &c. satisfied us fully on that point. ^^ e have some oftho 
 accounts in our possession, and the recital of o?je occurrence, in Baltimore particularly, 
 will speak more on this occasion, than all we have written: we reserve it with other mat- 
 ter for future use. Our meaning was expressed in very simple language; it suited the 
 humbleness of our views; we only asked in behalf of those who instructed us to do so, 
 (\\c had no hope of such favours for ourselves) not to be fl.ittcrcd by the o-i7(/erf prospect 
 of being again allowed to go in and out of the temple with the "godly men and tro- 
 men" who had been so miraculously rescued by the timely "sifiing of the wheat from 
 the chaff." But it was an incident; and however incidental, whether relevant to their 
 justification or not, it was necessary with a great many other incidents of equal irrelevan- 
 cy, to make up a book; and a book was necessary, as well to show their skill in manu- 
 factures, as to inform the public, that the good old tinies had returned, when Preachers 
 were once more released from the vulgar obligation of practicing their own precepts. 
 We may be wrong in this conjecture; if so, wc apologise by charging our error upon that 
 false system of education which taught us to trace effects to their cause (if practicable) 
 and if not; to judge of causes by their ell'ects. 
 
 After a digression which in our ignorance we would pronounce unpardonable, if wc 
 were not restricted in our judgment by the high autliority of Messrs. Kennedy, RIartin 
 and Pierce, that "like begets like,''' [which according to the new dictionary of the 
 young .^manuetisis of Messrs. Kennedy and Martin, means, "that sin is sinless because 
 sinners set the example;"] we return to the subject, and again enquire, whether the acts 
 oC the "}^ch\sma.Ucs," were palpable vivlatio?is of the discipline or not. In our ex- 
 amination of this subject, we must be excused for not following the gentlemen in their 
 favourite walks of fanci/; we are dull prcsers, and prefer an honet^tfact to a whole book 
 of gilded fictions. What then are the facts.' The converse, we say, of all that is 
 spread throughout the whole of the "Exposition," and its spurious offspring the "Expo- 
 sition continued." Bold as this assertion may seem, we venture the success of our cause 
 on the proofs which we shall adduce in support of it. In the first place, the bookciiarg- 
 es us from the commencement to the termination, with being "Schismatics." IVe deny 
 it. According to Walker, a Schismatic is one "\\\\c\ separates himself from tlie true 
 church;" now we either f/if/ ?!of separate oiir.^elves from the church, ur the Reverend 
 gentlemen have been very ^ir)e<?f in their prose; they have delighted themselves in re- 
 peatedly affirming that we were" CTpelled," and that those who resigned only escaped 
 a similar fate by their early withdrawal. The Rev. John Wesley defines a Schism in 
 the church to be "the war.t of a tender care for each other;" we deny being of that 
 class, and ask the gentlemen to judge us themselves, he that is least sinful among them 
 all in this particular casting the first stone. As the gentlemen one and all, evince such 
 satisfaction in branding us a hundred times over with the appellation of Schismatics, they 
 
30 
 
 must not be ort'oiidid It' wc prove that ihu lioiiour of being such, belongs exclusively to 
 themselves, and tlii-ir "frodly" adlierenls; \vc liave noarly proved it already, but will 
 offer one more view of tin- subjert. We go to the root of the mailer. Perhaps the gen- 
 tlemen know that the word is derived from ihc (Jreek — ifso, lliey know tli.it it means a 
 "rent, a c'eft. a fissure;" now it is only necessary to determine what, or who tli'^ power 
 is, or was, tiiat caused the cleft, and made the rent or fissure, to enable them to make 
 the right application. (Vide causes which led to action under the charter, and mock 
 trials.) 
 
 Once more — The celebrated Dr. (^ampbell is of opinion, that Schism, in the t^ciipluio 
 sense, often means that alienation of affection between brethren, which violates the in- 
 ternal union subsisting in the hearts of chri>tians. Jiid^e yc yotn.idrex in this n)atter; 
 do it righteously, and \vc are content. I'ul thev say we were guilty oi' palpable vio- 
 latiotis of the discipline; and because we aflirmed that we were not, and could give a 
 better reason for the denial than their own logic — that it is so, becau!>e it is so, they met 
 us with the argument uin ad hotninum , that we were ^^cllismatics because they said wc 
 were; and in confirmation of their belief, and godly abhorrence of our heresy, emptied 
 their Pandora's bo.x of vile abuse full on our devoted heads. 
 
 In the second place, the book charges us with being ail that is vile, abominable, and 
 offensive, in the sight of heaven and men. One hundred and seventy (170) inmiortal 
 souls, some of whom have been members of the .Alctliodist Kpiscopal Church, longer tha:> 
 two of the denunciators have been in existence, and olhtsrs twice their seniors in years, 
 stand charged at the merciless bar of these three Preachers, with ofiences which, if true, 
 must e.Nclude them forever from the kingdom of grace and glory, (a heavy judgment from 
 men who teach others not to judge le.st they be judged.) "(Jh shame, where is thy 
 blush!" The evidence produced by these gentlemen, in .support of the allegations which 
 they make against these "reckless" beings, is — first, the assertions which they make of 
 their being so. Secondly, they are so, because we have complained of their just ad- 
 ministration ofthe discipline. 'I'liiidly, they are so, because "«7 teas tvorthy of rc- 
 7nark, that the.y had 7ievlr ktiown a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 who walked with God, and lived above censure, that found fault with the economy 
 ofthe church.'" Fourthly, they must be so, because of "personal irregularities,^^ 
 damning heresies, evidenced by our claiming under the discipline, the right given in the 
 act of incorporation to elect (lie Trustees by a nicijority ofthe mate members of the 
 church. And lastly, if all the foregoing prove insufficient, it shall be so, because wc 
 </rtre</ to question the infallibility of Mr. Kennedy's decision on a point of discipline, 
 which Bishop r.mory, after consulting with L'ishnp .Andn'w, declined adjudicating with- 
 out a consultation with a majority ofthe Bishops ofthe church (si.x in number.) From 
 the gentlemen's own showing, (we a|)peal to their own book) it is conclusive that our 
 ofiences, first and last, consisted even in their own view, in persisting to act under the 
 cliarter incorporating the church. For proof of this, see letter of admonition, page 44, 
 and charges drawn by themselves, pages 45 and 4(j of "E.xposition continued." It is 
 now our intention, as well as duty, to prove incontestibly, that we are guiltless of any of- 
 fence against the discipline ofthe .Methodist I'piscojial Church; unless the sin of question- 
 ing the correctness of the decision made by Mr. Kennedy, on a strictly controverted 
 point, be an oflencc against it; and that it Wiis not a "vaparous bravado," which made 
 us affirm, that we had high authority for saying we were right, and that we were also ia 
 tlic majority. The evidence which we shall adduce, to sui)porl these statements, will be 
 both positive and circumstantial; the adtiiission of one, or rejection ofthe other, will in* 
 volve the gentlemen in an awkward dilemma; but they have our hearty consent to lay 
 liold on either horn they plcisc. 
 
 1. We arc not guilty of "disobedience to the or<lcr and discipline ofthe church," in 
 the first place, because the discipline does not restrict the members of the church from 
 the porformancc of any one single act which ims been specified against us; the gentlemen 
 have furnished no proof to the contrary of this: we know of 7ionc, and in the absence of 
 proof the charge falls. 
 
 2. W'e are not guilty ofthe charge in the second place, because, the discipline positive- 
 ly does provide for the contingency under which wc acted, in a clause introduced at the 
 General Conferencehy Dr. Capers, fi.xing the responsibility of the Trustees, occasioned 
 by a collision he had with them, and amended by Dr. Bangs of New- York, expressly to 
 meet the contingency, of inco;7»()rrt<<Y/ c/a/rc/if 4, (the New- York churches generally 
 being incorporated.) 
 
 ^' We are rot guilty nf the charge in the third place,, because the rliurch is incorpora- 
 
31 
 
 led: i'lifl svo would lespectrully ask ^rcssrs. Siiiitli andGiiniko, if liiey ever heard of a 
 i^oiporatf action, un(!(!r an iiii/imitcil, unrestricted and inicomUtional rliavter, being 
 in\aiid (if vvitliin liie limits of the act) unless, or until, some liigii judici-»i tribunal, 
 at llio instance, 01 in the name of the power granting the franchise, had adjudicated 
 it to he so? 
 
 1. \^ n are not guihy of tlie charge in the fourth phicc, because the allegation is not 
 made for acting under a doubtful charter, but of "disobedience to the order and discip- 
 line of the cliurch;"and the church, we aretold, consists of preachers, exhorters, ollicial 
 and lay members, (so say Dr. Capers, Mr. Kennedy, IMr. Martin and Mr. Pierce,) and 
 they have never told i/s that our acts were a disobedience of their orders, or of the dis- 
 cipline; (if i'H'orrect, wc invite the proof in coniradiclion.) 
 
 5. \\ are not guilty of the charge in the fifth place, because Bishop Emorv, who was 
 bound by a solemn oatli, ('r>ndiiiinistered at the time of his installation^ to preserve atid 
 enforce the discipline, said that corporations were not contrary to "tlie order and discip- 
 line of the church;" and that the acts which we had done, and proposed doing, under 
 the showing of our by-laws, &c., were not contrary to the discipline; and that they would 
 cease to be a cause of contention in the church, if the old Trustees would cease their 
 opposition. 
 
 We leave the reader to determine for himself, on the suthcienry of the proofs adduced 
 in support of our plea of "not guiltv to the charge." 'I'he spccilications which follow, 
 are so dependent on the charoe, th;it the failure of one, almost necessarily involves the 
 destruction of Uie others. \Ve will, however, devote a few moments to the considera- 
 tion of them. 
 
 The first alleges, that we "took a part in a meeting calling itself the church in its cor- 
 porate capacity; and which assumes the right to do away at pleasure, the order and modes 
 of management, prescribed by the discipline, to remove from oflicc the Trustees, to fill 
 their places, change their responsibility," &c. We admit that we did take part in the 
 meeting, which not only called itself the church in its corporate capacity, but which was 
 ipso facto the corporation itself; convened in a legal wav, and transacting its business ac- 
 cording to law, and the usage of all corporations; assuming nothing but what the law- 
 guaranteed, and what the discipline provides for; asserted its rights, and maintained its 
 dignity, ever> by rebuking and putting down thcunsentle atienipt of one who, until then, 
 had arrogated to himself the right of uncontrolled rule over the church. 
 
 'I'he second specification charges us with "receiving appointment as Trustees under 
 the assumed authority of said meeting; thus organizing a board for the transaction of the 
 business of the church, in opposition to the board appointed under, and acknowledged 
 by the discipline." 
 
 We admit that we did receive a.ppointiricnt under the corporation; not at the "same 
 meeting;" nor from any assumed authority, nor in opposition to any board; but at asub- 
 sequent meeting, by the ?-ig-/i</i/Z authority, and only to fill vacancies occasioned by the 
 contumacy of those who refused to acknowledge the riglit of action by the corporation, 
 and to receive appointment under it. 
 
 The third and last specification charges "a palpable ^ iolution of discipline on us, ia 
 going to law with the Trustees by levying on the property of one of their tenants," and 
 this "after having rccei\cd from the preacher in charge a decisiori, declaring the course 
 we had adopted, to be a palpable violation of the discipline, contrary to a written avowal 
 of our determination not to perform any acts that would bo such; thus giving evidence to 
 pursue our own course in defiance of the constituted authorities of the church." 
 
 Wc deny positivel}' ever having gone to law with theTrustees of the f/j?/rc/i,- the 
 church was incorporated; tlie corporation had appointed 7/.s its Trustees, in lieu of the 
 former refractory ones, and had directed us to manage its temporal matters;.(see by-laws 
 of the corporation, and Dr. (^apers' first pamphlet.) W^e levied on one of the tenants of 
 the corporation; the property he held, was bequeathed to the church in its corporate 
 name. Not one word about lha"Trustees of the .^frlbodist FJpiscopal Church, and 
 to their succensors in office, in trust for the church," as the gentlemen have so 
 "rcclrlcssli/" asserted in page 47 of their book, is to befound in the whole will; and we 
 know that they examined the will for themselves, and look extracts from it before their 
 book was written; [Mr. Kennedy certainly did so.] And even if it had been, as they 
 so palpably misstate it, we were certainly their legal successors. We deny having com- 
 mitted any palpable violation of the discipline in this matter, even if the old Trustees were 
 orticers of the Quarterly (Conference. 
 
 The gentlemen in this matter, as in several others, suflered prudence to be beguiled by 
 
Si 
 
 iiitcmpcrute zeal, 'and iccUoiicd witlinul Oioir liosl." '1 lie cliurcli either ** incorpora- 
 ted, or it is n<'/. ^\■e give lliem the cli»ice. H'itfJ* incorporated, we were the only 
 persons that could manage lliat piec ! of properly, [willi two ol'iorloU similarly situated,! 
 because it was demised to the ciMircli by its corporate i^,afi>e. i\o pi rson or poi-sona, 
 olficnr or oilicers, trustees or agents, were mentioned in, or authorised by the will to 
 AoW in /;■».'!/ for the church. As a corporation, it had ihe right and the po\v<r to take 
 the management of propeity conveyed to it as such, into its own hands: it did so, and we 
 were appointed the mauag(;rs of it. 
 
 If the church is 710/ incorporated, then the old Trustees, with the sanction of the 
 preachers, have arrogated to themselves the pow er of holding w hat rightly belongs to 
 another; not only ho/din^ vnlatrfully, hnl williholdim: the lawful rights of those who 
 alone are fntitled to it. If llie church is not incoi paratcJ, as .Messrs. Smith, (irimkc. 
 Capers, Kennedy, Martin and I'ierce allirm, the properly not having been secured to 
 Trustees in trust for it, necessarily reverts to the heirs of the testator: and ;is it is known 
 that there are none, it must be escheated, according the statute of the i^tate, and puss into 
 the hands of the Commissioners of the Oiplian Mouse, Cur the benefit of that institution. 
 
 We deny "acting in deliancc of the constituted auihority of the church." The church 
 is either the preacher or the discipline, or the congregated body of preachers, exhorters, 
 otficinl and lay members together. 'J'hc preacher irj// ?Jo/ .^t?// that /if is the church; 
 the discipline, powerful as it is in arming the preaclier with authority to do as he pleases, 
 neither claims to be the church, or atlects to be otVendcd by the existence, or e.xerci.sc of 
 chartered rights in the church; and the preachers, exhorters, ollicial and lay members uni- 
 ted, have never reproved us; and as we altrai/s outvoted tlum two to one, we had 
 good reason for believing, if we were not the "constituted autiioritics," that our oppo- 
 nents had less claim certainly, to arrogate the title forihemselves. 
 
 Having disposed of the first and second points contained in the book, as far as the mix- 
 ed character of the production will admit understanding it, we proceed to notice those 
 parts on which the gentlepien allect to build their chief hope of justification: in pursuing 
 this part of the subject, we profess to consider it one of oitr strong points, and propose 
 by its aid, to lilt the cover from the gentlemen s hotbed, to expose their fancy works, and 
 show that their rhetorical flowerets, like most precocious buddings, only flourish in fecu- 
 lent soils and heated atmospheres. With hardihood equalled only by a strongly marked 
 attachment for fiction, the gentlemen have loosened the reins of discretion, galloped over 
 the field of piety, heralded their disregard for the preci-pts of religion, emptied their full 
 quivers of abusive mi.ssiles; re'cled in the joy of their fancied destructions; gazed with 
 delight on the ruin they had sought, and filled to excess with their "ciiivalrous" deeds, 
 fell swc'jtly to sleep ''under the power of son^.''^ 
 
 Leaving them for a while to the entertainmenl of their fairy queen of slumber, we will 
 proceed to the work of reality, and |)repare to show them at their awaking, that though 
 "cast down vvl are not destroyed;' though wounded, yet are we not slatJi. The bur- 
 den of the gentlemen's elibrts [true to tlie policy of all Hierarchies] has been, not to de- 
 fend their rights, by prool'of right or argument demonstrative of right, but by resorting 
 to the power of prejudice and superstition, laying hold on the popularity of some favour- 
 ite, and aiming to excite the sympathies of the community, seek to destrot/ any, and all 
 who dare assert their rights, by opposing an unjust doniUKition. The illustration of the 
 subject before us, will carry conviction, we think, to the mind of every unprejudiced 
 person, who will read and act tor himself .After exhausting the store-houses of abuse, 
 and attempting to render us odious by the stigmatizing epithets of "schismatics," 
 
 "TRADUCERS," "FAI-SE-WITNEBSSKS,"' "busy-bodies IX OTHER men's MAT- 
 TERS," "PUERILISTS," "ADEPTS IN CUNNI.VG," "MEN OF CHICANERY," "UN- 
 JUST," "BASE FARICATORS," "CALUMNIATORS," "PERJURERS," "GLAniA- 
 
 TORs," "CULPRITS," &c. S:c. After a sound of triumphal joy, issuing from the very 
 altars, proclaiminga miracle, :i tniracle, "the chfiffii\{\cd from the wheat," after all 
 their indications of our vileness; witness the proofs which they adduce to substantiate 
 them. Turn to the page which contains the charge and specilicalions, and see the dole- 
 ful array of crime exhibited there against us. Read ''disobedience to the order and 
 discipline of the church,'' sjiread out in three specific articles, the utmost stretch of the 
 whole being to .show that the Vice llieraich, "a man of as great judf^ment as any 
 among its,'' had solved one of the deep mysteries 'lontained in the Sybil's book, [dis- 
 cipline,] and that we had dared to question his infallibility in the right interpretation 
 thereof. See in that charge, and \a tha letter of admonition which precedes it, the 
 justification for gentlemen who teach the doctrines of truth and meekness, that if men arc 
 
.3.5 
 
 reviled, ihey shall not revile again; tiiat ihey must not judgp, lest they tliemselves be 
 judged, &c. [We here remark, that conduct like this, will do more to favour the cause 
 of infidelity, than all the labours of Hume, of Paine, and of Voltaire, united, could ever 
 have etl'ccted without such aid as they have given.] Apprehensive, however, that such 
 glaring inconsistency, such a manifest abuse of the public mind, would awaken a spirit of 
 in(]uiry, that would^i/frcc the veil of prejudice, and bring the indignation of an offended 
 people upon their own heads, they resort to the favourite device used on all such occa- 
 sions, an appeal to prejudice and superstition. A prolepsis is raised, and perched on a 
 promise, keeps prating about proof which is just within reach; but mark carefully the is- 
 sue; the promise dissolves by the skill of the actors, and shows in the distance, the shadow 
 of deeds which arc }et to be done. 'IVue to their purpose, they adroitly shift the scene, 
 appear suddenly at 'another point, and like sf^^r.s with nobler gifts than second sight. 
 they dart a look beyond futurity ; see high above intention, detect the rovings of a bound- 
 ed will, catch a thought yet unconcei\ed, and by the mighty magic of delusive spell, 
 grasp the srathfulghost, and mould ;i 7noHstrr frQ\n nsJiadow's shade. The stratagems 
 of the gentlemen are numerous enough, but the machinery is worn, the wires are rusted, 
 and the lignres move awkwardly about; the illusion can no longer be kept up; hyperboles 
 even fail the desperate cause, for poets have restrained their rage — large 
 
 "Hyperboles, so daring and so bold, 
 Disdaining bounds, arf yet by rules confrolcd." 
 
 We would fain avoid the reproach of following the gentlemen through so many of their 
 absurd hypotheses; but as they have laboured much for our instruction and amusement, 
 we think it but courtesy to notice some of their /?as/ifs. In support of one of their as- 
 sertions, that we wickedly meditated the downfall of Methodism, and consequently were 
 "schismatics," and ^'culprits," they instance the demand which was made to be tried 
 by the Society; gravely pronounce it a ''trick" to avoid "merited punishment," eulogize 
 the fianiers of the discipline, laud "/i?m of as good judgment as any among us," for 
 ifire/y deciding that the disripliite "did not allow of that which, if allowed, could 
 not be done;" raise a supposition in support, and in praise of their wonderful acumen, 
 and argue most e.oquentiy in defence of a defenceless nothing. Is it possible that he 
 who "has as good a judgn.ent as any among then),'" should havejeopaided his judgment 
 by subscribing his name to all the vagaries of the youthful A?najiuensis7 Hear their 
 argument — "Suppose the discipline had said the whole society, then unless the whole 
 society [men and women, boys and girls, minors we suppose] attended, there could 
 be no trial, and the offenders would go unpunished." It is only necessary to remark 
 here, that the discipline does not speak any such nonsense; and the introduction 
 of it in the gentlemen's book, proves more against their cause than we have leisure to 
 comment on. 
 
 The next supposition of the gentlemen is one on which they seem to fix their whole 
 hope of success; it is the sweeping charge of "concealed designs;" a dark conspiracy 
 against the peace and good government of the church, and a fixed determination to stop 
 short of nothing but taking the church away from the church. Hear the gentlemen — 
 "We had good reason to believe that they intended more than was shown," &c. Some 
 "godly members" had whispered treasonjn their ears. This was sufficient; the 
 g\\0!it\y form of 771 urdcrcd power, staWied reeking in their view; arguments ceased to 
 convince; documents became traitors' cloaks; actions were daring inroads on priestly 
 power; smiles or frowns were all alike but daggers half concealed. We pass no judg- 
 ment on conduct like this; we do not hold ourselves responsible for the perversity of 
 other people's minds, neither do we acknowledge any obligation we are under to pilot 
 every wayward understanding into the road to reason. We confess that it is difficult 
 sometimes to arrive at the intentions of men, but we have been taught to believe that ac- 
 tions were generally indicative of motive, and that when an action was of a binding and 
 controling character, it w.is so strong an indication of purpose, as to arrest the scepticism 
 of the most incredulous observer. We now proceed to the important part of our duty, 
 that of sliowmg our intention, and by it the character of the parties, and the true nature 
 of the controversy; and we propose to do it in a way that will enable the reader to judge 
 for himself, and see what are the real merits of the case iu dispute. It will be borne in 
 mind that we have been charged with "a palpable violation of the discipline of the church. ' ' 
 The preachers have declared that they were supported in what they did "by the highest 
 authority;" that we claimed to exercise rights, which they were bound by their oaths to 
 oppose; that we were borne with until "forbearance was no longer a virtue;" that we 
 were alwavs in a mi/iority of one third of the members; tlrat we prevented the Bishop 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 i*v our hasty and uitemperato actions, from sendinp on ilio division wlncli he had nbtain- 
 cd from the ctljtr Bishops, and which wcs to have rr«lorrd pearr to tlie chnrrh; tliat we 
 were "Schitiniatics," "culprits," "gladiittors,' "liyiiorritcs," and every tiling thai 
 t^hould cnt us ofTfrom mcmbersliip and communion in the church; that "pvirrr,''' "nu- 
 prcmary,^^ was our object, and ;ill t»ur designs were sinister; and finally, all who find 
 fault with the economy of .Methodism, are person-s who neither walk with Hod, or live 
 above censure. It must also be reinemlx.'red, that the only proof which the gentlemen 
 have adduced to support their extraordinary allegations, has been their own astertions, 
 bottomed upon the supposed existence of "sinister designs," and enforced by arguments, 
 remarkable only for the sophistry of their reasoning, and the vulgarity of their abuse. In 
 view of establishing the correctness of these reniarkfl, wc submit the following statement 
 and proofs: viz. 
 
 Evils of an intolerant cliaracler, originating in the presumption of n certain class of 
 our population, brought us in contact with the then ruling powers in the church, and 
 an opposition to what was ai first admitted to be just and proper, was hastily gotten 
 up against us, from an apprehension that success with us, though for the good of all, 
 would be accompanied by a loss of power in the ;)r^aclicr. The effort to remedy the 
 evil, [rendered more offensive by the resistance of those whose ready co-operution we 
 had a right to expect] created a cabal among the preachers, who, uuiting with such of the 
 membership, as recognized the doctrine of infallibility in preachers in charge, resolved on 
 maintaining their power, though it should be at the hazard of all that was doarand valua- 
 ble to man. lu pursuance of this decision, a proposition was made ns to surrender at 
 discretion; give up all our lights, orsubniit to expulsion from the church. The course 
 pursued by the preachers, evidenced to our minds, that the love of power with them, was 
 greater than their regard for the souls of the people. Knowing full well, however, that 
 the prosecution of our rights, could not possibly interfere with the system of government 
 in the church, in any other manner than lessening the power of the preachers in the man- 
 agement of the temporal concerns of the society, and willing to believe they understood 
 what they said, and said what they tneant [in their denial of a desire to rule in tem- 
 poral matters,] we perceived no cause for changing the rule of action, laid down in the 
 constitution and by-laws, adopted at the meeting of the corporation in November, espe- 
 cially af\er the violation by Dr. Capers of one of the important articles of the truce, 
 which had been agreed to by a few individuals under the extraordinary circumstances, as 
 heretofore stated An occasion, however, for a further suspension of positive action on 
 our part, occurred through the intervention of Bishop Emory, during his visit here in 
 February. At his suggertion, a proposition was made to the church generally, to refer 
 the matter in controversy, to the Bishops, or a majority of them, [six in number,] for 
 their adjudication, which was to be final, and binding on all parties. A paper specifying 
 the questions to be submitted, the object to be effected, and the conditions on which the 
 decision was to be made, and forwarded to the church here was drawn out by the 
 Bishop himself; read to the members, and taken on by him to Baltimore for the purpose 
 of obtainiug the opinions, and decision first proposed, [a copy being left at the Parson- 
 age.] This paper in connection with some others, which we shall introduce in their 
 proper places, determine.'^ the character of the whole controversy; it is the key which un- 
 locks the door ofmysiicisni that lias so long-shut out the light of truth, and which caused 
 doubt to linger for a while on the minds of a few: it explains motives, rebukes disingcu- 
 uonsness, developes intention, chases fiction, falsifies assertions, and places truth in the 
 light of a sunbeam 
 
 The first witness which we shall introduce to rebut the charge [so insidiously made] of 
 •'sinister designs," is a paper which the gentlemen have published in a mutilated form on 
 the 31flt page of their book. It purports to be the paper which contained the proposi- 
 tions made to the church by Bishop Emory. It is a pari of that paper, we acknowledge, 
 and we thank them for giving so much of it, [the ^^omission^^ of the rein;;inder wliether 
 *'igHorantly," or "iiitentionally," it is not our business to say.] The j)ortion which 
 they have given, contains two interrogatories, submitted for the decision of the bench of 
 Methodist Bishops, or a majority of them. The first is as follows; "whether an incor- 
 poration, either of the Trustees, or of the male members of the church, is inconsistent 
 with the discipline." 
 
 The second is, "whether in case of .such an incorporation, the principle of electing 
 Trustees by the votes of the male members of the church, at such times, and in such 
 manner, as might be agreed on, would be inconsistent with tlie discipline. — Provided, 
 it be the vvLih of the church in this city to adopt such a principle." The use we pro- 
 
35 
 
 pose making of tliis paper is two rold — first, to show the true character ol' our "designs," 
 and secondly, to dcvclope the true character of our opponents. 
 
 The "paper," we apprehend, speaks a language which needs no interpreter, it brings 
 the whole subject to one point; viz: VViiethcr the acts proposed to be performed by us 
 under the charter, were inconsistent with the discipline, provided it was the wish of the 
 church in this city to adopt such a course. It will be perceived, that the intent of the 
 *'power,^' claimed by us, was specifically set forth, and clearly defined to be, the right 
 of electing the Trustees ofthe church, [men who receive and disburse the revenues of the 
 church at their pleasure,] by the vote of the church, and making them responsible lo 
 the church, provided, it be the wish ofthe church that it should be so. This paper is 
 incontrovertible evidence of the intent of power claimed by us; and the privileges which it 
 would have conferred upon the party, [provided we were the majority,] would have fal- 
 len as far short of '"supremacy," as the book ofthe gentlemen does of being an exem- 
 plification ofthe spirit of that master whom they boastfully profess to love and serve. 
 
 The first enquiry we consider superfluous; the fact of the Methodist Episcopal Church- 
 es being incorporated in various places would suflice of itself, but as wc have the autho- 
 rity ofthe General Conference, and the frank avowal of Bishop Emory, that incorpora- 
 tions are not invasions ofthe discipline, it is as well to take them into the account of 
 evidence on this point. If more were necessary, we could quote from Dr. Capers, [than 
 whom there is no higher authority with these gentlemen] and show that with all his love 
 for exclusive rule by the ministry, he actually convened the corporation once, for the 
 purpose of instructing, and empowering the Trustees, to act in a certain matter then at 
 issue, [but lie "uias not informed on a les^al question^' then"] and again in Novem- 
 ber 1833, he was "decided not to call a corporation meeting on purely legal 
 grounds.''^ The second interrogatory is so comprehensive, that it embraces the whole 
 matter in dispute, and taken in comicction with the parts ofthe paper which the gen- 
 tlemen accidentally remembered to forget, puts to shame the authors ofthe calumny 
 which has been so "recklessly" dealt out against us. We invite particular attention to 
 the phraseology of this portion of that "paper," for it propounds questions, which involve 
 all the controverted points that was raised between the parties in the church, and places 
 us, we think, in a position of perfect security against the malevolent attacks ofthe in- 
 triguing and disingenuous members ofthe conclave. Now what are the questions pro- 
 pounded? Why precisely such, and such only, as honestly belongs to the matter in dis- 
 pute. We claimed the right, in behalf of the members, of electing to olfice those per- 
 sons who managed the temporal concerns of the church, and of making them responsible 
 elsewhere than to themselves. We thought that the members ofthe church had a deep- 
 er interest in the temporal aftairs ofthe society, than any other class of individuals could 
 possibly have, and in view of this wc adopted rules, and regulations, which would break 
 up the corrupting practice of a board perpetuating itself, by limiting the term of otfice to 
 one year, and giving the right of election to the members of the church. The opposition 
 to this natural right, by Prcacheis and Trustees, led to the proposed arbitration of the 
 Bisliops; and as we had been charged by those in power with "sinister designs," with an 
 attempt to rob the preacher in charge of a power which the discipline guaranteed to him — • 
 that of nominating to the board candidates to fill vacancies in the board, of which he was 
 chairman, who were to be elected by the members of the board — We yielded to the 
 suggestion of Bishop Emory, that as the discipline was made the cause of contention, and 
 the Bishops were the authorised expounders of it, to submit the questions of right to their 
 adjudication. The paper was drawn up by the Bishop himself, and a careful perusal 
 of it will satisfy every mind, that he was no partisan of a "disaffected minority," and 
 that unless our claims were based on principles of strictest justice; unless the discipline 
 openly admitted our rights, and unless we were in an unquestioned majority of the 
 church, neither preacher, discipline, trustees, or any adherent of priestly power, hac^ 
 cause to tremble at the reference thus made. The question it will be remembered was, 
 whether in case of an incorporation ofthe male members of the church, the principle of 
 electing Trustees by the votes of the male members, at such time, and in such manner, as 
 might be agreed on, would be inconsistent with the discipline. — Provided, it bo the 
 tfi.sft of the c/iurfA, in this city to adopt such a principle: Mark the difficulties then, 
 which obstructed our march on the road to "supremacy." First, the ruling powers, [the 
 Bishops,] mu.st have bended to our will, and unmindful of their oath to niaintain the dis- 
 cipline, have yielded their judgment, their mitres, and their consciences, to pur "factious" 
 desires. Secondly, it must have been agreed on by the church, consisting of preach-. 
 as, cxhorttrs, official and laymen, that they desired such a course, and would have. 
 
tlie change efl'ected; and thirdly , it required tlie as>i>laiico of superhuman agency, to 
 transform onr "tni7iorily of less than one-third ,^^ into a number equal to tliat which is 
 universally admitted as necessary to determine tl)C wishes orsentimcnls ofany, and every 
 public societ}'. The only possible ground on which the gentlemen, in our view, could 
 hope to escape the condemnation due to such "reckless" conduct, as that of charging us 
 with the nj<c«/i(J7i of sw&ucr<in^ the discipline, and econoi.iy ofthochurth, with this 
 paper in their possession, is one which ought to mantle tit i. cheeks with liues of deep- 
 est dye; it is a concealment of the truth, a keeping back part of the price of honesty ; it is 
 the tcithholding that which was unknown to many, and which they iioped was forgotten 
 by the few; it is in fact the other parts of that very paper, an allusion to which, drove 
 them to the specious sophisms tiiat spread themselves through the 31, 32 and 33 pages of 
 their "Arabian Tales." It is the key to their undoing, the "ghost of Banco," whichob- 
 trudes its unwelcome presence on their guilty feastings. It is that which wo alluded to 
 a few pages back, as developing intention, by the controlling character of the act; it is 
 that which says, "the brethren claiming under the corporation, aura, that in case the 
 Bisheps shall decide, that what they propose is inconsistent with the discipline, they will 
 abandon their whole ground," [the gentlemen have the paper, if we err, vveinvile cor- 
 rection.] This is not all. The paper proposed an application to the Legislature of this 
 State, for a new charter, or a remodeling of the old one, so as to remove the objections 
 which were urged against it by the Doctor, and those who thought with him. Aye, still 
 more; that same paper contained an outline of an act for re-incorporating the church in 
 this city, in which was a denial of right, or a r<>nunciation on the part of the corporators 
 of all right to intermeddle with any matters of a spiritual character, and giving the 
 preachers, and the Quarterly Conference, the sole right of appointing the Stewards, and 
 the entire management of all monies collected in the churches, and classes, with all be- 
 quests for the benefit of the preachers, or stewards funds, the appointment of class lead- 
 ers, exhorters, &c. &c. Will the community believe that men who prate so mucli about 
 "honesty," and "/JoZicy i?i tr«r," who declaim so violently against holding back 
 things that "have an important bearing on the case,'''' should be guilty of so gross an 
 abuse of the public confidence, as to present a paper for consideration, and conceal from 
 view those parts which had, not only an "important bearing on the case," but without 
 which, there could be no understanding of the objects or aims proposed by it; [for shame 
 gentlemen:] But perhaps "tiikre were two paragraphk," and the first was 
 considered sufficient for their purposes, or perhaps there were "two papers," and 
 the gentlemen quoted from the one which was "lost," or perhaps the young novelist 
 who performed the onerous duty of amanuensis to his own composings, grew tired of 
 prosing over facts, and having refreshed himself with a draft of his favorite fiction, forgot 
 to take up the right thread when he resumed the "narrative." Comment here would be 
 an insult to the understanding of the reader. 
 
 We pass on to the examination of the second witness, and call on Bishop .^ndreiv. 
 The reader will bear in mind that Bishops Andrew and Emory, were in Charleston to- 
 gether, in February last, that they had interviews with Dr. Capers at the Ceorgia Con- 
 ference, just previous to their coming to Charleston; were informed on all jioints touching 
 our "reDo/u/io/iary </esig»is," as presented to them by the doctor; also that they had 
 seen the doctor's first pamphlet; and consequently all our proceedings as a corporation, 
 which were fully spread out on the pages of that pamphlet, were familiar to tlieni: added 
 to this, they had all the advantages which could accrue from being on the spot when the 
 "REBELLION "was raging. What is the testimony of Bishop Andrew.' — first, a decla- 
 ration that the old Trustees were a wrong headed set of men; secondly, that there had 
 been too much heed given at the Parsonage, to the tales of ill omened gossips, who had 
 nothing to do but to deal out slander as a pastime; thirdly, that the obstinacy of the old 
 Trustees would, [he feared] compel a resort to the courts of law for the final settlement 
 of disputes among us; fouithly, that as a quiet and peaceful measure, lie would recom- 
 mend a separation, or adivision of the disputants, and as we were the most tractable, ho 
 advised as a last resort, that we should form a distinct congregation, be placed under a 
 separate charge, have an act of "incorporation to suit ourselves, and be supplied witli 
 a minister who would be furnished us by the Bishop presiding over this diocese. In a 
 letter from Bishop Andrew to us, of the 6th August, 1834, he says — "would it not have 
 "been the better course in the commencement of this unhappy affair, instead of arraying 
 "parties under hostile banners, and calling into requisition the worst passions of human na- 
 "ture, to have procured an authoritative legal decision of the points of /att), embraced 
 "Tn the controversy." Again. — "I foresuw from the commencement, that & law suit 
 
37 
 
 '•must settle the inaltsr, and 1 thought it had better be done pcaceabli, thiui olhermtse." Agaia — 
 "Another plan suggested at my last conf.'rencp with Bishop Emory, V.-as to advise tlie brethren 
 "claiming corporate rights, to forui a separate congregatioii, procure u charier such as thet/ vnght 
 "airprove, with the assuranci' tliai in such an«\vnt. the Bishops would make it a separate charge 
 "and send ihfui a preacher accordingly." (iuERY? Did Bishop Andrew consider a resort to 
 LAW, as snlhcient cau.-H" for cxpubion, (wiih two-thirds of a days notice for trial) or did h^ view 
 our proposed action under the act of incorporation as a "palfxible vwhiion of the disrijJine" of 
 the church? Or did he believe that wc were schismatics, culprits, men of chicanery, 
 ADEPTS IN cUNNiNc;. &.C. «S:c. because we endeavoureil to accomplish what he h&d foresceti 
 from the commiiicoiuiit, (a scttlemoni of llie dispute by a resort to law ns inevitable;) or did he 
 consider chartertd riglits a.s '^ic^nUsiiig acombinatiou of disorc;anizers, and as inilraging the 
 discipline with impunity?" (sec pnge31 of Expositi<m continued.) Verily tlieduj- of wonders 
 can never dea-se whilst young imported "srusTiTTTEs" (se" page 9 of Dr. Capern' pamphlet) are 
 perniiltcd to chatt; r away the sober reflections of their grave seniors, (the Bishops.) 
 
 We pass on the third witness, and introduce Bishop Kmory to the gentlrmen. Th" reader will 
 please bear in mind, thai Bishop Emory w;us, and s'ill is, the head of ih" Church in t'harleslon, 
 (youth-Carolina being a part of his dioce.se) that he was intimately acquainted with tlie facts of 
 the case hffoi'e us, having conversed freely and rej»ealedly with thepartie.s on both sides of ths 
 question, had seen the constitution and by-laws, wliich had been adopted i>y us, the corporation 
 party, in Nov. 1833, was bound by the obligation of an oath of great solemnity, to support and 
 defend the discipline and economy of the Metluxlist Episcopal Church in the I'nittHl States, has 
 been a lawyer of eminence, and perhaps the best expounder of the Methodist code known in the 
 Church. What is the testimony of this witness? Why, that "incorporations of ihe Methodist 
 "churches are not inconsistent with Methodist discipline," we have churches in various nart.s of 
 the country "which are incorporated. I pt?rceive agreat <lifri<ulty in llieChurcii here, but it is 
 "altogether with ijourselvcs, if either party ^^ould yield to the other, the diffictdly wotdd cease. I 
 "have power to decide the controversy at once, but as the old Trustees ajipear wedded to their 
 "opinions, I would prefer submitting the questions to th,^ Bishops generally, or to a majority of 
 "them. I will draw up what J consider will meet the views of both parties, and submit it to the 
 "congregation on next Sabbath after service, will leave a copy at the Parsonage, and take the 
 "paper with me to Baltimore, for tli? purpose of obtaining the opinions and decision of th^' Bish- 
 "ops upon it; 1 will be able at fartiiest to send you the dt^cision in two months: 1 understand you 
 "distinctly, ns binding: yourselves to submit to the adjudication of the Bishops, be their judg- 
 "ment for or against you; 1 understand you distinctly as />led<:iiirr yourselves in the event of a 
 "decisio!! adverse to your views, to abandon all your claims under the charter; the goverment of 
 "ihechurch to continue as heretofore. In theeveni of the old Trustees, and others continuing re- 
 "fractory, if the Episcopal judgment b^- in opposition to their views, I will instruct the Preacher 
 "in charge to enforce the discipline agaiiist them. If (as you suggest,) any occurrence should 
 "prevent me from sending on the deeiiion, I will notify tlu' Preacher and yourselves; and you 
 "will then be whL\-e I found y^nv. primps a r<.>ori to th{> law will then be tiie only way to ter- 
 "minate the controversy. I b.lie\e, sincerely, you de-ire nothing but what you conscientiously 
 "think the discipline warrants you in claiming." In a letter f:om Bishop Emory tons, datt^d 
 Baltimore, .luly 31, 1831, he says — "\our letter of the I'J'h iiisl. brings me painful intelligence, 
 "painfully expressed under feelings of ONeiieinrni, doubtlt'ss, which as well as the occasion of it, 
 "I cannot but deeply regret. The cause of my ddai/iug to communicate a decision of the Bish- 
 "ops in the qui'stion referred to them, 1 ha\ e before explained in a letter to brother Kennedy, 
 ■'which I perceive you have seen as I desired. The o/yfr7 of thai refirciicc being a pacific ad- 
 "Justmenl, J still doubt the propriety oi' communicating any decision till bothjMrtics pledge them- 
 ■ "selves to abide by it, which has liot yv^t Iwu done." Speaking on the subject of the interviews 
 with us when I\Ir. Kennedy and the Presiding "Klder were present, he remarks, — "Brother Ken- 
 "nedy in particular accompanied me, not as chairman of the old board of Trustees, but as the 
 "minister in charge of the staiio.i." Again 1^' ndds, — "I confess I begin to fear, that wiih your 
 "existing views and feelings on both sides, you will hardly be brought U> harmonise, agreeably to 
 "our earnest desire, under one pastoral charge; if this be .so, will it not be better, less scandalous 
 "in the public eye, and more in the spirit of the gospel, to agree, that those who desire it, shall 
 "worship together under a distinct charge, in the common bond of the same geiicnd communion, 
 "as a temporary measure at least, till your next Annual Conforence? Perhaps .some arrangement 
 "of this sort might be made, if desired, by any considerable portion of the Society:" and con- 
 cludes by saying "I e,ntreat you never to Ibrget, that whatever else you may gain, if you lose 
 the true christian spirit you lose all." 
 
 A brief application of the foregoing, may not be imiraportant, though the plainness of the case 
 "commends itself to every nian'a undcistanding." 
 
 Are we then the vile characters representetl in the book of these pious gentlemen? Are wo 
 "disorganisers," "self-willed," "factious," "adepts in cunning," "m.^n of chicanery," "base fabri- 
 cators," "revolutionists," "culprits," "gladiators," "schismatics," &c. We trow not! or, if we 
 arc, we go in company with two of tlie gentlemen's Bishops. Have we done any thing that is 
 palpably obnoxious to the Discipline? ^Ve apprehend not; for the Bishojis, under the solemnity 
 of a peculiarly binding oath, were bound to tell us, if we had .so done, and they have notso told 
 us. Was our conduct of that atrocious charact"r that made ^forbearance no longer a virtue?" 
 We appeal to the invitation of two Bishops, who were conversant with the whole proceedings to 
 remain in the connexion, "in the common bond of the same general communion," with the privi- 
 lege of procuring an "act of incorporation to suit otrrsehrs." Wo appeal to the letter . of adrao- 
 
.is 
 
 xiiiuii, aiid tlie oflicial charges of the geiillemon tlipniselvrs; did we ineditale ilit- diiitruciion of 
 the charch, bj- "a.«siiniing ihc right of srtiinp ns'nlv th. di-ii|iliiji'," ami "ucliiiR nrronling lo our 
 own lawUsx notioas of ri^hl and wrong'" (M men- minority of lews than one iliirdf") \W tifii«-ld 
 oursefves, by thcpanojily ofiriith; we refer lo the j>ap«'r which irrevocably hotiiul lis lo. ^uhmil lo 
 the adjudication of the hwom defenders of the Disoiphne. Did we violate scripture rules, and 
 diKciphnen«trictions, by going to "law with the brethren'"' We boldly deny I lie ( liarge. \Vc 
 went to law with a stranger, who occupied pr< mises that were either subject ^al<ine) to our con- 
 trol, as a corporation, or that belongcii of right to the (Jrphnii Instiiiition of this city. Were we 
 tryuig to overturn the rightful government of the church, by instituting a suit whicli \\<Mild ena- 
 ble If to get into the Appeal Court, and priKure a final decision on a coniroverted point, \n hicli 
 hml distracted the church for a year: we ask, what did l»r. Caiiei-s mean, by his ostensive th-sirc 
 to get the matter into the Appeal Court? What did the Bishops desi^'n, when fhty siiggestrd an 
 appeal to the Court/ What mode of procoe<lingH could Imvo been adonfd lo effect this end, oili- 
 er than the one which w,xs adopted, or that which was often pro|x»sed, and which thfy as often 
 rejected, "an amicable uuit' " Are we jieculiarly cli.irgpable with "dunm: rfrantcrif," in riiiing 
 fo speak in the prepence otrrict.-t, when ih«y hail uii>irr id<-<l iheirsannity, by x-iohiluig a pl.-dgp 
 given not two hours previous, not todo, wlirii lh(i/ so "ncklr-ssly" did do? Have wo fahtly 
 tKxu'tdoi' havinf^hieh ovlhontif, lor what we did, when we show the opinions of two flishops, 
 (th? Bishops bemg the highestauthority in the thurch.') Have we conip<]ie<i tlie !,'(iill< men lo 
 do what they haredone, by forcing upoii thiin, acts, which tlity "were buund by th-ir oaths lo 
 oppose," the Bishops, (whose oaths are more binding, not considering, that their con.sciencta suf- 
 fered, by permitting us to proceed? Did we "prevent the Bishop from sending on the d'fcisioii," 
 which he had undertaken to prcK lire, when tlie resolutions which wo passini on the subjecf, 
 were not adopted until the Bishop had twice written, that he was prevented from sending it by 
 the act of the old Tnwte<'s.' Did we aim at "supremacy in the chiirdi," when we surr.ndercd 
 every right into the hands of the Preachers, except ihat of electing the Trustees? Could wo 
 have been iu the minority, which they speak of, when we outvoted them, onevory occasion, that 
 we were permitted to meet together as a society or church .' Can any man of common sense, or 
 common honesty, charge us "w ith sinister designs," when we had put it in the power of the Bish- 
 ops, to prostrate us with a word; when we had solemnly agreed to u proiwsition, whicii special- 
 ly (Stated all that wa» claimed, and that projwsition m;uie by a Methodist Bishop, ami referred to 
 thebenchof Methodist BisKoj>s,iot their opinion, astoita harmony with tiie disciphiie and econ- 
 omy of the church, and a pUdee given to ulxindvn our whole ground, if it was pronounced "jn- 
 consisieiit with the disciphne?'^ \Vill any but a dupe to the mazy artifices of the holy conclave, 
 believe that the ruffian "Diotrephes," with his banditti of 'driUcd adherenlg," his lawless hosls 
 of conspiratorn, ("aiming at supremacy,") his trained band of "liy|)Ocrites," "traducers," "false 
 witnesses," "busy bodies in oilier men's niaiters,' "puerilisls," "base fabricators," 'Mdepbi in 
 cunning," "men of chicanery," "unjul," "calumniators," "perjurors," schismatics," "culprits," 
 and "gladiators," will it be believetl we say, that these daring rebels, thirsting for power with 
 vehement desire, regardless of the means by which they should obl;iin ii, had voluntarily dejws- 
 iied all their engines of war, their shields and bucklers, and armour too, in the arsenal of the fun 
 whom they intended to destroy? We apprehend not; the gentleni'Mi must have Ikjcii frighteiu d 
 at the ghosts of theirown murdered consciences. What else could havealarmed them.' Why 
 did they and their adherents oppose the bending on of the Bishop's decision? We could hayo 
 done nothing without their sanction, and not liien, unless we were greatly in the majority; refer 
 to the "paper," "j/rovidcd it be the wish of the church in this city to adopt such aprinriple." \S by 
 tlien be afraid.' "fonscienne does make men cowards sometimes." Aye, and robs them ol sph-n- 
 did victories too. Suppose the gentlemen liad honestly believed that w hat we had done, and pro- 
 posed doing, under the act of incorporation, were actiial violations of thediscipliiie, must they not 
 have anticipated a decision against us, w Inch w oiild have put our w hole troop completely "hors de 
 combat;" which would have given the hand of x\w fttilhjtti, a peaceful opporliuuty of charging 
 us, horse, foot and dragoons, and acfjuiring tor their goose quill chiefiain, a victory eijual to his 
 highest, loudest, dearest lio|)es? Luckless youth! where, oh! where was the geni that presided 
 o%er thy lor tunes, w hen thoii wast chosen a ".siibsiiiuU'," lo fill a mighty c/uisih in the C'harlcjston 
 station! Where was ihat genius which develo(M?d himself so toweringly in the novel invention 
 of an "alar.m klac;?" Gone, gone, gone. Alas, ]K)or George.' 
 
 The gentl-nun boast of their imijarlial administration of discipline, and in proof of if, say, 
 that they did not rite ns to trial with a view of getting rid of the suit Ix-fore llic magistrate,— 
 will they be pleased to tell us why th"y were in siuh haste aljoiit the matter, "w ill the communi- 
 ty receive the ridiculous statement," which they have made in absence of all testimony to sup- 
 port it.' What is their proof, why, theasscrtiou that "they had meditated it some time before. " 
 Suppose ihcy had, the less excuse certainly, for notifying us at midday on .Monday, to apjH'ar be-' 
 lore the Sanhedrim on Tuesday at 9 A. M. and when interrupted by a citation to ap|Kar beforo 
 the court, to alter the citations to 4 P. M. same day, and serve them at 12. Why ifour conspiracy 
 had equalled that which was meditated af,'aist the Senate of Venice, they could not ha\e pro- 
 ceeded with great urgency But, "//(ty had meditated it," aye, and jike Nebiuhadnczzcr's ir- 
 reversible decree, it had gone tbrth throughout the vast empire of their three-fold thoughts. Jus- 
 tice was to be silenced, equity was to be hushed, religion with her preceptive nil", "7>o iniio oth- 
 ers as you would IheyahoxiU do unto you," was laid aside luitil a more convenient .•reason wnuld 
 authorise them to resume it: Mordecai was in the gate, and daman Wiis unhappy. But they 
 "»ele<ted the most impartial inoffensive men thai they could find. ' They were all "solwr," 
 grave, 'considerate. tz7»» nenccc/ men " Well, perlmji- so. We regret. h'-'>\ ever, that ire do know- 
 
;i9 
 
 that llieydiil know, tli.it three (at least) of lliefonr \vhi» ilid iioi attend, had expressly refused to 
 do so, aiid those who did altoiid were known (two exronted) tohe among the most violent of their 
 party, one having said onlu'inp addressed, by the tisnal appellation of "brother," that he "would 
 as soon rail l\w Dccil his brother, as a corporation man," another, that "he would spiU the last 
 drop of his heart' s blvi'd" before he would sulli'r Holloway to be removed from the seat which he 
 was oceupying in thr" ehurch, tliough contrary to the wishes of many of the members and the 
 resolutions dI'iIk? Quartf rly I "onlerenee; a third had a son in the ministry, v\ ho was known to be 
 violently opposed to us, and to all who denied infallibility in the Preaehi>rs; a fourth was incapa- 
 ble, from his own confessions, (neither understanding how to read or write,) of |»ereeiving the 
 right or wrong of the matter; and a fifth, from a cause of /oo disi^itnlifi/iji" a chnTacVe-r tt) re- 
 <|uirean argiimf^nt; thesixth yielded his own judgmint to the solicitation of the Preachers, ami 
 the seventh stonily di'lended us to the Inst. I'hese are the men, w ho, nodding assent to the dic- 
 tates of him "who has as good ajudgnicnt as any among them," determined, what two Bishops 
 had declined the responsibility of doing, on what had been referred to a bench of Bishops Ibr 
 their adjudication. 
 
 But the gentlemen have said, that they had not expressed any opinions on the subject. Wc 
 could say much on this point, but it would be daring "effrontery," to correct an error in these 
 gentlemen; it would absolutely be littl.' short of .Naying that they were Aristocrats, and that 
 would be so inconsistent with the '•jieculiar delicacy of fwling," which they say we possess; but 
 they admit that one had prejudged the ca.se, and he was only taken to fill the vacancy. Indeed, 
 take a sworn enemy tiir a Juror? Were they so straitened for men, a.s to be oi)liged to take one 
 whose prejudices were notoriously known, who resided at the opposite extreme of the town, and 
 whose avocations called him daily from the city. This has an ugly squinting at something. — 
 What had become of the large majority of "godiy men?" If this is a sample of the "t/'A«af," 
 we are not surprised that the "w innowing ftui" w as applied to the "floor." 
 
 To follow the gentlemen in their tortuous course throughout, would be as fatiguing as it is un- 
 necessary. They are anxiously flying tVom facts; we seek repose within the ramparts of truth. 
 We believe that we have maintained the position w hich we assumed in our fiist pamphlet; and 
 if it should be remarked that we have omitted noticing any particular {xiints in ihe book which 
 may .SL,ei.> r > bo important, we beg the reader to examine again, and sei' whether snch are any 
 thing more than tiiucy conclusions, hastily drawn from premises, only assumed to f^xliibit their 
 skill at ^'rhetorical flourishes.''' In : uch exercises, we admit their "supremacy;" we refuse the 
 gauntlet, lo.ver our lances, and proclaim them the victors in all combats of errantry. Our bu- 
 sini'ss is with fact.s, and though the plainness of the garb may estrange us from the f/e«/«r« in 
 fiction, by reason of its honv>s))nn quali y; yet it commends itself on account of the reminiscen- 
 ces of early impressions which are brought in review before us; it tells us how satisfied wc wore 
 wh?n we heard things always called by their right name;; and how sorry we felt for a rude, 
 listless neighbour, whom we eavv checkci! in a mom->nt of improper exultation, at the success of 
 a llctitioiis tale, which he had invented to screen himself from public odium, by being told that 
 fictions were lies, and "that a lie wa.s a desperate cowardice." It was "fearing man, and braving 
 God." It reminds us tO(> of w hat our good old parson used to tell us, that "honesty (whether in 
 war, or in peace, in state, or in church) w;t* always th** best policy:" That "religion w;is tho 
 hes! armour in the world, but the worst clouh." That the more "honesty a man had, tht less ho 
 affected the air ofa saint:" "That the allectalion of Kanclity, wa.s a blotch on thj face of piety:" 
 That "ihey w ho could be jnifftd up by a gak; of thoughtless applause, wouUl bj made to bend 
 beneath the force of an honest reproof,' and, that 
 
 "Those who were given most to railing, 
 Were found to have the greatest failing." 
 
 In a note at the bottom of the last page of the gentlemen's book, an allusion is made to an affi- 
 davit of otirs, which they had. That aflidavit was made to correct a misstatement which they 
 had sent to the Bishop. That atndavit would stamp "recklessness," of a daring character, on 
 the authors of the "Exjiosition continued," especially as it relates to their extraordinary denial 
 of what occurred between the comrnitt<v^ appointed to prosecute thc'old Trustees, and the Preach- 
 er in charge. That aflidavit woidu have been published in this p.imphlei, but that it implicates 
 a gentleman of their party, whose name is not among the avouchers of their fictions. Th« in- 
 sertion of it by us, tmder such circ umstance.'', would savour of revenge; bj' doing this w.* would 
 be but even with our enemies; by passing it over, we may be superior. Circumstances may ren- 
 der it necessary to produce it hert-ailer: if so, it shall appear with other mattirs kept in reserve. 
 
 Lit uf in Cvinclusior., draw the ationiion of tho genilemen to the dilemma into which they have 
 brought themselves, and see whether the acumen of some, have not been obscured by the obesi- 
 ty of others. As ihey ap;>ear to be fond of logical deductions, we will cndea\our to efleet a 
 lodgment on their parapet wall, and bring ou:si'hes, if possible, v^iihin reach of their under- 
 standing. Wo will try a syllogism or tWi>, and if i)eai<n off. will acknowledge a d -feat. 
 
 First. The gentlemen pledge? themselves in the eommoncement of their btK)k, to kvilhhold 
 nothing that was necessary to a right nndersUinding of the qurstion at issue. The pajier ..ubmil- 
 ted to thn BLshop.s, contained matter thai was every w ay important to a right and fair understan- 
 ding of tho case. They presented a jxirt only of that pa)X'r, imllJioldiiig all that could explain 
 thedispul*^; consequently, they did us an injui-y, and violated thi'ir own pledge. 
 
 JSecondly. They affinn that they always had ii majority of two-thirds of the male members 
 of the ell irch: a minority of one-third caniKti outvote tiifo-thirds; we ontvoteil them on every oc- 
 
lu 
 
 < a>ii)n, ewii wlieii ihcir niimrr.s (alioi in aiil iVnni liir lii>i)i\\n)!> iiiul hf-dt^o.-, (sis uv csui pr«jv«' 
 ilify tlid oil tlie niplit of" tlip Tirli NoMiiiliiT, IH'SJ,) tlior«|bn», iliry were not n majority of (he 
 male nK'UilxTh of llip church, and their alHriiinlinn Is — tiirsuslainctl. 
 
 Tlii'(hy. They assert ihiit wo li.ul rxj'/MWv violaiod iho <!i>i'ii'lini\ the Risliop is flie high'^sf 
 aulhi)ri:y in expoundinf? aiscipline; Hi>h< p ?!inor\ , (tli" diocf^saii of ihis char),'.') ti Id as tlmt '"if 
 the old 'J'ru-tees would c;ase tlu'ir o]ipu>iiion, the ditlieuliy would \'Tmish;'' llier< fore, wo did 
 not violate the Dihtiplin-', and the a.isi -lion is unsiippori-Hl. 
 
 Fourthly. Tli^y chaifre nn with beiii^: "given to chicanery,"' "adepts in riinninjr.'" "false w itness- 
 css." "cidprit*,'' Arc. Sucli char.-.cters, the ch^'.^ch is boii.'id toexpel, iiidess tliey "i-c|ient dtep- 
 ly,"' "evidence a podly soriow for sin," and ''.<iiow dcej) contrition." '1 he only rep» niar.ce they 
 rcquiivd of UN was, that UTshnulil .viihdrawa .•■■uit aujainst ]Mr. Ling, nclmow led(je iho old Trub- 
 tee.s. and Prcach'jr in charge, as I<ord.- jiaramoniii in th*.^ church; n^d conNPijnenily.wc were not 
 what they .•■o niode>ily lu»ve asserted we were. 
 
 Fifthly. They as.seri than hoy had not the iacau.« of carrying the wishes of th-' Quarterly 
 <'oiifereiice into execution, in rcspot t to the Reparation of ik-^topk from ainoni^ the w hit;- inein- 
 her.s: the means new.isary was s«/_i/ f/f)Wnr.t; they have since purcha.'^i-d ihv Academy of I-'iiie 
 
 Art.--, (to accommodate the } at tlirrr /housjitdfivc humlrcd tioHarf, consrquontly ihowant 
 
 of in-^ians, was not the cause of the r. I'lisal. 
 
 Sixthly. They dcnoiuice all w ho opjjo.sc I h'- di.-cipUne and economy of the church, ns pt'rmns- 
 who wad; not with (Jod, n;:tl who are pu illy of personal irr^trulariiit s: there nri' fnrlirtliree 
 thousand Mcihodi-st Protesianls in the Unitcfl States, wlsooppo.se the discipline and t conomj- of 
 their church; con.scquently, these 43,000 reformers, together with every person of other denoini- 
 natioiu, who a;.'roe with u.s in matters of church government, arc guilty of personal irregulari- 
 ties, and of waiiiinc: with thedcvil. 
 
 Seventhly. Thry charge us with not discovering any error in ihi- di-i.-^ipline, or n\ their adinin- 
 i.strati(>n of it, until our expulsion: we discovf rt-d the errors in the discij^line, a»id their adminis- 
 tration of it, a y^ai ago, ai;d oppo- d ir. 1 hey appointed a comtaitte v-> of tha Preachers and sev- 
 en nu.'mb;;r», five beiri^'j congenial .tpiriln, and thrust us out, w hi n we give a praciicid illustration 
 of our dwcovery; and corstqncrily 'h? illustration of a proposition isvith them the evidence of 
 the non-existence of a fact. 
 
 We here class with these gen'Ifmen, and is wo v?rily believ j that the love of now er with 
 them i.^a parDinoum conddbriitio.'i, v\ •> eume ■•tly exhort them 'ocasta.side "the sin that s-o easily 
 besrt.'! th'-m,' to b^ nistant in prajL-r, fo remen-bcr the ftte of Ananias and Sapphira; to as!-; for- 
 giveness whik' i* iaypt lo-diy.Ie.jt while they .\ccm fo labour I'.jr others, thry thcm.selvcs nhottld 
 become casta^^ ayh. 
 
 Note. — If it is asked why so lit'le allusion is made to o«eofthc ihree authors of th3"ETp<)si- 
 tion continue*)," we answer, because, "hfatuun perinde ar ovia, bv. ht direnit, incedil."