THE DISRUPTION of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1844.-1846: Comprising a Thirty Years' History op the Relations op the Two Methodisms. BY EDWARD H. MYERS, D.D. "with an introduction by t. o. summers, d.d. nashville, tenn.: a. h. bedford, agent. macon, ga.: j. w. burke & co. 1875. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, BY E. H. MYERS, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. STEREOTYFED AT THE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF TIIE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH, NASHVILLE, TENN. To All the Members of the TWO EPISCOPAL METHODISMS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Who Wish to Know and to Follow THE TRUTH, This Appeal to the Future Against the Past—to 1876 Against 1848— Is Respectfully Dedicated by THE AUTHOR. CONTENTS. PAGE Preface 7 Introduction 13 CHAPTER I. The Attitude of the Methodist Episcopal Church toward Slavery 17 CHAPTER II. The General Conference of 1844 41 CHAPTER III. The Constitutional Powers of the General Confer¬ ence 47 CHAPTER IV. The Perversion of Law by the General Conference of 1844 60 CHAPTER V. The Kelation of the Bishops to the General Confer¬ ence 68 CHAPTER VI. A Division of the Church Declared Inevitable be¬ fore the Pinlf.y Resolution was Passed, and the Result was Intended 86 (5) 6 Contents. CHAPTER VII. The Plan or Separation Proposed and Adopted 95 CHAPTER VIII. The Conditions oe the Plan of Separation 105 CHAPTER IX. Action of the South on the Plan of Separation 128 CHAPTER X. The General Conference of 1848.—Repudiation of the Plan of Separation 141 CHAPTER XI. Two Divisions of the Methodist Episcopal Church Prior to 1844 154 CHAPTER XII. The Legal Aspects of the Subject 169 CHAPTER XIII. The Present Relations of the Two Mf.thodisms 185 PREFACE. AS not the time arrived for a calm and impartial discussion of those questions which, having first divided, have subse¬ quently alienated from each other, the two great branches of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Let us hope it—let us presume that the "fraternal greetings" interchanged in May, 1874, indicate a sincere desire for peace and cordial Christian reciprocity betwixt these kindred Communions. But this desirable result is not to be secured merely by the cry of "Peace, peace! when there is no peace." The members of these negotiating bodies ought to under¬ stand each other—ought to comprehend thoroughly the facts and principles underlying their separation and alienation. I say "prin¬ ciples," for if the attitude of hostility in which they now stand to each other he ba=ed on passion and prejudice alone, then neither Church would deserve the respect of the Christian world did they riot at once bury these forever out of sight. In the interest, therefore, of peace—to do what he can to secure permanent fraternity between these kindred Communions—the writer sends forth this volume. It is, necessarily, both historical and polemic. As a history, it narrates the events of 1844; giving the partition between two jurisdictions of the ministry and mem¬ bership of the one original Methodist Episcopal Church in tho United States; the principles occasioning the rupture maintained by the antagonistic parties; the relations the two Churches have since held toward each other; and their attitude now that tenta¬ tive efforts toward reconciliation have been inaugurated. (7) 8 Preface. Polemics have a place in this volume, because the events have been misunderstood, misinterpreted, sometimes perverted; and it is the province of argument to restore to proper order this dislo¬ cated history—to give back the meaning that has been wrested from it, that there may be found in it no longer a pretext for the defamation of Southern Methodism; for the writer occupies the ground held by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. There is good reason, at the present time, for recalling this past history, and for restating the principles which have guided the movements, and warranted the action, of that Church; for the questions brought, by recent events, before both Communions can¬ not be understandingly di.scussed, or satisfactorily settled, without recurring to a history almost forgotten except by a few of the sur¬ vivors of those enacting it—and in their memory too often dis¬ torted by the passions and excitements engendered by subsequent controversies amid the convulsions of sectional revolution. It is not wonderful that those troubled times gave rise to misunder¬ standings acrimonious in character and fatal to Christian charity in result; but it will be a lasting reproach to calm reason, and a /foul blot upon religion, if.tbose who are before the world as teach- s ers and exemplars of both cannot dismiss all passion and prejudice, |and come to the investigation of a great question involving vital linterests in the kingdom of Christ in an impartial, philosophic '^spirit. J In this temper the author has endeavored to examine this grave subject, and he commends this treatise to all in both Com¬ munions who will approach it with the wish to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." /This discussion comes opportunely to the members of the Church, South, lest they be hurried away, by an ardent temperament that responds impulsively to the proffer of fraternity, from a consider¬ ation of those principles by which alone they can vindicate their past history and their permanent separate organization. Christian charity is commendable—a duty; but that impulsive charity, so- Preface. 9 called, which has no underlying principle, damages instead of ad¬ vances that cause of Christ, in whose name it vaunts itself. But the author writes not for his own Communion alone. He here gives a connected, though hrief, history of the events that radiate from the year 1844, when the division of American Epis¬ copal Methodism was inaugurated. Using principally official and semi-official documents and contemporary publications, whose au¬ thority will scarce he questioned by the most skeptical partisan— rarely advancing an opinion unsustained by documentary evidence —his statements especially well fortified at all vital points by in¬ disputable proofs, he confidently offers the result to the Christian world to establish the validity of the claim of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, South, to he no offspring of schism or secession, hut entitled to a place in the sisterhood of Churches of equal legiti¬ macy with her twin sister, the Methodist Episcopal Church. Especially does the writer appeal to those of the sister Commun¬ ion whose hearts are inclined to fraternity to study this array of fact and argument with particular care. Eor his purpose is not to hinder, but to promote, a lasting peace, if it can be secured on just principles—and honorable to both Churches; and presuming that his co-religionists of the Methodist Episcopal Church seek nothing besides this, he asks them to review the history here embodied in that spirit of candor which he claims to have himself brought to the examination of official documents and contemporary records; and that both history and argument he considered apart from whatever prejudices may have been engendered by collateral, and what some persist in esteeming as closely-related, questions—such as slavery, secession, civil war, etc. These are not now factors in the problem of the relations of the two Methodisms, however much they may have once determined the judgment and the con¬ duct of the past and passing generation. The writer is persuaded that if those who, having grown up since the division, had no part in the original controversy and its immediate results will use this 10 Preface. opportunity of reviewing the opinions adopted from ex parte rep¬ resentations in the light of what Southern Methodism offers to vindicate its historical position, they will give their voice for such a settlement as shall he satisfactory to Southern Methodism—how¬ ever much their verdict may disappoint the original movers of discord and fomenters of strife. Prom these only resistance and obloquy can be expected—and naturally, for only thus can they vindicate the mistakes of a life-time. The reliance for a perma¬ nent peace betwixt the Churches is in the later generation of un¬ prejudiced members in our sister Church. Hence this appeal to 1876 against 1848—the year of that direful repudiation that lies at the bottom of all present difficulties. From them the writer asks a calm consideration of this volume. If his facts can be suc¬ cessfully controverted, or his argument met by more potent ar¬ gument, he is open to conviction, and ready to follow wherever Truth may lead. If he has established the principal points taken in hand—even if mistaken as to some minor particulars— he expects such a general agreement in opinion between the lead¬ ers of the sister Churches as will result in permanent peace. To forestall a too rigid criticism of the author's style, he begs /leave.to say that his ambition as a writer will be satisfied if this \be found a correct exposition of the history and principles of (^Southern Methodism. If it be, he is confident that its correct historical narrative and conclusive argument will give the book a value which no mere literary merit could impart. E. H. M. Macon, Ga., November, 1874. Note.—The authorities I have mostly relied on for my narra¬ tive are the Journals and Debates of the General Conferences of the two Churches, the Journal of the Louisville Convention that organized the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the contempo¬ rary discussions and publications of the principal actors in the events of 1844-48, and the history of those events authorized to Preface. 11 be written by the General Conference of 1848—and written by Dr. Charles Elliott, under the title, The Great Secession—in itself a standing crimination of the Church, South, and offensive for this fact, as well as for its perversions and distortions of history and argument. But as his main purpose was to place that Church in as odious a light as possible, his authority is all the more relia¬ ble whenever he states what may be used for its vindication. I have not cited the page, etc., in many instances, because the course of the narrative will direct the intelligent reader to the source of authority. Those who desire to see in extenso the documents quoted from, will find many of them in Bedford's Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. INTRODUCTION. PERHAPS no man living is better acquainted with the matters discussed in this volume than its author. He was for several years editor of one of the leading journals of the Church—he has been an efficient member of several General Conferences—and has been chosen by the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as a member of the Commission "to adjust all existing diffi¬ culties" between the Northern and the Southern branches of the Methodist Episcopal Church. His relation to the subject, his great abilities, and peculiar turn of mind, eminently qualify him for this work. But it may be asked, Qui bono? Why revive a controversy which has occasioned so much trouble, and on which so much has been published? The answer is patent and brief. A movement has been initiated to bring about fraternization between the "Two Methodisms," and it is very desirable that there should be a convenient resume of the controversy, so that all concerned may see what is necessary to be done in order to effect a consummation so devoutly to be wished. No fraternization that is not a farce can be effected by simply saying, "Let by-gones be by-gones—pay no attention to what was done in 1844, or 1848—to the 'Plan of Separation,' as ratified by the Southern Church and the Supreme Court of the United States, and nullified by the Northern Church—let us shake hands over the chasm, and have done with it." The proper course to be pursued is to ascertain what are the re- (13) 14 Introduction. lations which the two Connections actually sustain to each other, and what is necessary to be done by each to secure fraternization on a permanent basis. To this end, the causes and consequences of the "Disruption" must be carefully and candidly examined, and this is what is done in the present volume. It is necessary, furthermore, to show the differences between the two Connections which preclude organic union, confounded by some with fraternization. It will be seen by this volume that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, still holds to the view of our Episcopacy which was held by the fathers of the Church, as set forth in Emory's Defense of Our Fathers, and other works—which involves the principle that Bishops cannot be deposed by a delegated General Conference, except as, by due process of trial, they may be excommunicated—the vexed question which divided the Church in 1844. The South cannot recede from its platform—it does not ask the North to recede from its. So with regard to views on slavery, the terms of membership, the powers of Quarterly and District Con¬ ferences, lay representation in the Annual, as well as the General, Conference, and other matters. These differences preclude organic union, but do not stand in the way of fraternization. They need not prevent that development of Methodist fraternity into an Ecumenical Conference, which we have long desired. We would have the great and unwieldy Connections divided into sev¬ eral distinct jurisdictions, with their General Conferences and Bishops, or Presidents, as the case may be, and all the Connections represented in one Conference, without legislative or judicial pow¬ ers, which may meet within the bounds of the several jurisdic¬ tions in rotation—beginning with the Central British Connection —to ratify the common Methodism. Surely this is as feasible as any Pan-Anglican or Pan-Presbvte- rian Synod; and all good Methodists must desire to see substantial fraternity like this introduced as speedily as possible. The author of this work has had this end in view—hence he has Introduction. 15 conceived- and executed it in an irenic spirit, which can scarcely fail to secure for it the divine blessing. It was almost the dying charge of John Wesley that the Meth¬ odists should he one the world over—not one in polity, as he or¬ ganized American Methodism into an Episcopal Church, hut did not so organize British and Irish Methodism—hut one in doctrine and spirit. The present volume is well adapted to promote this end. We are authorized to say that some of the Bishops of the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church, South—we doubt not all of them will concur with their colleagues—agree with us in our estimate of this work, and the expediency of its publication. Thos. O. Summers. Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Nashville, Tenn,, Sept. 13, 1875. THE DISRUPTION OF THE Methodist Episcopal Church. CHAPTER I. THE ATTITUDE OF THE ORIGINAL METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH TOWARD SLAVERY. PRIOR to 1846, Episcopal Methodism in the United States was represented in one General Conference, whose jurisdiction was coextensive with the country. Certain acts of the General Conference of 1844 resulted in the division of this heretofore ecumenical Method¬ ism, and the establishment of two jurisdictions where one had heretofore held sway. Each has its General Conference, while previously there was but one such body; each is known as Episcopal Methodist—the one retaining the title of the original ecumenical Church, the other styled the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. In giving the history of this division, it is proper to begin with the circumstance that gave it origin. When James O. Andrew, a native Georgian, was, in 1882, elected to the Episcopacy, he was not a slave¬ holder. Afterward, and under circumstances to be stated hereafter, he became a slave-holder; and this fact induced that action in the General Conference of 1844 which led to the disruption. To rightly understand the influences then at work, it becomes necessary to preface our history of that action by an account of the (17) 18 The Disruption of the M. E.vChurch. attitude held by the Church to the slavery question down to that memorable year. This is all the more necessary because it has been charged that the pro- slavery "aggressions" of Southern Methodism caused the division, and the Church, South, has been conse¬ quently accused of being organized as a pro-slavery Church.* But the truth of history reveals the fact that, even should it be allowed that slavery was a cause rather than an occasion of the disruption of the Church, it was so not because the South sought any change in the principles, rules, or practice of the Church on this subject, but that the other party made it what it wTas—cause or occasion, as one pleases—by taking a new attitude in reference to it, contradictory to the rules, precedents, and principles which had, to that time, controlled the Church, and which the South¬ ern Delegates endeavored to maintain in all their purity and vigor. The South stood upon the accepted platform of the Church on the slavery question—the North took "a new departure;" and if, therefore, slavery was the cause of the division, not the South, but the North, made it so; and to criminate the South is not warranted by fact or justice. That the South 'sought for no change in the relations of the Church to slavery, nor did its Delegates propose or desire any ac¬ tion contradictory of the established policy of the Church, will appear from the facts now to be stated. It would be tedious and irrelevant to give a complete history of the forward and backward movements of the Church in legislating on slavery: its attitude in 1844 is what now concerns us. At that period the Dis¬ cipline embodied in the "General Rules" a prohibition of "the buying and selling of men, women, and chil¬ dren, with an intention to enslave them." Into this form the law had settled in 1808, and it was then put under the guard of the "Restrictive Articles." The •-Since this was written, i have met with the following from the Christian Advocate and Journal, the only admission i have seen in any paper of the (Methodist Episcopal Church of the truth of what is here proved : " Our South¬ ern brethren tell us that slavery was not the cause of the disruption of the Church thirty years ago, and therefore the destruction of slavery does not re¬ move that cause; and they are right. And though there were then other local differences of views on certain points of ecclesiastical polity and discipline, yet these were not of such power or magnitude as to lead to serious disturb¬ ances." The-Disruption of the M. E. Church. 19 only change ever proposed, North or South, before 1844 was of the "and" into "or; "and the terras of the rule were so loose that though some offenders may at times have been tried under it, yet I do not know that it was ever done; though in all the years it was law there were thousands of Methodists who bought and sold slaves. Neither party in 1844, except in some of the New England Conferences—no party of force enough to make the question vital—contended for a change in this rule. As to it, therefore, slavery was not in the controversy. In 1858 the Church, South, expunged it, on the ground that its vagueness made it inoperative, and as the "intention" it indicated could only be that of "enslaving" a person free until "en¬ slaved " by sale or purchase, it could only apply to the African slave-trade, which the civil laws could suf¬ ficiently control. Two years later, in 1860, the Methodist Episcopal Church substituted "The Section on Slavery" by one virtually prohibiting the buying, selling, and holding of slaves—a change that ultimately cost that Church by far the larger part of the ministers and members of the. Baltimore Conference. In 1864 it changed the general rule to " slave-holding, buying or selling- slaves;" yet it may be questioned whether the new rule was ever enforced by the expulsion of a slave¬ holder. It is, indeed, a fact that there were slave¬ holders in that Church down to the day that President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect, when both Churches ceased simultaneously to be slave-hold¬ ing Churches. If so, how can it be pretended that, in 1844, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was emi¬ nently a pro-slavery Church, when it asked in this regard for no change of the practices or principles of original Methodism? Here, then, we do not find the cause of division. Nor was what is called " The Section on Slavery," in the Discipline, at all in controversy. Neither party denied the validity of that section—and it was only the Northern agitators that asked any change in it— as will presently appear. To charge, then, that the South made slavery the cause of division is but a repe- 20 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. tition of the old accusation of the wolf in the fable, that the lamb muddied the stream while drinking be¬ low him. It was only incidentally, and, as we shall hereafter see, by narrowing the extent of its provis¬ ions. that this section was brought into the contro¬ versy. Meanwhile, we give it here, for convenient reference: 1. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavey; therefore, no slave-holder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. 2. When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emanci¬ pation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives. Other paragraphs, having reference to the treatment of slaves—the relation being thereby recognized as le¬ gitimate—and to colored preachers and official mem¬ bers, are not pertinent to this discussion. Thus far as to the Discipline of 1844 on this subject; but the attitude of the Church down to that time, and the growth of those revolutionary principles in the North—for thence came the elements of discord—which culminated that year in the disruption of the Church, demand a fuller historical presentation. Mothing ought to define more satisfactorily the prin¬ ciples of the Church than the acts and deliverances of the General Conference itself. The Bishops' Quadren¬ nial Address in 1840 so fully sets forth the accepted policy of Methodism, at this period, that I copy from it a passage pregnant with words of warning and wis¬ dom: In your Pastoral Address to the ministers and people at your last session, with great unanimity, . . . you solemnly advised the whole body to abstain from all abolition movements, and from agitating the exciting subject in the Church. This advice was in perfect agreement with the individual as well as associated views of your Superintendents. . . . And it affords us great pleas¬ ure to he able to assure you that our efforts in this respect have been very generally approved, and your advice cordially received and practically observed in a very large majority of the Annual The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 21 Conferences, as will more fully appear to yon on the careful exam¬ ination of the journals of those bodies for the last four years. But we regret that we are compelled to say that, in some of the Northern and Eastern Conferences, in contravention of your Chris¬ tian and pastoral counsel, and of your best efforts to carry it into effect, the subject has been agitated in such forms and in such a spirit as to disturb the peace of the Church. This unhappy agita¬ tion has not been confined to the Annual Conferences, but has been introduced into Quarterly Conferences, and made the absorbing business of self-created bodies in the bosom of our beloved Zion. The professed object of all these operations is to free the Methodist Episcopal Church from the "great moral evil of slavery," and to secure to the enslaved the rights and privileges of free citizens of these United States. . . . We cannot but regard it as of unhappy tendency that either in¬ dividual members or official bodies in the Church should employ terms and pass resolutions of censure and condemnation on their brethren, and on public officers and official bodies, over whose ac¬ tions they have no legitimate jurisdiction. It requires no very extensive knowledge of human nature to be convinced that if we Would convert our fellow-men from the error of their ways we must address them not in terms of crimination and reproach, but in the milder language of respect, persuasion, and kindness. It is justly due to a number of the Annual Conferences in which a majority, or a very respectable number, of the members are pro¬ fessedly Abolitionists to say that they occupy a very different ground, and pursue a very different course, from those of their brethren who have adopted ultra principles and measures in this unfortunate, and we think unprofitable, controversy. The result of action had in such Conferences on the resolution of the New England Conference, recommending a very important change in our general rule on slavery, is satisfactory proof of this fact, and affords us strong and increasing confidence that the unity and peace of the Church are not to be materially affected by this ex¬ citing subject. Many of the preachers who were favorably disposed to the cause of abolition, when they saw the extent to which it was designed to carry these measures, and the inevitable consequences of their pros¬ ecution, came to a pause, reflected, and declined their cooperation. They clearly perceived thai the success of the measures would result in the division of the Church;* and for such an event they were not prepared. They have no disposition to criminate their breth¬ ren in the South who are unavoidably connected with the institu¬ tion of slavery, or to separate from them on that account. It is believed that men of ardent temperament, whose zeal may have been somewhat in advance of their knowledge and discretion, have made such advances in the abolition enterprise as to produce a re¬ action. *Mark the sentence I have italicized. It shows when, where, and how di¬ vision had its inception. 22 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. A few preachers and members, disappointed in their expecta¬ tions, and despairing of the success of their cause in the Method¬ ist Church, have withdrawn from our fellowship, and connected themselves with associations more congenial with their views and feelings; and others, in similar circumstances, may probably fol¬ low their example. But we rejoice in believing that these seces¬ sions will be very limited, and that the great body of Methodists in these States will continue, as they have been, one and insepara¬ ble. The uniformity and stability of our course should be such as to let all candid and thinking men see that the cause of secessions from us is not a change of our doctrine or moral discipline—no imposition of new terms of communion—no violation of covenant engagements 011 the part of the Church. It is a matter worthy of particular notice that those who have departed from us do not pretend that any material change in our system, with respect either to doctrine, discipline, or government, has taken place since they voluntarily united themselves with us; and it is ardently to be desired that no such innovation may be effected as to furnish any just ground for such a pretension. The experience of more than half a century, since the organiza¬ tion of our ecclesiastical body, will afford us many important lights and landmarks, pointing out what is the safest and most prudent policy to be pursued in our onward course as regards African slavery in these States; and especially in our own religious community. This very interesting period of our history is distinguished by sev¬ eral characteristic features having a special claim to our considera¬ tion at the present time, particularly in view of the unusual excite¬ ment which now prevails on the subject, not only in the different Christian Churches, but also in the civil body. And, first: Our general rule on slavery, which forms a part of the Constitution of the Church, has stood from the beginning un¬ changed, as testamentary of our sentiments on the principle of slavery and the slave-trade; and in this we differ in no respect from the sentiments of our venerable founder, or from those of the wisest and most distinguished statesmen and civilians of our own and other enlightened Christian countries. Secondly: In all the enactments of the Church relating to slavery a due and respectful regard has been had to the laws of the States, never requiring emancipation in contravention of the civil authority, or where the laws of the States would not allow the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. Thirdly: The simply holding or owning slaves, without regard to circumstances, has at no period of the existence of the Church subjected the master to excommunication. Fourthly: Rules have been made from time to time, regulating, the sale, and purchase, and holding of slaves, with reference to the different laws of the States where slavery is tolerated, which, upon the experience of the great difficulties of administering them, and the unhappy consequences both to masters and servants, have been as often changed or repealed. The Disruption of the M. B. Church. 23 These important facts, which form prominent features of our past history as a Church, may very properly lead us to inquire for that course of action in future which may be best calculated to preserve the peace and unity of. the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the slave population, and advance generally, in the slave-holding community of our country, the humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion. "We cannot withhold from you, at this eventful period, the sol¬ emn conviction of our minds that no new ecclesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery, at this time, will have a tendency to ac¬ complish these most desirable objects. And we are fully persuaded that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall accomplish the greatest good by directing our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of the first teachers of Christianity, to bring both master and servant under the sanctifying influence of the principles of that gospel which teaches the duties of every relation, and en¬ forces the faithful discharge of them by the strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of the condition of the slave? How can we so effectually accomplish this, in our calling as ministers of the gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole influence to bring both him and his master to a saving knowledge of the grace of G-od, and to a practical observance of those rela¬ tive duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired apostle? Permit us to add that, although we enter not into the political contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation nor with the administration of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep in¬ terest in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and happiness of our beloved country. The union of these States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our national confederation, the reciprocal confidence of the different members of the great civil compact—in a word, the well-being of the community of which we are members—should never cease to lay near our hearts, and for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the almighty Ruler of the universe. But can we, as ministers of the gospel and servants of a Master "whose kingdom is not of this world," promote these important objects in any way so truly and permanently as by pur¬ suing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to our country than by laying aside all in¬ terference with relations authorized and established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what spe¬ cially appertains to our "high and holy calling?" to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the gospel in application to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a diligent devotion to this evangelical employment, with an humble and steadfast reliance upon the aid of Divine influence, the number of "believing masters" and servants may be constantly increased, the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens lightened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happi¬ ness of society be promoted. "While, on the other hand, if past 24 TIhe Disruption op the M. E. Church. history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much cause to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if employed in interference with the relation itself, and consequently with the civil institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent than to accomplish these desirable ends. This last paragraph gives an insight into the re¬ sults of the agitation arising in the Church respecting slavery that ought to have arrested it; but it did not, as we shall see. The British Conference sent a Delegate, Dr. Robert Newton, to the General Conference of 1840. The Wes- leyans embodied in their address a mild exhortation to the Conference to be firm in its "opposition to slavery," etc. In the answer of the General Conference to this address that body is as emphatic in the declaration of 'its principles as were the Bishops in their address. That portion of the reply given below was submitted to vote apart from the rest, and was adopted by a vote of 114 to 18, as follows: "We have considered, with affectionate respect and confidence, your brotherly suggestions concerning slavery, and most cheer¬ fully return an unreserved answer to them. And we do so the rather, brethren, because of the numerous prejudicial statements which have been put forth in certain quarters to the wounding of the Church. We assure you, then, brethren, that we have adopted no new principle or rule of discipline respecting slavery since the time of our apostolic Asbury; neither do we mean to adopt any. In our General Rules (called the ''General Rules of the United Societies," and which are of constitutional authority in our Church) " the buying and selling of men, women, and children, with the in¬ tention to enslave them," is expressly prohibited; and in the same words, substantially, which have been used for the rule since 1792. And the extract of Part II., section 10, of our Book of Discipline, which you quote with approbation, and denominate "a noble testi¬ mony," is still of force to the same extent that it has been for many years; nor do we entertain any purpose to omit or qualify this sec¬ tion, or any part thereof, for while we should regard it as a sore evil to divert Methodism from her proper work of spreading " Scripture holiness over these lands" to questions of temporal im¬ port, involving the rights of Cesar, yet are we not less minded on that account to promote and set forward all humane and generous actions, or to prevent, to the utmost of our power, such as are evil and unchristian. It is our great desire, after piety toward God, to be "merciful after our power, as ive have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and as far as possible to all men"—"to their bodies," but especially, and above all, "to their souls." The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 25 Of these United States (to the Government and laws of which, "according to division of power made to them by the Constitution of the Union, and the constitutions of the several States," we owe, and delight to render, a sincere and patriotic loyalty) there are sev¬ eral which do not allow of slavery. There are others in which it is allowed, and there are slaves, but the tendency of the laws and the minds of the majority of the people are in favor of emancipa¬ tion. But there are others in which slavery exists so universally, and is so closely interwoven with their civil institutions, that both do the laws disallow of emancipation and the great body of the people (the source of laws with us) hold it to be treasonable to set forth any thing, by word or deed, tending that way. Each one of all these States is independent of the rest, and sovereign, with re¬ spect to its internal government (as much so as if there existed no confederation among them for ends of common interest), and there¬ fore it is impossible to frame a rule on slavery proper for our peo¬ ple in all the States alike. But our Church is extended through all the States, and it would be wrong and unscriptural to enact a rule of discipline in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the State on this subject; so also would it not be equitable or scriptural to confound the positions of our ministers and people (so ditferent as they are in different States) with respect to the moral question which slavery involves. Under the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke this plain dis¬ tinction was once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge eman¬ cipation in all the States; but the attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the Doctor himself. "While, therefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States where the laws permit it and allow the freedman to enjoy freedom, we have refrained, for conscience' sake, from all intermeddling with the sub¬ ject in those other States where the laws make it criminal. And such a course we think agreeable to the Scriptures, and indicated t)y St. Paul's inspired instruction to servants in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap, vii., verses 20, 21. For if servants were not to care for their servitude when they might not be free, though if they might be free they should use it rather, so neither should masters be condemned for not setting them free when they might not do so, though if they might they should do so rather. The question of the evil of slavery, abstractly considered, you will readily perceive, brethren, is a very different matter from a princi¬ ple or rule of Church-discipline to be executed contrary to, and in defiance of, the law of the land. Methodism has always been (ex¬ cept, perhaps, in the single instance above) eminently loyal and promotive of good order; and so we desire it may ever continue to be, both in Europe and America. With this sentiment we conclude the subject, adding only the corroborating language of your noble Missionary Society, by the revered and lamented Watson, in its instructions to missionaries, published in the Keport of 1833, as follows: As in the colonies in which von nre called to labor n great proportion of the inhabitants are in a state of slavery, the committee most strongly call to your 2 26 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. remembrance what was so fully stated to you when you wore accepted as a missionary to the West Indies, that vour only business is to promote the moral and religious improvement of the slaves to whom you may have ac¬ cess, without, in the least degree, in public or private, interfering with their civil condition. And the same General Conference gives expression of its fixed principles of hostility to abolition agita¬ tion in its Pastoral Address. We copy from it a few paragraphs: It affords us great pleasure to witness the strong tendency which develops itself among the Methodists to adhere to the peculiar principles which characterized them from the beginning, and to remain one and indissoluble. Though some have entered into "doubtful disputations," and a few of our Societies have been hurtfully agitated, yet, to the honor of our enlightened membership, and to the glory of God, would we at this time express our solemn conviction that the great mass of our people have remained "firm as a wall of brass" amidst the commotions of conflicting elements. There seems at this moment far less occasion to fear from the causes of dissension than there was at the last meeting of this Conference. Indeed, brethren, we have no doubt but if we all continue to "walk by the same rule, and to mind the same things," in which, in the order of God, we have been instructed, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against us," and the enemy, who would divide and scatter in order to de¬ stroy us, will be disappointed. Since the commencement of the present session of the General Conference, memorials have been presented, principally from the Northern and Eastern divisions of the work, some praying for ac¬ tion of the Conference on the subject of slavery, and others asking for radical changes in the economy of the Church. The result of the deliberations of the committees to whom these memorials had a respectful reference, and the final action of the Conference upon them, may be seen among the doings of this body, as reported and published. The issue in several is probably different from what the memo¬ rialists may have thought they had reason to expect; but it is to be hoped they will not suppose the General Conference has either denied them any legitimate right or been wanting in a proper re¬ spect for their opinions. Such is the diversity of habits of thought, manners, customs, and domestic relations among the people of this vast Kepublic, and such the diversity of institutions of the sover¬ eign States of the confederacy, that it is not to be supposed an easy task to suit all the incidental circumstances of our economy to the views and feelings of the vast mass of minds interested. We pray, therefore, that brethren whose views may have been crossed by the acts of the Conference will at least give us the credit of having acted in good faith, and of not having regarded private ends or party interests, but the best good of the whole family of American Methodists. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 27 Another report was elicited and adopted, without controversy, at this General Conference—1840—which so fully interprets the long-standing law of the Church in "The Section on Slavery" that it is here given in substance; and thus we close the documentary evidence advanced to prove that the South advocated nothing in 1844 that had not been, with remarkable unanimity, fully confirmed prior to that date, in the ecumenical councils of the Church. These all go to prove that if slavery was either cause or occasion of the division of the Church—to recur to our illustration—it was the wolf, and not the lamb, which had stirred up the filthy waters. A petition was presented from the stewards and oth¬ ers of Westmoreland Circuit, in the Yirginia section of the Baltimore Conference, complaining of the ac¬ tion of that Conference in refusing to elect to ordina¬ tion local preachers in that circuit on the single ground of their being slave-holders. On this subject a special committee was appointed, and their report was adopted, as follows: The committee, . . . after giving to the subject the atten¬ tion its obvious importance demands, beg leave to report the fol¬ lowing as the result of their deliberations: The particular portion, or rather general section, of country in which these remonstrances have their origin, although belonging to the Baltimore Conference, is found within the limits of the State of Virginia, and the memo¬ rials represent, in strong but respectful terms, that local preachers, within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore Conference, but residing in the commonwealth of Virginia, have, in considerable numbers, and for a succession of years, been rejected as applicants for deacon's and elder's orders in the ministry, solely on the ground of their be¬ ing slave-holders, or the owners of slaves. In the memorials re¬ ferred to, it is distinctly stated that election and ordination have been withheld from the applicants in question on no other ground or pretense than that of their being the owners of slave property; and it is farther argued that the Baltimore Conference avows this to be the only reason of the course they pursue, and which is com¬ plained of by the petitioners. The appellants allege, farther, that the laws of Virginia relating to slavery forbid emancipation, ex¬ cept under restrictions, and subject to contingencies amounting, to all intents and purposes, to a prohibition; and that the Discipline of the Church having provided for the ordination of ministers thus circumstanced, the course pursued by the Baltimore Conference operates as an abridgment of right, and therefore furnishes just grounds of complaint. The memorialists regard themselves as 28 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. clearly entitled to the protection of the well-known provisional exception to the general rule on this subject found in the Discipline, and assume with confidence, and argue with firmness and ability, that, no other objection being found to the character of candidates for ordination, it is a departure from the plain intendment of the law in the case, and a violation of not less express compact than of social justice, to withhold ordination for reasons which the pro¬ visions of the law plainly declare are not to be considered as a for¬ feiture of right. It is set forth in the argument of the appellants, that, attaching themselves to the Church as citizens of Virginia, where, in the ob¬ vious sense of the Discipline, emancipation is impracticable, the holding of slaves, or failure to emancipate them, cannot be pleaded in bar to the right of ordination, as is the case in States where emancipation, as defined and qualified by the rule in the case, is found to be practicable. . . . The memorialists advert to the fact that we have in the Discipline two distinct classes of legislative provision in relation to slavery—the one applying to owners of slaves where emancipation is practicable, consistently with the in¬ terests of master and slave, and the other where it is impractica¬ ble without endangering such safety and these interests on the part of both. With the former, known as the general rule on this subject, the petitioners do not interfere in any way, and are content simply to place themselves under the protection of the lat¬ ter as contracting parties with the Church; and the ground of com¬ plaint is that the Church has failed to redeem the pledge of its own laws, by refusing or failing to promote to office ministers in whose case no disability attaches on the ground of slavery, because the disability attaching in other cases is hero removed by special pro¬ vision of law, and so far leaves the right of ordination clear and undoubted, and hence the complaint against the Baltimore Con¬ ference. In farther prosecution of the duty assigned them, your commit¬ tee have carefully examined the law, and inquired into the system of slavery as it exists in Virginia, and find the representation of the memorialists essentially correct. As emancipation under such circumstances is not a requirement of Discipline, it cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office. An appeal to the policy and practice of the Church for fifty years past will show incontestably that, whatever may have been the convictions of the Church with regard to this great evil, the nature and tendency of the system of slavery, it has never insisted upon emancipation in contravention of civil authority; and it therefore appears to be a well-settled and long-established principle in the polity of the Church that no ecclesiastical disabilities are intended to ensue either to the ministers or members of the Church in those States where the civil authority forbids emancipation. The gen¬ eral rule, therefore, distinctly and invariably requiring emancipa¬ tion as the ground of right and the condition of claim to ordination, The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 29 wliere the laws of the several States admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, and which, in the judg¬ ment of your committee, should always be carried into effect with unyielding firmness, does not apply to your memorialists, and can¬ not, by any fair construction of law, affect their rights. Your committee are unwilling to close this brief view of the sub¬ ject without anxiously suggesting that, as it is one of the utmost importance, and of intense delicacy in its application and bearings throughout our entire country—involving in greater or less degree the hopes and fears, the anxieties and interests of millions—it must be expected that great variety of opinions and diversity of convic¬ tion and feeling will be found to exist in relation to it, and most urgently call for the exercise of mutual forbearance and reciprocal good-will on the part of all concerned. May not the principles and causes giving birth and perpetuity to great moral and political systems or institutions be regarded as evil, even essentially evil, in every primary aspect of the subject, without the implication of moral obliquity on the part of those involuntarily connected with such systems and institutions, and providentially involved in their operation and consequences? . . . And your committee know of no reason why the rule is inapplicable, or should not obtain, in relation to the subject of this report. In conclusion, your commit¬ tee would express the deliberate opinion that while the general rule on the subject of slavery, relating to those States only whose laws admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to en¬ joy freedom, should be firmly and constantly enforced, the exception to the general rule, applying to those States where emancipation, as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognized and pro¬ tected with equal firmness and impartiality. The committee re¬ spectfully suggest to the Conference the propriety of adopting the following resolution: Resolved, by the Delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That, under the pro-visional exception of the general rule of the Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere own¬ ership of slave property, in States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and can¬ not, therefore, be considered'as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination. I have thus exhibited the avowed attitude of the Methodist Episcopal Church upon the subject of slavery and slave-holding when the Conference of 1844 assem¬ bled. Down to this period the mission-work among the slaves of the South and South-west was progress¬ ing satisfactorily. The colored members and proba¬ tioners had increased from 102,158, in 1840, to 145,409, in 1844. Respecting this work the Bishops, in their Quadrennial Address of the latter year, say: 30 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. Although we have not been able to extend our missions among the people of color in the Southern and South-western States ac¬ cording to our ardent desires and the providential openings before us, for want of pecuniary means, still we rejoice that we have not been compelled to abandon the fields which we have already under cultivation, and that we have been enabled to occupy some new and very promising ground. It is a matter of gratulation to the friends of humanity and religion, and of devout thanksgiving to God, that the unhappy excitement which for several years spread a dark cloud over our prospects, and weakened our hands and filled our hearts with grief, has died away, and almost ceased to blast our labors. Confidence in the integrity of our principles, and the pu¬ rity of our motives, which for a time was shaken, is restored. New and extensive fields are opening before us, and inviting us to the harvest. The conviction of the duty and benefit of giving relig¬ ious instruction to servants is constantly increasing. The self- sacrificing zeal of the missionaries is worthy of the cause in which they are engaged—the cause of humanity; the cause of the salva¬ tion of souls; the cause of God. Brethren, suffer us to beseech you, by the tender mercies of God, by the precious blood of Jesus, and by the crying spiritual wants of perishing thousands for whom he died, to strengthen the hands and encourage the hearts of your fellow-laborers, who are more directly engaged in this blessed work, by your ceaseless prayers to God for them. There is, blessed be God, no bar in the laws of our country to prevent them from receiving religious instruction, or being gathered into the fold of God. Here, then, we have an open door. We may preach the gospel of Christ to them, unite them in the communion of his Church, and introduce them to a participation of the blessings of her fellowship, and thus be the instruments of their preparation for the riches of the inheritance of the saints of glory. This, as ministers of Christ, is our wor/£, and should be our glory and joy. This, by the grace of God helping us, we can do; but to raise them to equal rights and privileges is not within our power. Let us not labor in vain, and spend our strength for naught. In this cause we are debtors to both the bond and the free—yea, to all men. . . . While Methodism, was thus fulfilling its noble mission among the slaves, an agitation was rife in the Morth and East which indicated a speedy revolt against all the compromises of the past. The South asked noth¬ ing but to be permitted quietly to do her work, pro¬ posed no change, advocated no pro-slavery measures beyond the settled rule of the Church—if that can be thus designated—while the other section was clamoring for deliverances, at the ensuing General Conference, at total variance with those of previous Conferences. If The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 31 slavery was the instrument of the division of the Church, it was not severed by the sword reposing in the scabbard of the Southern slave-holder, but by the battle-ax wielded by the hand of the Northern Abo¬ litionist. The latter took the initiative in the disrupt" tion, as will be fully proved hereafter, by denying the applicability of the principles avowed by the Confer¬ ence in the report on the Westmoreland petition to a high official, and by wresting one of the provisos of the "Constitution" of the General Conference from its legitimate meaning, and thus applying a prohibition on Conference action to the act of an individual—as though a man should be tried for assault and batteryi under that constitutional provision that prohibits a State from levying war. But this history is not complete without noting the rise and progress of this damaging agitation in the Church. For a full account, I would refer to "The Great Secession," chapters x.-xix.; and I the more cheerfully recommend the careful perusal of these chapters because the author, even with all his antip¬ athies^ to the South, held that, in those wild days, "madness ruled the hour" in the New England Churches. After showing, in several chapters, how rapidly that section was drifting away from the moor¬ ings of original Methodism, he opens chapter xvi. with "The Events of 1841," thus: As might be expected, ultra-Abolitionism in tbe Methodist Epis¬ copal Church now began to develop itself by secession. The Abo¬ litionists heretofore, to some extent, seemed to think the whole gospel included in the doctrines and measures of anti-slavery so¬ cieties. The Church, Bishops and preachers especially, were put down as pro-slavery. [We italicize this word. It, with the con¬ text, furnishes a sermon to those who persist that pro-slavery in¬ stincts pushed the South to separation.] Hence slavery was talked, and preached, and prayed about, and little else, making the watch¬ words of party the theme of the class-meeting, the love-feast, and the prayer-meeting, as well as of the rostrum and periodicals. Secessions had begun in Ohio in 1839, in New York in 1841, and in Michigan in 1841. The seceders organ¬ ized themselves as "Wesleyan Methodists." Dr. El¬ liott tells us (p. 232) that, in New England, 32 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. The Abolitionists carried their strife into our classes, Sunday- schools, and missionary societies, and even into our love-feasts. Everywhere they taught that the Methodist Episcopal Church was pro-slavery in her councils and administration, especially the Epis¬ copacy. They spared none who were not of their party; and to be of their party it was necessary to agree with them in measures, as well as in the principles thus avowed. The result was that they succeeded in alienating many from their attachment to the Church and her wholesome discipline; and, this ligament once sundered, they were ready for secession and open hostility. In Lowell two preachers, regularly appointed, were rejected, and noted Abolitionists called to fill the pul¬ pits. In November, 1812, J. Horton, O. Scott, and others withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal Church. After this "the Scottites, as they were called by their opponents, or Wesleyans, as they called themselves, did their utmost to promote their cause. They pub¬ lished in their paper every case of withdrawal or se¬ duction from the Methodist Episcopal Church. One of their favorite headings was, 'The glorious work of secession goes on.' " • (P. 246.) The Providence Conference, in June, 1842, "passed resolutions declaring that they were for the destruction of slavery, were against the election of a slave-holding Bishop, and that they most earnestly longed for the approach of the time when the Church shall come up from the pollutions of slavery." The New England Conference Anti-slavery Society issued an address to the members of the Church in their Conference, pro¬ nouncing slavery "the foul whelp of depravity," and congratulating themselves on the progress of abolition, pronounced against secession from the Church, as an anti-slavery measure. They would have slavery fought in the Church, because "the Discipline is against slavery," and "the true-hearted Methodists urged its anti-slavery character with great earnestness." Especial hostility was displayed to the idea of elect¬ ing a slave-holder as Bishop. Dr. E. says that "it was argued at the South that it must have a slave-holding Bishop," but he quotes nothing proving his assertion. He quotes Dr. Lee, of Virginia, as uttering a remon¬ strance, through the Bichmond Advocate, against the measures preparing for the action of the General Con- Tiie Disruption of the M. E. Church. 33 fercnce of 1844, "as fraught with rnischief and degra¬ dation to the whole Southern portion of the Church;" but Dr. L. makes no such demand as is alleged. On the contrary, Dr. Capers is quoted as writing that he thought another Bishop resident in the South desirable, but whether to he taken from "North or South ought not to be the question, but, Who is the worthiest man? I am bold to say that there are ministers at the North who would prove a noble acquisition to any office." So far was he, in 1842, from demanding a slave-holding Bishop that he "doubts the heart of any slave-holder" who would so far compromise his prin¬ ciples as to seek to become an acceptable Bishop to the Abolitionists of the North. Dr. Drake, of Mississippi, agreed with Dr. C. "Select," he wrote, "the man for his qualifications alone. His residence may be easily changed, and should be changed, if the interests of the work require it." As to the plan of electing a South¬ ern man, unconnected with slavery, Dr. D. wrote: "It is a proposition coming from our friends [in the Northf not the Abolitionists, that we should acquiesce in an agreement which would distinctly recognize a difference between a slave-holder and one who does not hold slaves in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Whatever others may do, Grod forbid that we should ever consent to put a mark upon ourselves! We do not feel that we can act otherwise than we do in circumstances in which we find ourselves in the providence of Grod, and we cannot consent that our brethren should disfranchise us when we are not convinced of sin." The stress of feeling under which he asserted these manly principles is shown when he adds: "As to secession or division, they are words that I have never permitted to come into my vocabulary. I almost feel like I were com¬ mitting treason to write them here in my study. No calamity could so afflict me as to be separated from the great body of our common Methodism. Life itself is not half so dear as this union. If our brethren cut us off, we must submit to it as the last of evils; but the sin shall be on their heads, not ours." (P. 251.) Yet this "man of noble soul and pure mind," as Dr. E. calls him, was driven within two years to vote for a division 2* 34 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. of the Church, by those machinations which we have just seen so graphically delineated by Dr. Elliott. There is nothing here, or elsewhere, to prove that the South was demanding a slave-holding Bishop. It was but self-respect to resent any discrimination against a slave-holder, other things being equal, in compliance with abolition demands, when the Discipline so dis¬ tinctly put the relation in the Southern States under protection of law, and the General Conference had heretofore so far acknowledged the claims of Southern slave-holders under that law as to advance them to high place in the Church.* The excitement in New England proceeded at a rapid pace. In 1843 Dr. Bond, the veteran editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, elaborately discussed the questions: Ought the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church to enact a rule of Discipline by which all slave-holders, whatever be the peculiar circumstances of the case, shall be expelled from the communion of the Church? Or, if it he admitted that there are circumstances which will justify a Methodist in holding slaves, then whether it he possible to make a rule which, while it will reach all others, shall spare those exempt cases? He took the negative of both these questions, and stated, if he was right, it will follow that whatever a. * For instance, the General Conference itself had set the example of disre¬ garding the fact of slave-holding as a bar to official position in one residing in a slave State. In 1824 the General Conference instructed the Bishops to ap¬ point, in 1826, a Delegate to the British Conference—certainly the highest official position in the Church, except that of Bishop, though not ministerial, but representative. The Bishops met in Baltimore, in 1826, to do this. Bish¬ ops McKendree (senior Bishop) and Soule nominated Dr. Capers; Bishops George and Hedding objected that he was a slave-holder, and nominated Dr. Fisli. The former Bishops alleged "that slave-holding should not be a bar to any office in the appointment of the Church." Neither side would yield, and the election was postponed. Next year Bishop Roberts was present—the other Bishops were still of the same mind. Bishop R. would not take the responsi¬ bility of giving the casting vote, and the matter went by default. (See Life of Hedding, p. 326.) But at the next General Conference, 1828, Dr. Capers, slave¬ holder as he was, was chosen Delegate to the British Conference, by a majority of ten votes, over that eminent man, Dr. Wilbur Fisk. And the. General Conference of 1840, on the very day that, it decided that " the mere ownership of slave property, in States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation or allow the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal bander to the election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination," elected the same distinguished Southerner, Dr. Capers, General Missionary Secretary for the Southern Division, for the en¬ suing quadrienniurn. The Disruption .of the M. E. Church. 35 roan's opinions on the general subject of slavery may he, he is not justified in withdrawing from the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church. In maintaining these proposi¬ tions, he argued as follows: Secession from a Church is either a sin or a duty. - It is a duty when we are required to believe what we think to be untrue, or to do what we believe to be a sin, as a condition of membership; and it is a sin to do so for any lighter reason. The Methodist Episco¬ pal Church has required neither the one nor the other condition in respect to slavery; and as the matter of slavery is the ostensible reason for withdrawing, the excuse fails them. Such a rule of duty should be clearly enjoined by the word of God to justify the measure; but this has not been shown. Slave- holding itself is nowhere, in terms, forbidden in Scripture, though the practice was general in the time of our Lord and his apostles; yet there is no express prohibition to Christians to hold slaves, though there are express exhortations to slaves to obey their mas¬ ters, and to make this a matter of conscience. Ought the Churches, whose duty it is to carry the gospel to all, whether bond or free, to close the doors of access by a proclamation of war against the civil authorities of sovereign States, and by an¬ nouncement that they intend to propagate doctrines hostile to, and subversive of, the political relations which these States have estab¬ lished? This would be equivalent to a total abandonment of all purposes to carry the gospel either to the slaves or to the masters. If the Methodist Episcopal Church is bound to cut herself off from the opportunity of preaching the gospel to the colored people of the South, every other Church is equally bound. Who, then, must preach the gospel to them? But the Southern people, white and colored, are perfectly safe with the ministry of men whom the seceders denounce as wicked, because they have the good sense and firmness to resist their pro¬ posed innovations upon our economy. The Southern ministers are not excelled in piety, zeal, talents, and usefulness. Men of rare talents have spent years among the slaves on the rice plantations, exposed to all the ordinary privations of missionary labor, with the additional danger to health and life of the deadly malaria from the swamps, acted on by the intense heat of a Southern sun. Besides, no other Christian Church, except some of little or no influence, has adopted such a rule of discipline as that contended for. The British Wesleyans bad no such rule. They had slave¬ holders in their Societies till the moment of universal eman¬ cipation. The case of Philemon and Onesimus, too, Dr. Bond contended, was at variance with the proposed rule. In another article Dr. Bond proceeds to show that there were slave-holders in the primitive Church, and 36 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. he quotes largely from commentators and others to prove the point. He then concludes his .argument thus: We have only endeavored to show that the Church now, like the Church in the apostolic times, cannot lawfully exclude slave¬ holders from the Church, as for a crime which will exclude a man from the kingdom of grace and glory. The sinfulness of slave- holding depends upon the circumstances of the case, and no gen¬ eral rule can meet their circumstances. But neither argument nor warning, counsel nor en¬ treaty, stayed the agitation. The conventional move¬ ment took a fresh start in the winter of 1843-4. Some of the Methodist Abolitionists of Hew England seemed determined to have a pretty general convention before the next session of the General Conference. It was the opinion of Dr. Bond that, considering the ill effects of former conventions, this attempt appeared to be so reckless a disregard of the peace and prosperity of the Church, so mad and fanatic a procedure, that " he aw¬ fully feared a judicial blindness had come upon some of our preachers and people in Hew England." (P. 269.) The movement was arrested, " but two small, sickly" conventions were held—one in the Hew Eng¬ land and one in the Vermont Conference. The former petitioned the General Conference "so to change the tenth section as 'to make all slave-holding inconsistent with membership in the Church;'" the latter declared that "it ought to be expunged at the next General Conference." Memorials to the Conference were pre¬ pared, circulated, and signed extensively in accord with these opinions. If slavery was the cause of the division of the Church, did it become so by movements in the South, or by those in the Horth? Let impartial readers decide. Dr. Elliott closes his review of this period by giving "the state of parties in the Church" in the opening of the General Conference of 1844, as follows: There was what may be called the Church proper [!], or the Conferences in the Middle States—New York and the West—who maintained the Discipline as it is, and were determined it should not he altered or practically nullified [?]. These were strongly anti-slavery, but not Abolitionists, in the recent American use of that term. They were not pro-slavery, or apologists for slavery, The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 37 though they believed men might be slave-holders without being sinners on that account. There was the Abolition party in the Church, confined princi¬ pally to the New England Conferences. These, for the most part, believed all slave-holding to be a sin, and all slave-holders to be sinners; or they so taught, defined, and made abstract distinctions of such kind that they virtually, if not intentionally, placed all slave-holders in the class of sinners. They also thought the Church to be greatly corrupted in the South with the sin of slavery. There was also the Southern party, who, as a whole, at this period, we cannot place in the list of pro-slavery men; but they were not truly anti-slavery. They seem to have yielded to the pro- slavery influence around them so far as to give up, or hold loosely, their anti-slavery sentiments. They yielded, or began to yield, the things of God to Cesar; they ceased to claim as a right the great principle that the civil power is supreme only in civil matters, and the ecclesiastical power is supreme in moral and religious matters. As a claim, too, they set up a plea for a slave-holding Bishop. "We have seen that this last assertion is unsnstained by testimony, and we shall see that even the defense of Bishop Andrew by the Southern Delegates did not turn upon the claim that the South wanted a slave- holding Bishop, but that he being already a Bishop, when by certain fortuitous events he became a slave¬ owner, the law of the Church protected him in the re¬ lation. "While we do not concede that the above analysis of parties is wholly correct in other particulars, yet there are points in it which deserve notice. 1. The concession that the " Southern party could not, as a whole, at this period," be placed "in the list of pro-slavery men." If not, how was the division of 1844 caused by slavery? The two other parties named were the one Anti-slavery, the other Abolition, and this third party—a minority of the whole—not Pro-slavery; and yet among them they let or made pro-slavery di¬ vide the Church! So it is now charged. 2. The sentence distinguishing between the suprem¬ acy of the civil and ecclesiastical power is very like the Ultramontane doctrine set forth by Dr. Manning, Bomanist "Archbishop of Westminster," in his pamph¬ let on Cesarisrn and Ultramontanism. He says: There can be no Cesarisrn where Christ reigns. Christianity has limited the sphere of the jurisdiction of the civic power. The Catholic Church has established upon earth a legislature, a 38 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. tribunal, and an executive, independent of all human authority. . . . The Church is separate and supreme. ... It alone can decide questions where its power is in contact with the civil power—that is, in mixed questions; for it alone can determine how far its own divine office or its own divine trust enters into and is implicated in such questions; and it is precisely that ele¬ ment in any mixed question of disputed jurisdiction which belongs to a higher order and higher tribunal.* How wholly this doctrine of Dr. Elliott, and of Arch¬ bishop Manning, is at variance with that of the Church, prior to 1844, may be seen by reference to the deliver¬ ances of the G-eneral Conference, which have been fully quoted heretofore. Nor do these utterances agree with St. Paul's words: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. . . . For rulers are not a terror to good works," etc. Bom. xiii. Nor with St. Peter's: " Submit yourselves to every ordi¬ nance of man, for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors," etc. 1 Pet. ii. 13, etc. Do these passages teach that the Christian should never seek to change, or modify, or control the civil authority? No—but what he thus does is done by him as a citizen, not by virtue of his Church-rela¬ tions, nor under the supremacy of any spiritual or ec¬ clesiastical authority. Citizens had a right to urge upon the Government a change in the laws respecting slavery, if they thought it right or wise; but the Church had no right to add disabilities not accepted when citizens first became Church-members, tending to force them to such interference with the civil au¬ thorities, or else threatening loss of their original ec¬ clesiastical rights. I close by summing up, thus: * How well does Dean Stanley answer these high assumptions: " The prin¬ ciple lies deep in human nature, and in the essence of Christianity, that in the great institutions of society there is nothing common or unclean; that the natural ordinances of the family and State are as truly ordained of God as those that are more strictly ecclesiastical; that in this sense the nation is greater than the Church—that is, the nation, in the sense of a society compre¬ hending all the diverse elements of social life, is greater than the Church, in the sense of the clerical corporation which, great and beneficent as it is, com¬ prehends only a few." So long, then, as "Cesar's" law i< law—whether just or unjust—we have the word and example of Christ, and of the apostles, in be¬ half of obedience. If, like Peter, our conscience impel us to "obey God rather than man," we must do it in full view of the penalty, and submit to it, as the martyrs did—but such obedience to God may he evoked quite as prop¬ erly by an unjust law of the Church as by one of Cesar. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 39 1. The principles and practices of the Church re¬ specting slavery and slave-holding were definitely set¬ tled and uttered to the world in its Discipline, and in declarations emanating from its highest judicatory. 2. In 1844 the Southern Delegates asked for—wished for—no change, either in law, declaration, or practice. Hew England Methodists, taking advanced ground against slavery, did ask for changes from the General Conference of 1844. 3. But such demand was not made a question be¬ tween the Horth and the South, and the division of the Church was not a consequence of such a claim on the one hand, or of its resistance, on the other.* 4. Heither slavery, pro-slavery, anti-slavery, nor ab¬ olitionism, in themselves considered, was the immedi¬ ate cause of the division of the Church. The contest which originated at this Conference between the two parties, had it been decided in any way, finally and forever, would not have settled any of these great questions. The abolition agitation in Hew England excited some parties in the Church to seek for a new deliverance on slavery from this General Conference, and those desiring it took advantage of a merely inci¬ dental circumstance in the relations of one of its Bish¬ ops, that played well into their hands, and, having gained over to their views a sufficient number of the party first named above by Dr. Elliott, these together initiated and carried measures, against the prayers, warnings, and remonstrances of the South, believed by it to be illegal and unconstitutional. This action resulted in the division of the Church, as had been foretold; and, under like circumstances, any other in¬ cidental question—that respecting Freemasonry, for instance, which at one time produced intense and far- reaching political excitement—had it aroused similar religious and sectional animosities, would have had a *The Final Report of the Committee on Slavery, as adopted in 1844, stated the leading topics offered for their consideration in the various resolu¬ tions as follows: "First, The petitioners pray that the resolutions on the testi¬ mony of persons of color, passed at the last General Conference, be rescinded. Second, That this body would not elect a slave-holding Bishop. Third, That the General Conference would take measures entirely to separate slavery from the Church. Upon these points your committee deem it inexpedient for the General Conference to take any action farther than that which is recommended in their first report" [respecting testimony, etc.]. 40 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. like result. But could it have then been said that Masonry, or the Masons, divided the Church? I trow not. Neither did slavery divide it; and not slavery, but the act of separation itself, originated the controver¬ sies that to this day impend between the two Method- isms. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 41 CHAPTER II. the general conference of 1844. AYIMG ascertained the status of the Methodist Episcopal Church in respect to slavery, we are the better prepared to understand how the opposition of the Southern Delegates to the action of 1844, in Bishop Andrew's case, was thoroughly grounded upon principle. I now proceed to set forth that action. As has been said, James O. Andrew was not a slave¬ holder when he was elected to the Episcopacy. It is claimed that but for this fact he could not have been elected. This may be true or false—it mattered not, in 1844. He was elected, and was henceforth entitled to all the rights of other members of the Episcopal College. In course of time, two slaves were devised to him, and he wan a slave-holder for some years before it was ascertained that he was unfitted for the Episcopacy— disqualified as a " General Superintendent"—by bis holding slaves. Manifestly the number held made all the difference; for in January, 1844, he married a second time—married now a lady owning slaves as legatee of her first husband. Immediately afterward he parted with ownership in these slaves, by settling them upon his wife. I need not detail all the particu¬ lars, extenuating or otherwise, of Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery; these are well known by his own statements on the subject. He acknowledged that he was a slave-holder—or, as he said, stating the cir¬ cumstances: "I am a slave-holder, and I cannot help myself." 42 The Disruption op the M. E, Church. The fact of Bishop Andrew's being a slave-holder was now bruited abroad. Notoriety was given to it, as is generally believed, by Dr. Curry, then of the Georgia Conference, in correspondence on the subject with leading men in the North; so that by the time the General Conference met in New York, May 1, 1844, the Abolitionists were considerably excited about a " slave-holding Episcopacy." It was said that this re¬ lation, though in truth it had long existed, disqualified him for presiding in such Conferences as would not tolerate a slave-holding Bishop, and that he must va¬ cate the Superintendency. The rumor, and the threat¬ ened consequence, created intense excitement. The Rev. James Porter (New England Conference) informed a "prominent actor" in the subsequent proceedings that New England wanted, among other things, "that Bishop Andrew should be required to purge himself of slavery or vacate the episcopal office." He was promised by this gentleman that the Baltimore Con¬ ference would go with New England in carrying its measures. Mr. P. says (Meth. Q. JRev., April, 1871) that the Abolitionists achieved much in thus avoiding prom¬ inence-"in pushing the measures agreed upon "—put¬ ting the "laboring oar " into the hands of conservatives. On May 7 an appeal was entered in behalf of the Rev. F. A. Harding against the Baltimore Conference, which had suspended him " from his ministerial standing for refusing to manumit certain slaves which came into his possession by marriage." This case offered a ques¬ tion of similar import to that which arose respecting Bishop Andrew, and necessarily it was debated and decided with the latter constantly in view. It was de¬ cided May 11—the Baltimore Conference being sus¬ tained by a vote of 117 to 56. Meanwhile, abolition and anti-slavery petitions, res¬ olutions, addresses, from individuals, Churches, Quar¬ terly and Annual Conferences, and conventions, were pouring into the Conference. Some asked one thing, some another, many that the Episcopacy should be purged of slavery, etc. The excitement ran high on both sides. On May 14 Dr. Capers (South Carolina Conference), The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 43 seconded by Dr. Olin (New York Conference), offered the following resolution: In view of the distracting agitation which has so long prevailed on the subject of slavery and abolition, and especially the difficul¬ ties under which we labor, in the General Conference, on account of the relative position of our brethren, North and South, on this perplexing question; therefore, Resolved, That a committee of six [as amended] be appointed to confer with the Bishops, and report within two days, as to the pos¬ sibility of adopting some plan, and what, for the permanent pacifi¬ cation of the Church. After some deeply affecting remarks from Dr. Olin, respecting the disturbed state of the Church, and a few from others, the committee was appointed: Capers, Olin, Winans, Early, Hamline, and Crandall. Dr. Durbin moved that the morrow be observed as a day of fasting and humiliation before God, and prayer for his blessing upon these efforts. Adopted, and the day was so observed. The committee met, and the Northern and Southern Delegates also met, separately, at its request, to confer together; but all came to naught; and, on May 18, Bishop Soule reported that, after a calm and deliberate investigation of the subject submitted, the committee were unable to agree upon any plan of compromise to reconcile the views of the Northern and Southern Conferences. The committee was discharged. On May 20 J. A. Collins (Baltimore Conference) offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Epis¬ copacy to ascertain if one of the Bishops had become connected with slavery, and to report the facts of the case on the next day. The committee obeyed by bringing in a report consisting mostly of Bishop An¬ drew's statement, made to them in writing.* We have already given the facts. Report laid on table, and made the order of the day for the morrow. On May 22 it was called up, and A. Griffith and J. Davis (Baltimore Conference) took the "laboring oar" —by presenting a preamble reciting several facts and principles, some not contested, others open to contro- *It may be remarked, in passing, that there was no accusation, no trial, no testimony taken. Bishop Andrew was asked by the committee what they wanted to know, and he told them how he had become an owner of slaves, and put the facts in writing. 44 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. versy, and closing with an affectionate request to Bishop Andrew to resign his episcopal office. Then a debate opened which raged for many days—one that has scarce been surpassed, in the history of forensic disputations, for brilliancy and power. On May 23 the now celebrated "Finley Resolution" was offered as a substitute by J. B. Finley and J. M. Trimble (Ohio Conference), which, after a brief pre¬ amble, said: Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he [Bishop Andrew] desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains. The "impediment" bad been defined—his having become " connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise." This resolution was discussed from day to day, until May 30, when, after an ineffectual call for the "main question," Bishop Hedding suggested that the Confer¬ ence hold no afternoon session, and thus allow the Bishops time to consult together, with the hope that they might be able to offer a plan of adjusting present difficulties. " The suggestion was received with gen¬ eral and great cordiality." And at this juncture the storm might, perhaps, have been allayed, but for what may be called a conspiracy on the part of the New England Delegates. In the Methodist Quarterly Review, as above quoted, we are told by Dr. Porter, one of the number, " that the Abolitionists regarded this as a most alarming measure. Accordingly the Delegates of the New Eng¬ land Conferences were immediately called together, and, after due deliberation, unanimously signed a paper declaring in substance that it was their solemn con¬ viction that if Bishop Andrew should be left by the General Conference in the exercise of episcopal func¬ tions, it would break up most of the New England Conferences; and that the only way to be holden to¬ gether would he to secede in a body, and invite Bishop Bedding to preside over them." Bishop Hedding could not be seen and informed of this action before the Bishops met; and as the threat¬ ening secessionists were afraid, as they say, to call him The Disruption oe the M. E. Churcii. 45 out of the council—believing that it could be construed and used in a way to defeat their object—he could not be hindered from signing the recommendation of the Bishops offered on the following day. The Bishops, stating that it was apparent that a decision on the res¬ olutions offered, "whether affirmatively or negatively, will most extensively disturb the peace and harmony of the wide-spread brotherhood," recommended the postponement of farther action in the premises till the next General Conference. This would afford time for the entire Church to give its opinion on the matter in hand. "When this paper was called for consideration, Bishop Hedding withdrew his name from it. He said that he had signed it without persuasion, because he thought it would be a peace measure; but he now be¬ lieved this to be a mistake, from some facts that had come to his knowledge—doubtless the movement and threat of the Hew England Delegates. This peace measure was then laid on the table, by 95 to 84—the South resisting this action as one man. It saw then that the last hope for Southern Methodism, in that General Conference, had fled. On June 1st Finley's nondescript Kesolution was adopted by 111 yeas to 69 nays. Of the minority, fifty-seven members were from slave-holding* Confer¬ ences (including Baltimore), and twelve from other Conferences in the North. One Southern Delegate, a Northern transfer, voted "aye." On Monday, June 3d, H. Slicer and T. B. Sargent moved the following: 1. Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that the vote of Saturday last, in the case of Bishop Andrew, he un¬ derstood as advisory only, and not in the light of a judicial mandate. 2. Resolved, That the final disposition of Bishop Andrew's case he postponed until the General Conference of 1848, in conformity with the suggestions of the Bishops on Friday, 31st May. These resolutions were laid on the table, by a vote of 75 to 68. On a subsequent day the Bishops, desiring to know the precise status of Bishop Andrew, as fixed by the *This designation is not literally accurate, but it is used because it is con¬ venient and will not be misunderstood. 46 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. action of the Conference, asked of it "official " instruc¬ tion on certain points, and that body answered as fol¬ lows: 1. Resolved, as the sense of this Conference, That Bishop An¬ drew's name stand in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline as formerly. Carried—ayes 155, nays 17. 2. Resolved, That the rule in relation to the support of a Bishop and his family applies to Bishop Andrew. Carried—ayes 152, nays 14. 3. Resolved, That whether in any, and, if in any, in what, work Bishop Andrew is to be employed, is to be determined by his own decision and action in relation to the previous action of the Con¬ ference in his case. Carried—ayes 103, nays 67. And here the Conference action respecting Bishop Andrew closed. The Southern Delegates resisted this summary action to the last, as violative of law, justice, and Constitution ; and it now remains to vindicate their opposition by a thorough examination of the constitu¬ tional and legal principles on which the majority avowed and acted in this transaction; and, also, its theory of the relation generally of the Bishops to the General Conference. The subject, thus naturally di¬ viding itself, will be considered in three separate chapters. The Disruption op the M. B. Church. 47 CHAPTER III. the constitutional powers of the general conference. THE subject before us is, The claim of constitutional powers, made by the majority in 1844, to deal sum¬ marily with Bishop Andrew. Dr. Hamline was their leading champion, and his was considered the great speech of the occasion. It is said that it made him a Bishop. Its eloquence, in parts, is not to be denied; but it is as sophistical as it is eloquent, as I think can be made manifest. To sift it will be to examine thor¬ oughly the Constitution and law on which the General Conference claimed to base its action. The constitutional provision that was relied upon is: The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions—namely: . . . They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our govern¬ ment, so as to do away with Episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency. . . . This is part of the fundamental law, defining the powTers of the General Conference, generally called the "Constitution"—or, more exactly, the Constitution of the General Conference: but this is not all of the Con¬ stitution of the Church. The "Articles of Religion," the "present existent and established standards of doc¬ trine," the "Episcopacy," the "itinerant General Su¬ perintendency," the "General Rules of the United So¬ cieties," the privilege of ministers, preachers, and members to regular trial and appeal, are of the Consti¬ tution. All rules and regulations, also, which the Gen- 18 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. eral Conference of 1808—when a Delegated General Conference was instituted—left in its Discipline, being enacted by a primary Cliurcb-court, were of the orig¬ inal Constitution of the Church, and are of it yet, unless abrogated or altered by subsequent General Conferences. Among these is, " What may we reason¬ ably believe to be God's design in raising up the preachers called Methodists? Ans. To reform the continent, and to spread scriptural holiness over these lands." This was the fundamental reason given for the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1781, and the prescript was never repealed—though removed in 1790 from the body of the Discipline and placed in "The Bishops' Address," where it yet remains, in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. So, too, the "fourth section "—showing how a Bishop is constituted, what are his duties, and how, in case of immorality, he may be suspended in the inter¬ val of a General Conference—was of the Constitution. It is presumed that he will be there tried, though nothing more was said on this entire subject, except, "To whom is a Bishop amenable for his conduct? Ans. To the General Conference, who have the power to ex¬ pel him for improper conduct, if they see it necessary." Besides this section, there was no law that could possibly apply to the case, except the law cited on p>age 20, which see. In these citations we have all of the Discipline vital to this discussion. Dr. Hamline attempted first to prove the constitu¬ tionality of the Finley Resolution, which reads as fol¬ lows : Whereas, The Discipline of our Church forbids the doing any thing calculated to destroy our itinerant General Superintendency; and, whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery, by marriage and otherwise, and' this act having drawn after it cir¬ cumstances which, in the estimation of this General Conference will greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant Geneial Supeiintendent, if not, in some places, entirely prevent it* therefore, ' Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment re¬ mains. It bad been claimed that "expediency" sufficiently The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 49 vindicated the action here proposed ; but Dr. IT. said that the argument from "expediency" was out of place if the action was unconstitutional, for it was not expedient to violate law. He considered this a man¬ damus measure. It suspended the Bishop until he should effect a disconnection with slavery. It wrought a suspension or deposition for "improper conduct"— "a summary removal from office," not from the minis¬ try. Ordained preachers cannot be expelled from the ministry summarily, or for improper conduct, except when, after frequent admonitions, they "refuse to re¬ form," and thus show "a criminal state of mind." But a pastor, or Presiding Elder, or steward, or class-leader, may be removed from a higher to a lower office, or from office altogether, by a superior, without notice, trial, or cause assigned. The principles which apply to members and preachers should govern with regard to Bishops. They ought not to be expelled from the ministry without due notice and trial. But, as with others, so they, too, may be deposed from office summarily, and for improprieties which, if even innocent in themselves, hinder their usefulness or render their ministrations a calamity. Nor is there need of specific law. "If there were no express rule for deposing a Bishop, we should still be competent to depose," "because the Constitution confers the power, and that is paramount to all our rules and regulations." All ranks of officers are subjected to summary removals from office for any thing unfitting that office, or that renders its exercise unwholesome to the Church, up to the point where the officer has no superior—which never happens with us, because the General Conference, under certain restrictions, few and simple, is the depository of all supreme* legislative, judicial, and executive power. Therefore, the General Conference has power directly from the Constitution, which is a catholic grant, embracing all, beyond these few restrictions, to try a Bishop for crime, and to de¬ pose him summarily for "improper conduct," without *Dr. h. was afterward driven to explain that "supreme"—responsible to no higher authority—is not " absolute "—independent of law. But his appli¬ cation of the term here makes supremacy absolutism, when a Bishop can be summarily deposed, before the Conference has passed a law for its guidance, etc. 3 50 The Disruption of the M. E. CiiURcn. first passing a law for its guidance—or, as he says, "passing a rule declaring its authority." This is a correct digest of Dr. TIamline's argument on the constitutional powers of the G-eneral Confer¬ ence. These principles are expanded, illustrated, and applied in many ways, and I shall discuss them in the light Dr. H. throws on them. The entire argument hinges upon the jiropositions found in the last three sentences of the above paragraph. As to the powers of the G-eneral Conference, they are supreme in legislation, except as six restrictions bind it—under a charter older, however, than the Con¬ stitution of the General Conference, namely, the Con¬ stitution of the Church, which declares the essence of its being as an organization, that its "design" is "to re¬ form the continent," etc. To do this, it can make all rules and regulations necessary (save as restricted); and to do this more effectually than when under the jurisdiction of the original General Conference, the General Conference of 1844 placed the Church under a divided general jurisdiction—the end to be attained and the means used alike in both. Under these limit¬ ations, I grant the supreme legislative functions of the General Conference. But Dr. H. confuses the subject by citing, as its ex¬ ecutive, what are only its legislative functions. He presumes, rightly, that all will grant it legislative and judicial powers. He thinks he may be "approaching debatable ground" when claiming for it "supreme ex¬ ecutive functions;" but if he "can provoke truth and gather instruction from others," he will venture leav¬ ing "a bridge of retreat, if hemmed in at last, to that discreet refuge." He argues that the General Conference has supreme executive functions because it is "the fountain" of all supreme executive authority. True, he says there are "reservoirs of this ministerial authority" between the fountain and the membership, as the Episcopacy and the pastorship, while class-leaders are small channels conveying to every man's heart the disciplinary influ¬ ence of the Church. The General Conference has, truly, "full power to make all rules and regulations " ere- The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 51 ating "the machinery," as Dr. H. says, of a Church-ad¬ ministration-—the executive or ministerial officers "for cultivating the fields of Methodism." But, in the nat¬ ure of the case, it cannot he that machinery—execute its own orders—impart to others executive functions, and yet retain them—-impart, resume, retain, at will. The healthful stream of executive administration can¬ not be in the fountain, reservoir, channel, all at once— or flow in and out of the fountain—well, I cannot carry out the figure—how does the fountain empty the reservoir and get "the stream" hack into itself? The simple truth is, the General Conference legislates the executive or ministerial agents of the Church into existence—not because it has executive, but legislative, powers. It is hard to conceive how any body of men can execute its own laws, except as a mob, or a posse comitatus; but it can, by law, make its own members, or others, its ministerial agents, and they can do what is impossible to their principal. The General Confer¬ ence has no executive power. There resides in it only a potentiality, which, by legislation, becomes an actual power in its agents; or, to borrow an illustration from science, the legislative power residing in itself is "converted" into administrative power in its agents—one of whom may administer it in the pastorate or eldership; an¬ other in an agency; another in a secretaryship; another still in the Episcopate—and these may, through legis¬ lation, receive, from time to time, more or fewer pow¬ ers, down to the extinction of all power not theirs from a source above the General Conference—the Con¬ stitution. The functions residing in itself only poten¬ tially it makes real in these executive officers by legislation, and they can do (execute) what no General Conference can—the work of agent, pastor, Bishop. And they have vested rights in this transferred power until their functions cease by completed performance, or when the term of service expires, or the incumbent becomes physically, mentally, or morally unfit for the work assigned. But these limitations, or disqualifica¬ tions, are not to he ascertained or declared "summa¬ rily," but by principles of equity, according to "rules and regulations," under which the office, with its spe- 52 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. eific duties, came into existence. When Dr. H. says that a Bishop derives his official authority from the General Conference, by and under the " fourth section," by statute, and not by the Constitution and Restrictive Articles, he was upon the verge of the truth I here maintain. It is derived through a "regulation" or statute, truly, and from the original constituency, which made both the delegated General Conference and its Constitution, with a provision conserving the Episco¬ pacy against even its power. But Dr. H. maintains that, as the executive functions of the General Conference are supreme, it can withhold or confer, and resume them at will. I maintain, on the contrary, that it has no executive power—that it can do nothing of this sort, except as a legislature, and by law; and that all its laws must conform to the fundamental law of the Church cited above; and so it can do nothing merely at will. In its legislation, it is itself under law. The latter proposition needs no proof. The meaning of the term "executive" proves the former. An executive power is a power to complete, to make effectual or operative, legislative or judicial action. The General Conference cannot withhold—must confer—executive functions—transmute its potentiality into an actual power; or, by its laches, vacate what is its prime function—the conservation of the Church. The details only of the transmutation are within its will—the number, character, duties, qualifications, per¬ sons, etc., of its ministerial servitors, where the su¬ preme law does not fix these, or bar its settlement of details. Nor can the General Conference resume its delegated powers at will. It cannot recall the powers it has con¬ ferred, except for legitimate cause, until their legiti¬ mate term is reached. And in the exercise of power over its ministerial officers, while it may add to or take from them some of their adventitious powers, those added must not be contradictory, nor those withdrawn essential, to their official functions as derived from fundamental law. So, having conferred powers, it cannot resume them at will. Dr. H. virtually concedes this when he says that the whole " fourth section," except The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 53 the power to ordain, might perhaps he constitutionally expunged; and this power, too, probably, by expung¬ ing the words "and the laying on of hands," etc. But what would be the Episcopacy—which cannot be " done away"—without power to ordain? If, therefore, Dr. H.'s premise, that the General Conference can resume the powers it has conferred, sanctions such destructive results, must it not he abandoned? It is something, however, to get the confession that the resumption is not at will, but by expunging a rule now in the way of will. In or has the General Conference supreme executive powers because it is supreme in "administration." This is attempted to be proved by the fact, (1) that the General Conference inspects and passes judgment on all the journalized acts of all the Annual Confer¬ ences; (2) that it subjects the administration of the Bishops, quadrennially, to a severe investigation, and approves or disapproves it. But neither of these proc¬ esses is executive or administrative. "What is thus found to be erroneous, though it may be condemned, is not corrected as to the past, unless it come before the Conference by some other presentation of facts. These are inquisitorial precepts—an inquest—and they belong to the judicial functions of the Conference. And they are to be directed either by the legislation of that body or, perhaps more generally, by the fundamental Church Constitution. This inquest cannot go a step beyond the warrant of constitutional (law without usurpation. Even if the General Conference be the "fountain" of ministerial authority, its supremacy is put under ar¬ rest by its own legislation; it*can send out its author¬ ity only through the channels of law; it can recall or resume it only through the same channels. It cannot exercise even its simplest, least complicated legislative powers, except by rule; it can do nothing at will. Its will is controlled by the "Rules of Order"—fixed to guide its routine duty; by the Constitution and its re¬ strictions, imposed by the original constituent "preach- erhood;" by the fundamental Church Constitution, which they intrusted to its keeping, and which defined and bounded its powers; and by all the rules and reg- 54 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. ulations that body has itself legislated into its Disci¬ pline. And if its legislative power is thus restricted, that more fearful judicial power it exercises when it passes upon the character and conduct of its ministerial func¬ tionaries, cannot surely be exercised at will. What pro¬ tection, in that case, has the individual—what appeal, what recourse against the prejudice, passion, tyranny, of this powerful and irresponsible oligarchy? Under the impulse of a temporary madness it is capable of becoming a monster—fit Protestant counterpart of the hideous Spanish Inquisition. It can never be set too deep in the Methodist heart that its General Confer¬ ence is governed by law—cannot act at will. It may alter or repeal its laws, but while they remain on its statute-book this great body is as much bound by them as the humblest member in the land. It may delegate power (as Dr. H. says) to the pastor, to change inefficient leaders; to the Presiding Elder, in the intervals of Conference, to change a pastor " in charge " to an " assistant; " to the Bishop or Presiding Elders, to remove preachers or elders, at irregular periods, for cause sufficient to himself; but all these acts are provided for by statute; and when the incum¬ bent receives his office, under the condition the law imposes, he knows his liabilities. Besides, all these have a remedy by appeal to a judicial body, to whom each officer is amenable. This body sits in inquest on his acts, and, if illegitimate, they may meet him there; or if he act rashly, oppressively, unadvisedly, or unjustly, there may be censure for the official wrong-doer, even if there be no remedy for the subject of his wrong-doing. Here is a safeguard for the rights of the humblest. But let a General Conference act without law—act at will—and who knows what to expect? There is no appeal from its passion, or preju¬ dice, or injustice, or from what may be less culpable, but not less frequently the tyrannous element in large irresponsible bodies—its intolerance. Not even pub- lic ojunion can reach it. It adjourns, dissolves, it is no longer; and its constituent members can never be made to feel, as individuals, the odium it may justly The Disruption of tne M. E. Church. 55 merit as an organized body. "If it err," says Dr. H., " its unwholesome error is incurable, except by the vis medicatrix—the medicinal virtue of its own judicial energies." But what if that be poisoned by passion, prejudice, or fanaticism! Again: There are some powers the General Confer¬ ence can never recall, even by revoking its legislation. It may close up for the future some channel of admin¬ istrative functions, emanating from itself; it may place some whom it has invested with power where they need never exercise it, but the power itself it cannot recall by its enactments. It may revoke the law or¬ daining local preachers, but not the functions of those already ordained under the law; it may locate an or¬ dained pastor, or assign to one duties where it never devolves upon him officially to administer the ordi¬ nances, but it cannot legislate him out of the diaco- nate or eldership. I do not say here it cannot unmake a Bishop, for I am conforming my argument through¬ out to the opinion, so prevalent on the occasion I am reviewing, that a Bishop is only such a mutable func¬ tionary of the General Conference as its Secretary, or a Book Agent, a Delegate to another ecclesiastical body, or a Secretary to one of its Boards. For my purpose, at present, he may be such, with this differ¬ ence, that the law fixes their term of office—his is for life, unless he is by judicial process deprived of it for adequate cause* So much, then, for the executive or ministerial func¬ tions of the General Conference, which Dr. H. claimed dubiously. They reside in that body only potentially. Itself cannot "execute" one of its laws. Even its simple Rules of Order, or its judicial decisions of dep¬ osition and expulsion, taking effect when sentence is pronounced, cannot be executed except by the interven¬ tion of some ministerial agent. All its power in posse becomes real potency only in its ministers. It is con- -Dr. H. contends that a Bishop's office is not for life, if the Conference choose to recall it; and he cites the power of the President to change^ the Cabinet officers. This power, however, was first given by law. Bee Rents Com. vol. i., p. 309. And the recent case between President Johnson and Secretary Stanton, and the " Tenure-of-offiee Bill" growing out of it, show the unsoundness of the argument. 56 The Disruption of the M E. Church. veyed to them by law; it retmms to its source, when it can return at all, only by law—that is, according to the terms, limitations, and conditions which the law establishes. The General Conference can " execute " nothing 01* nobody merely at will, for it has no execu¬ tive functions, much less any that are supreme. Dr. Hamline farther claims for the General Confer¬ ence supreme judicial functions. Granted — supreme in that there is no appeal from its judgments; or, as he says, "it is independent of all systematic responsi¬ bility to a higher tribunal." But it is not so supreme that it can usurp the judicial powers which it has conveyed by law to lower tribunals. It cannot ar¬ raign or try a preacher or member; it has no original jurisdiction except over Bishops. By its own act, its judicial powers are limited, and it is bound by its self- imposed limitations. It can sit as an inquest on the acts of a Conference and the administration of a Bishop, or in certain appeal cases, but only when they come before it in due legal form. It can expel a Bishop for even "improper conduct," and, of course, for higher offenses; and from none of its judgments is there an appeal. But it can do these things not as a legislature, but as a court; and it must maintain as clear a distinction between its functions in its two diverse relations as though two separate bodies, in¬ stead of one body, were acting—the one in making law, the other in administering it. As a legislature, the General Conference has power to make "rules," etc., " of every sort," except where barred by consti¬ tutional provisions; but, as a court, it must be gov¬ erned as absolutely by its previous enactments as a Quarterly Conference is. As a court, it can neither take from nor add to a rule it has heretofore legislated into its Discipline; much less can it, in an emergency, enact or revoke one; and much less still can it cover,1 by one brief preamble and resolution, a recital of fact as an accusation against a Bishop, a statute defining the alleged fact to be criminal and fixing its penalty, a verdict of guilty, a sentence of deposition, and an appointment of the executory minister. To do all this —to legislate, accuse, arraign, find a verdict, sentence, The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 57 and issue a mandamus, all in the same breath—is exer¬ cising supreme jurisdiction with a vengeance! .Yet this was the wonderful scope of the Finley Res- olution, as defined by Dr. H., and vindicated by him on the ground that the supreme legislative and judicial functions of the Conference could meet and cooperate in one act of the body; that it could make and admin¬ ister law in the same utterance. Pleading for its ju¬ dicial supremacy, he denies what was urged—viz.: "that we have no authority to depose a Bishop, except for crime, and by a formal trial." The "fourth section," he urges, is nothing to us in a question of this sort. The whole section is statutory, not part of the Church Constitution, and therefore it cannot be invoked as authoritative—mere rules, revokable, in ten minutes, by two Conference-votes* Whatever this Conference, he urges, can constitutionally do, it can do without first resolving it has powTer to do it—without passing into the Discipline a rule declaring its authority: its judicial power is derived not from its own enactments, but from the Constitution. Nothing in the Restrictive Articles prohibits the removal or suspension of a Bishop; and, of course,' nothing in our own statutes can deprive us, he says, of powers conferred on us by the higher authority of the Constitution. Suppose that the "fourth section" said, This body "has not power to depose a Bishop," we should still have power to de¬ pose, because the Constitution confers it; and we can no more divest ourselves, by our enactments, of our constitutional powers than man can divest himself of free agency and immortality! This is the argument condensed. Was ever such a monstrous doctrine of judicial supremacy propounded? It reduces that of the Star Chamber to a mere baga¬ telle. Here is a double-headed monster which, when acting judicially, needs no law to direct its verdict or judgment—cannot, indeed, subject itself to law, or can, at will, repeal or make law for the occasion—can, in the self-same act, legislate, declare a verdict, and pro- *Dr. H. here unwittingly bows to the majesty of law, when it stands in the way of the court. The " two votes" are, the one to suspend the " rules" to allow a change to be made in the Discipline, without one day's delay; the other, to make the change. 3* 58 The Disruption of the M. E. Churcii. nounce a sentence of deposition from which there is no appeal—and all constitutionally. Nothing can hind so omnipotent a body—not even itself—not its own rules, or regulations, or decisions—not precedent, or its most solemn compacts, or treaties, or resolutions, or statutes—nothing under heaven can deprive it of the power to act at will—a power conferred by the higher authority of the Constitution—if only its action does not trench upon the prohibited limits of the six Re¬ strictive Articles. Strange doctrine! Is it not true, on the contrary, that, until repealed, every rule of order, resolution, statute, not per se un¬ constitutional, which the General Conference passes, binds it, whether acting legislatively or judicially? When acting as a court, it ceases temporarily to be a legislature, and resolves itself, whether formally or not, into a judicatory—just as a senatorial body, on an impeachment case, lays aside, for the time, its legisla¬ tive functions, and is controlled bylaw as to every step in its proceedings. Our Constitution — so brief one may cover it with his hand—does not even constitute the judiciary, defines no offenses or crimes, affixes no penalties: these things are done by the General Con¬ ference, as a legislature; and if, when sitting as a court, it make, or add to, or alter any law, and apply it to the case in hand, it is not only legislation out of time and place, but it is retroactive legislation—doubly wrong, therefore, in the making of law at all, and in the making of retrospective law, which is "unconstitutional, inop¬ erative, and void." (Kent's Com., vol. i., p. 454.) Nor can Dr. H. allege this independence of law for the General Conference on the ground that its suprem¬ acy lies back of the legislative and judicial powers he claims for it, in its delegated conventional powers; for the constituent body of preachers which, in 1808, con¬ ferred these powers, conferred with them its work, with all the regulations and limitations on its statute-book— viz.: (1) The law of its "design to reform this con¬ tinent, and spread scriptural holiness over these lands." (2) All the laws on its statute-book, some of which the delegated body could repeal, and some not, but, until repealed, as much a law to the Conference legislating The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 59 or judging as to the lowest Church-court in the system. It cannot, then, while sitting as a court act as a con¬ vention—supreme, save as to a few restrictions; for if it cannot be court and legislature at the same instant, much less can it concentrate conventional, legislative, and judicial functions into one act. Thus the theory we combat falls to the ground. The General Conference has full powers (slightly restricted) to make rules, etc., but this grant of power does not give it authority to try, decree, and punish, without previous legislation to direct its processes; or to do these things under the fiction that, being its own law¬ maker, it can make and apply law in one act, and that even with retrospective application. But with all this claim of supreme power, Dr. H. did not wholly rely upon it as warrant for deposing Bishop Andrew: he claimed that there was law which war¬ ranted the action of the Conference. This law is now to be examined. 60 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. CHAPTER IV. THE PERVERSION OF LAW BY THE GENERAL CONFER- ENCE OF 1844. AS has heen said, Dr. Hamline did, claim warrant of law, as well as constitutional right, to depose Bishop Andrew, by passing the Finley Resolution— warrant, as he supposed, authorizing him to construe it as a mandamus, which is, in law, a judicial command to enforce on a subordinate officer the doing of some duty therein specified—some duty, merely ministerial, where he has no discretion as to its performance. Ex¬ amine the Resolution. Does it fulfill this condition? Hot at all. It commanded nothing. It more resembles an "injunction," or, more properly, an "interdict, an ecclesiastical censure, prohibiting the administration of divine ordinances," etc. This it would have been, but that it prohibited no more than it commanded. It was a muddled medley, which more nearly resembles "a bill of attainder"—which is a legislative act of law and judgment combined—than it does any other legal process. It should never have been exalted to the dig¬ nity of a judicial decree;- and yet the elaborate argu¬ ment of Dr. H. to prove it, from the Constitution, a mandamus in disguise, and his invocation of law to make it a legitimate sentence of deposition, give con¬ clusive evidence that this was intended to be the ac¬ cepted construction of this nondescript Resolution. Let us briefly examine the legal point he made. The General Conference neither commanded nor prohibited, but merely expressed "its sense," that a Bishop, for reasons stated, "desist from.the exercise of his office," The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 61 until the cause for the action ceased to exist. Dr. H. holds this expression of "sense" to be equivalent to a deposition, a mandate to vacate his official functions. He argues from the power to "expel" to the less power to depose from office, "if we see it necessary." Expul¬ sion for crime, he says, is necessary; for imprudence, it may be, but for "improper conduct" discretionary power is' implied in "if we see it necessary;" and if this discretion is allowed as to use or nonuse of the power to expel, the Conference may farther exercise its discretion and substitute a lower penalty. This is his argument. But is it true that, in Methodist economy, the power to depose a Bishop from office is included in the power to "expel?" What is the deposition of a Methodist Bishop? Dr. H. says the General Conference can re¬ sume at will all the powers it has conveyed to a Bishop by its own act, 11 except such as are essential to Episco¬ pacy and Superintendency. It cannot destroy the Episcopacy, and the power to ordain is essential to its being," though it might perhaps be revoked by repeal¬ ing two or three lines of law. This implies that power to ordain could not be recalled without previous specific legislation; consequently not in this case of proposed deposition. Therefore, if the power to ordain, and also "whatever is essential to the Superintendency," as excepted above, cannot be resumed by the Confer¬ ence, pray what does deposition from office take from our Bishops? What is the relation of a deposed Bishop to the Church? His ordaining and superintending functions, Dr. H. grants, cannot be recalled, though these are his sole official functions. What is he now? A preacher, an elder, a Bishop; and yet not a Bishop! His deposition from official, does not affect his minis¬ terial, functions, or expel him from the Church. But to what Society, to what Conference, does he belong? What is his annual round of work? Can another Bishop make of him a pastor, a "preacher in charge," or a Presiding Elder? Who can resolve these doubts? They all must arise, if deposition from office may legally be substituted for "expulsion," in this only law, which attaches a penalty to a Bishop's malfeasance, 62 Tiie Disruption of the M. E. Ciiurcii. whether it be great or little. Let this fact be noted, for it is suggestive. Now, did our wise fathers leave to us such a legacy of absurdities as are involved in the status of a deposed Methodist Bishop? Verily, no! They could not have so stultified themselves—they who were so little le¬ nient of episcopal dereliction that mere cessation from "traveling at large among the people," without per¬ mission of the Conference, would have stripped one as saintly as Eletcher of " every ministerial function what¬ ever in our Church." Is it not patent that this law demands that, when the Conference "sees it necessary" to mete out to a Bishop any punishment whatever for "improper conduct," it must be expulsion? that there is no gradation of penalty between a resolution of dis¬ approval, or censure for official misfeasance, and ex¬ pulsion from the Church? They made no provisions - anywhere in their ranks for a fallen Bishop. " Severe! " does one say? But less severe than the law just cited respecting cessation from itinerating. It is severe— and well might Bishop Asbury write: "We can with¬ out scruple assert that there are no Bishops in any Episcopal Church upon earth who are subject to so strict a trial as our Bishops; " and when he added that he was "conscious that the Conference would neither degrade nor censure them, unless they deserved it," he both indicated the penalties devised for them and as¬ serted a confidence in the justice of a Conference that later knowledge would probably have much modified. Is it not certain, then, that expulsion was intended to be the lowest form of degradation for "improper con¬ duct" to be visited upon a Bishop? An impropriety in a private member, or even in a preacher, might be corrected by persistent admonition, and, during the curing process, his aberrations, confined within small space, might work no great damage to the Church; but even he, if persistent, may show the "crime of obstinacy," and merit expulsion. But a Bishop—and here I borrow some of Dr. H.'s eloquence: The preacher and the class-leader, whose influence is guarded against so strongly, can do little harm—a Bishop, infinite. Their improper acts are motes in the air; yours, sir, a pestilence abroad The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 63 in the earth. Is it more important to guard against those than it is to guard against these? Heaven forbid! Like the concealed attractions of the heavens, we expect a Bishop's influence to be all- binding everywhere, in the heights and the depths, in the center and on the verge of this great ecclesiastical system. If, instead of concentric and harmonizing movements—such as are wholesome, and conservative, and beautifying—we observe in him irregular¬ ities which, however harmless in others, will be disastrous or fatal in him, the energy of this body must instantly reduce him to order; or, if that may not be, plant him in another and in a dis¬ tant sphere. True; but this must be done legally; and for such a case the laws set by the fathers—the only proper di¬ rectory of the Conference—ordain not deposition from office, but expulsion. Thus severely did our fathers intend to deal with "improper conduct" in a Bishop, if ever they saw it necessary (a strong word) to affix any open disgrace to his act. But was so severe a penalty to be inflicted for slight cause? Was the Church only to be guarded, and not the character of its highest functionary? These fathers could never have so intended—they who waited and labored long and faithfully for the amendment of a member or preacher charged with "improper con¬ duct," before they resorted to his expulsion for healing the Church. Is not the " improper conduct" in a Bishop, which is to be visited by expulsion, something of mo¬ ment, affecting his general, universal, not local, useful¬ ness, and impairing by inherent disqualification the proper exercise of ministerial as well as of episcopal powers—something that had already done this in a measure, and threatened worse results — something which, scrutinized closely, calmly, prayerfully, with tender care for a brother whose character hung on a word from which there was no appeal, shut them up to the imperative necessity of healing the Zion his "im¬ proprieties" had wounded, by degradation—expulsion ? Well may Dr. H. say, pleading for his lower penalty, deposition—and how much more, then, if expulsion is the penalty— We should inquire, as to the Church, how she is likely to be affected by the improper conduct of her officer. Will she be lo¬ cally and slightly embarrassed, or extensively and severely? If the injury threatened will be confined to a small district, and will 64 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. probably be slight and ephemeral, we may bear it; but if it be likely to fall on large districts, and work great evils, producing strife, breaking up Societies, and nearly dissolving Conferences; and if calamities so heavy are likely to be long-continued, and scarcely ever end, the call for summary proceedings on the part of the Conference is loud and imperative. True; but not the whole truth. If this he a real, a proved impropriety, felt to be such throughout the Church, affecting it in all sections alike as disastrously as here anticipated, the Conference ought then to deal with the case—yet not "summarily," but on regular charge and specification, and proper trial with proof; and when the conviction has been according to law, the sentence that the law directs—expulsion—should fol¬ low. But the Finley Resolution had no such case of " improper conduct" in view. The impropriety alleged was not real, but factitious—an act, or rather a relation, consistent with—allowed by—the law of the Church, as explained in 1840, and one that proved no bar, in 1828, to an election by the Conference itself of one to a high official dignity, even when his being a slave¬ holder was the sjiecified ground of opposition to the nominee. The existence of this relation, innocently acquired by the accused Bishop, was, against law and precedent, construed into an impropriety by agitators —perhaps by some into a crime—and they took advan¬ tage of it to attempt to disintegrate the Church. Cir¬ cumstances in the political condition of the country favored their movements; and the agitators did, no doubt, greatly disturb the peace of the New England Churches. But the "triers" in this case—accusers, judges, and jury—did not venture in their "indictment"—if the Finley Resolution is entitled to the name—to desig¬ nate the act, which brought about the relation, as "im¬ proper conduct," or the relation itself as improper. This singular medley—1. Recites two facts: (1) Bishop Andrew is connected with slavery; (2) this "act draws after it circumstances." 2. Ventures an opinion: These circumstances will (hereafter), in our "estimation," embarrass, perhaps in some places pre¬ vent, the exercise of his episcopal office. 3. Implies adroitly that the essence of the impropriety (if that The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 65 can be located anywhere in this unprecedented instru¬ ment) is that he has done what the General Conference is forbidden to do—viz.: made, by becoming a slave¬ holder, a "regulation" that will destroy the itinerant General Superintendency. 4. Declares the '•'■manda¬ mus [/] measure," that it is "the sense" of the Gen¬ eral Conference that this itinerant General Superin¬ tendent—though still left on the roll of Bishops, in Minutes, Hymn-books, and Discipline—shall "desist" altogether from either itinerating or superintending; and, 5. Defers it to the Bishop to enforce the sentence —uhe desist"—upon himself. Where now is the case of "improper conduct," in the Church's original sense thereof, either charged or established on legal princi¬ ples? Who was the culprit now—the Bishop or the General Conference, which, by deposing him from the Superintendency, and yet leaving him a Superintend¬ ent, did make a "regulation" that, as to him at least, "destroyed the itinerant General Superintendency?"* And Dr. H. ought to have added, farther: We should inquire as to the etfect our action is to have on other large districts of the Church (than those he held in view). There were thirteen Annual Conferences, serv¬ ing near five hundred thousand Methodists, who held that both the Discipline and precedent authorized the relation, which is here found to be so irreducible to the category of improprieties, that all the wisdom of the Conference can find no fit form of words to frame an indictment upon it as such, and can set it forth in only a tangled mass of ideas contradictory to law, in- terpolative of law, and violative of precedent under law—perpetrating, too, the absurdity of making a Bishop's act violate a restriction upon General Confer¬ ence legislation. May we not, the Conference should have asked, merely change the theater of disaster—by our act transfer to another equally large and impor- *And that General Conference farther infracted the constitutional provision requiring that the integrity of the "itinerant General Superintendency" be preserved inviolate, by its raising to the. Episcopacy Dr. Hamline, who, though an estimable Christian gentleman, had taken such a position now, and had done so much toward deposing Bishop Andrew, that these acts would have "so embarrassed him in the exercise of his office" in all the Southern Con¬ ferences that it would have been the general " sense " of wise men that he should " desist from its exercise" altogether. 66 The Disruption op the M. B. Church. tant section of the Church all the mischief so elo¬ quently described above—ourselves initiate disaster, "which shall fall on large districts, and work great evils, producing strife, breaking up Societies, dissolv¬ ing Conferences?"* A case so complicated demanded solution by the strictest adherence to law. Nothing but law could vin¬ dicate its consideration, even in the inquest of the Committee on Episcopacy. Had they judged it a real, not an assumed, case of " improper conduct," the Bishop should have been put upon, his trial regularly. If ac¬ quitted, there was the end of it, so far as he was con¬ cerned; if not, the law should have governed — he should have been expelled. No claim of supreme leg¬ islative, executive, or judicial functions in the General Conference warranted any other dealing with this case. If whatever may have been done the wide disaster predicted would have followed—and I believe it would —the time was fully come for Methodism to separate into "two bands;" and had this fact been recognized by the Conference, and a plan of separation devised which would have effected at first that to which the Conference was driven at last, peace would have re¬ mained, and harmony, between the two Methodisms— without bitter recollections of wrong-doing left as a heritage of evil to coming generations. The conclusion we reach is that Dr. Hamline does not show any warrant of law for deposing Bishop Andrew by regular trial; neither does he show any constitutional authority for deposing him, as was *It would not have been amiss for the Conference to ask what precedent— if precedents are any thing to a supreme General Conference—this case might set. What Bishop is secure against liability to awaken prejudice in even large classes of local agitators? Matters of opinion have more frequently been made the occasion of persecution than matters of fact. Indeed, it was opin¬ ions more than facts that was the animus of this whole prosecution; and where they are urged to the point of accusation and deposition from office— on the claim of conspirators, who assert that a Bishop holding such and such opinions cannot preside among them—we may depose one and another Bishop without any taint of criminality in one of them. One is obnoxious here as a slave-holder; another elsewhere as an Abolitionist; another is a Freemason; one uses tobacco; another holds to " social equality;" another is this, that, or the other, which, in this or that Conference, will "embarrass" his adminis¬ tration. Where is this thing to stop? When men learn to respect themselves too much to be greedy for office at the extinction of the Episcopacy, is the most probable answer. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 67 done, without trial, merely at the will of the ma- jority. But the high assumptions that such dealing implies would not have been made but for a false theory re¬ specting the relations of the Bishops to the General Conference. This theory will be next examined. 68 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. CHAPTER, V. THE RELATION OF THE BISHOPS TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. THE argument respecting the power of the General Conference over the Bishops has proceeded with¬ out controverting the assumption, made in 1844, that a Bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church is but a mutable functionary in the Church — an officer — a "creature"—of the General Conference, whose conduct can be investigated at any General Conference; and that then he can be made, without any formal trial, to vacate his office at the will of that body, if it " see it necessary." The Southern Delegates insisted that the "Episcopacy is a coordinate branch of the govern¬ ment," and that, " in a sense by no means unimportant, the General Conference is as much a creature of the Episcopacy as the Bishops are the creatures of the General Conference." The General Conference acted upon its theory in Bishop Andrew's case—a theory expounded by Dr. Ilamline, that the General Conference has power di¬ rectly "from the grant of the Constitution, which is a catholic grant, embracing all, beyond a few (six) re¬ strictions, to try a Bishop for crime, and to depose him summarily for improper conduct," without first pass¬ ing a law for its guidance—or, as he says, " passing a rule declaring its authority." Dr. H. carried his theory farther even, when, in ex¬ plaining, he said: I argued that a Bishop may be displaced at the discretion of the Conference, when, in their opinion, it becomes "necessary" on ac- The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 09 count of "improper conduct;" and, I might have said, without im¬ proper conduct on his part, so far as constitutional restrictions are concerned. And, again, as to the assertion that the analogy between Bish¬ ops and inferior officers will not hold, I answer: This Conference is responsible to the Constitution, and if it wished to bind itself not to remove a Bishop, it could call on the Annual Conferences to aid it in assuming a constitutional restriction. Not having done so proves that it intends to hold this power, and execute it when necessary. Having in the last chapters proved that the General Conference could not properly claim such power over the Bishops as to do with them, even as mere officers, whatever the Restrictive Articles do not inhibit, and passing, for the present, the strange doctrine that it held for prospective use every power that it had not asked the Annual Conferences to take away from it—even to that of deposing a Bishop " without improper con¬ duct on his part"—I come now to discuss the question, Are the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as the office-theory of the General Conference sup¬ poses, mutable functionaries of the Conference— changeable at will? I hope to show that our Episco¬ pacy is not that subject and servile thing which this theory would make it. Like every thing about Methodism, its Episcopacy is the outgrowth of circumstances, and we must study its historical development to know the extent and limita¬ tions of both its powers and its prerogatives. Con¬ flicting opinions respecting these questions first arose, so far as I can learn, in this General Conference of 1844—itself an argument in favor of my view. The authority of Bishop boule is certainly good on ques¬ tions of history and legislation, and he said, in 1844, speaking to this point; I wish to say, explicitly, that if the Superintendents are to he regarded only as officers of the General Conference of the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church, and, consequently, as officers of the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church, liable to be deposed at will by a simple majority of this body, without a form of trial, no obligation exist¬ ing—growing out of the Constitution and laws of the Church—- even to assign cause wherefore—I say, strange as it may seem, al¬ though I have had the honor and privilege to be a member of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ever since 70 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. its present organization; tliongh I was honored with a sent in the Convention of Ministers which organized it in this respect, I have heard for the first time, either on the floor of this Conference, ill an Annual Conference, or through the whole of the private mem¬ bership of the Church, this doctrine advanced; this is the first time I ever heard it. Of course it struck me as a novelty. ... I thought that the Constitution of the Church—its laws and regula¬ tions—its many solemn vows of ordination—the parchments, which I hold under the signature of the departed dead—I thought that these had prescribed my duties—had marked out my course—had defined my landmarks as a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church—not the Bishop of the General Conference—not the Bishop of an Annual Conference. . . . This Conference is very soon to settle this question, whether it is the right of this body, and whether they have the power to depose a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church—to depose my colleague—to depose me, without a form of trial, . . , without charge, and without once being called on to answer in the premises—for what Bishop Andrew did say was voluntary. ... I hold that the General.Conference has an indisputable right—constitutional, sacred—to arraign at her tribunal every Bishop, to try us there; to find us guilty of any offense with which we are charged, on evidence, and to excommuni¬ cate—expel us. I am always ready to appear before this body in that regard. I recognize fully their right. . . . You must know that, with the principles I have stated to you, it will not be Bishop Andrew alone that your word will affect—that the resolu¬ tion on which we are just about to act goes to sustain the doctrine that the General Conference have power and right to depose one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church without form of trial—that you are under no obligation from the Constitution and laws to show cause even—this is the principle involved in this vote. It involves the office; it involves the charge; it involves the relation itself. These opinions of Bishop Soule are not at all incon¬ sistent with the idea that ours is only a "moderate Episcopacy." "While High-church Episcopacy sets the Bishop above the Church and its courts, the converse opinion is not necessarily true—viz.: that " moderate Episcopacy" sets the Church and its courts over the Bishops. Bishop Soule, whose very decided opinions on one side of the question have just been given, de¬ clares as decidedly in favor of a moderate Episcopacy in the Bishops' Address to this same General Confer¬ ence of 1844—which is from his pen. He says: The office of a Bishop, or Superintendent, according to our eccle¬ siastical system, is almost exclusively executive. ... So far from being irresponsible in their office, the Bishops are amenable The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 71 to the General Conference, not only for their moral conduct and for the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful administration of the government of the Church according to the provisions of the Discipline, and for all decisions they make on ecclesiastical law. In all the cases this body has original jurisdiction, and may prosecute to final issue in expulsion, from which decision there is no appeal. . . . Confirming orders, by ordaining deacons and elders, is involved in the Superintendency. We say confirming, because the orders are conferred by another body, which is inde¬ pendent of the episcopal office, both in its organization and action. This confirmation of orders, or ordination, is not by virtue of a distinct and higher orderfor, with our great founder, we are convinced that Bishops and presbyters are the same order in the Christian ministry; hut it is by virtue of an office constituted by the body of presbyters for the better order of discipline, for the preservation of the unity of the Church, and for carrying on the work of God in the most effectual manner. The execution of this *The writer is not so scrupulous as many of the older Methodists were as to the use of this word " order," though he holds precisely the same opinion with them as to the functions and prerogatives of the Episcopacy. In our Church it is as much a separate order from the eldership and diaconate as in the prelatie Episcopal Churches. But our Bishops differ from these prelates in two essential particulars: (1) Though the Episcopacy is an order, it is not an order in the so-called line of apostolic succession, and therefore our Bishops do not claim to be an apostolic order—one remove above an episcopal order con¬ stituted by the presbytery. On the former theory the total extinction of the Episcopacy would follow the death of the last " successor;" on the latter the Episcopacy may be brought into being or renewed whenever the presbyterial order finds it necessary to elevate one or more of themselves into the episco¬ pal order; and the ordained person remains in that order a Bishop, as they remain in their order elders, for life, unless divested of their powers for proper cause. (2) The prelatical Episcopacy holds the Church in its loins, as it were. Church-order in all Episcopal Churches requires ordination as pre¬ requisite to that administration of the ordinances which defines a Church. (See definition in our Articles of Religion.) In prelatical Churches the Bish¬ ops have entire control of such ordinations; and so they hold the power, as they may select their priests and deacons, to advance, retard, build up, or de¬ stroy the visible Church. Our episcopal order has no such power—can ordain none for sacramental service, except as the Church selects; and so it has en¬ tire control of the men and means by which it propagates itself. Therefore, the episcopal order with us is a very 'different affair from the prelatical order among High-churchmen and Romanists; and we have no reason to fear the word " order." In dropping it out of use we confuse, if not stultify, ourselves; for what, then, does our " ordination of Bishops" mean? We have, in truth, the same right to use the word " ordination," and to speak of " orders," as have the Bishops of the Church of England, however some of them have changed the sense and significance of the words. There is no evidence that any who accepted the episcopal office under Queen Elizabeth, after the Ho- manist reaction under Queen Mary, had any belief in apostolical succession, or in the divine institution of the episcopal order. Many of Mary's Bishops re¬ fused to continue in office under Queen Elizabeth; and she, in reconstituting the Church of England, turned for her ordinations to the remnant of those Bishops who had refused to conform under Mary, and had been deposed. They were still Bishops, but not Bishops in office. And the four who acted as consecrators, at the Queen's instance, believed, as we do, in a " moderate Episcopacy," and William Barlow, the oldest, said that ordination was not necessary to making a Bishop; that Bishops were not necessary to the Consti¬ tution of the Church; that wherever three persons met to worship God, if only "cobblers and weavers," that was the true Church. {Hunt's History of Religious Thought in England.) 72 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. office is subject to two important restrictions which would he irrel¬ evant to prelacy, or diocesan Episcopacy, constituted on the basis of a distinct and superior order. The latter involves independent action in conferring orders, by virtue of authority inherent in, and exclusively appertaining to, the Episcopacy; hut the former is a del¬ egated authority to confirm orders, the exercise of which is de¬ pendent on another body. The Bishop can ordain neither a deacon nor an elder without the election of the candidate by an Annual Conference; and, in case of such election, he has no discretional authority, but is under obligation to ordain the person elected, whatever may he his own judgment of his qualifications. [Their prerogatives at the first were not so restricted, as will appear hereafter.] These are the two restrictions previously alluded to. This is certainly a wise and safe provision, and should never he changed or modified so as to authorize the Bishops to ordain with¬ out the authority of the ministry. With these facts in view, it is presumed that it will be admitted hv all well-informed and candid men that, so far as the constitution of the ministry is concerned, ours is a "moderate Episcopacy." Some things are to be noted in these extracts; 1. Bishop Andrew's name is appended to the paper just quoted, and it was offered after he had learned that his "marrying into slave-holding" was considered a ground of accusation against him; and yet he avows his "amenability" to the General Conference, which term, under the circumstances, he could not have con¬ sented to use in the latitudinarian sense afterward attached to it by the majority of the General Con¬ ference. 2. In Bishop Soule's exposition of the legitimate power of a General Conference over the Bishop, he makes no mention of deposition as a legal penalty, but of "excommunication" only ; while it was claimed very explicitly by Dr. Hamline, as has been seen, that the latter included the former penalty, which, it was said, could be inflicted at will for any cause that might seem to a majority sufficient. Bishop Soule emphatically denies this claim, and he insists that the penalty pre¬ supposes a regular form of trial by the law, and on charges and proof. 3. He shows that "moderate Episcopacy" consists not in the fact that "Superintendents are officers of the General Conference," to be set aside at will, but that it is found in that they have no original and independ¬ ent power to perpetuate the Church by ordaining, at The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 73 their own option, a ministry to give the sacraments to the people—the essence of a regular Church—and that this power is held by the Methodist Episcopal Church itself, and is exercised through the Bishops as its ex¬ ecutive officers. But even this restriction on the Bish¬ ops does not make them mutable functionaries in the Church—like editors, book agents, secretaries, etc. The historical development of our Episcopacy and its functions and prerogatives will prove that the Bish¬ ops are not "creatures" of the General Conference, and consequently mutable functionaries of that body, removable at will for less than moral apostasy or offi¬ cial delinquency—removable without charge or trial. It can be established that the Methodist Ejiiscopal Church—much less its General Conference—never cre¬ ated its Episcopacy. On the contrary, the Episcopacy organized, and gave ecclesiastical vitality to, a number of "Societies," and constituted them into the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church. Dr. Coke tells us that, in 1788, it was agreed, not by a General Conference, but by a Conference in Georgia—one of that yearly series of Conferences before which questions were brought seriatim,—that Mr. Wesley's name should be inserted at the head of our Small [Annual] Minutes as the fountain of our episcopal office. (Stevens's History, vol. ii, p. 278.) The Bishops ordained through Mr. W. were, in turn, the "fountain" of the existence of our Church as an organized body, clothed with all Church-func¬ tions—a fully endowed Church of Christ. Methodism did not exist in such organic Church-form prior to 1784, and its Bishops existed before it, and reduced it to that form. Its adherents previously were collected in "Societies," which, in the aggregate, were called the Methodist Societies—the members collectively, "The Methodists," and they considered themselves members of the Church of England. They were served with the gospel by Mr. Wesley's "assistants" and their "helpers," who could only instruct and exhort —they having no authority to administer the ordinances. Mr. Wesley was, in effect, their Bishop, represented in this country by unordained "assistants" appointed by him¬ self. He appointed Mr. Asbury in 1772; afterward Mr. 4 74 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. Eankin, who returned to England during the Revolu¬ tionary War, leaving no appointed head over the So¬ cieties. In 1779 the preachers, in Conference, declared that Mr. Asbury "ought to act as General Assistant," because originally appointed by Mr. Wesley; and they asserted for him a very large power—namely, that " on hearing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him, according to the Minutes." * Here was the foreshadowing of the original episco¬ pal power and prerogative—a copy of Mr. Wesley's. In 1783 Mr. Wesley especially confirmed the appoint¬ ment of Mr. Asbury as "General Assistant," directing him to receive no preachers in America "who would not submit to him and to the Minutes of the Confer¬ ence." (Asbury's Journal, vol. i., p. 363.) In 1784 Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke—already a piresbyter of the Church of England—to be a Bishop, and Messrs. Whatcoat and Yasey, two of his preachers, to be elders, or presbyters; and he sent them over to the United States to convey to the American preachers the right "to baptize and to administer the Lord's Supper," appointing Coke and Asbury "to be joint Sujierintendents over our brethren in North Amer¬ ica." The preachers were called together in extraordinary session in Baltimore, 24th December, 1784, and sixty out of eighty-one of them came, and constituted the first "General Conference"—the record of their con¬ vocations up to that time being modestly styled, "Min¬ utes of some Conversations between the Preachers in connection with Rev. Mr. John Wesley." "At this Conference," 1784, say the Minutes of 1785, "we *This power, as well as the requirement of the "consent and imposition of hands of a Superintendent " in all ordinations, was, so far as any thing to the contrary now appears, voluntarily surrendered. These regulations disappear from the Discipline of 1787-9, where several things eome and go, rather in¬ formally and irregularly. Mr. Asbury was engaged occasionally from Novem¬ ber, 1785, to April, 1787, in revising and recasting the Discipline. Doubtless he submitted the changes he made to the several Annual (called District) Confer¬ ences—perhaps only informed them of his proposed vacation of prerogative, after the fashion of that day. Certain it is that these powers were never la ken from the Bishops by a General Conference, for none was held from 1784 to 171)2, and these changes appear in 1787-11. (.See Asbury's Journal, vol. i., p. ."501; vol. ii., p. 21); Emory's History of the Discipline, p. 81; Stevens's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii., p. 184.) The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 75 formed ourselves into an independent Church; and, following the advice of Mr. John Wesley, who recom¬ mended the episcopal mode of Church-government, we thought it best to become an Episcopal Church, making the episcopal office elective, and the elected Superintendents, or Bishops, amenable to the body of ministers and preachers." Mr. Asbury writes (Journal, vol. ii., p. 378): " When the Conference [1784] was seated, Dr. Coke [already a Bishop] and myself were unanimously elected to the Superintendency of the Church, and my ordination followed." The Discipline of 1789 expressly says that Mr. Wesley, having ordained Dr. Coke to the episcopal office and delivered to him " letters of episcopal or¬ ders," " commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, then General Assistant of the Methodist So¬ ciety in America, for the same episcopal office." "At which time the General Conference, held at Balti¬ more, did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as their Bishops." The Notes on the Discipline, written by Bishops Coke and Asbury, say: "The late Rev. John Wesley recommended the episcopal form to his Societies in America; and the General Conference, which is the chief synod of our Church, unanimously accepted it. Mr. Wesley did more. He first consecrated one for the office of a Bishop, that our Episcopacy might descend from himself. The General Conference unanimously accepted of the per¬ son so consecrated, as well as of Francis Asbury, who had for many years before exercised every branch of the episcopal office, excepting that of ordination." [Notes, p. 282.) Jesse Lee says: "Asbury declined ordination to the Superintendency, unless, in addition to the ap¬ pointment of Mr. Wesley, his brethren should formally elect him Bishop." (Stevens's History, on G. C., vol. ii., p. 183.) We have put a few words above in italics, because they give a clew to this entire transaction. Mr. Wesley in¬ tended that his " General Assistant," Mr. Asbury, should be to his American "Societies," erected into a Church, all that he was to the "United Societies" in Great Britain. lie, therefore, arranged to confer on Mr. A. 76 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. episcopal orders* His office of Superintendent—under another name—with all the episcopal powers, except that of ordaining, he had long held—-(1) virtue of Mr. Wesley's appointment, and (2) because called to it, in 1779, by the preachers. The powers attached to the office were transferred to, and made inherent in, the Episcopacy; but Mr. A. judiciously declined to exer¬ cise, or even assume, these powers in this new relation, unless, in addition to the appointment of Mr. Wesley, the preachers consented to receive him as Superintend¬ ent. Without their consent, he might have proceeded to exercise, by prerogative, all the power to which Mr. Wesley appointed him. He had this right, (1) by the relation the Societies held to Mr. W., and by that which he (Asbury) held to the "Societies" by Mr. W.'s ap¬ pointment; and (2) by the power he received, in 1779, to determine all questions in debate, after a hearing, "according to the Minutes." But to exercise this right as a Bishop, though under the more modest name of Superintendent, without a specified assent, he thought unwise. Had he done it, many members might have revolted. Doubtless a large body would have adhered to him, and these would then have constituted the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and the others might, by some means, have secured presbyterial ordination from abroad and constituted themselves into another Meth¬ odist Church; or the Conference might have rejected Mr. Wesley's plan and appointment, and Mr. A. might have acquiesced and declined to act as Bishop, and helped that body to secure the sacraments, and to con¬ stitute the Societies into a Church, in some other way. Many alternatives to the method pursued present themselves, and they are sometimes brought into the argument to show what might have been; and what, in that event, would be the power of the Bishops—had there been any—or of equivalent officers of presbyte¬ rial ordination under some other official title; and what would be the relations of such officers to this possible Church. But we submit that all such hy¬ potheses are not pertinent. The only questions perti- *The office was of Mr. Wesley's own creation, and he intended it to be per¬ petual. (Emory's Defense, etc., p. 78.) For " orders," see Defense, pp. G2-G4. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 77 nent in the discussion of the relations of our Bishops to our General Conference, and, indeed, to the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church, are, How were these—Bishops, Conference, Church—respectively constituted? in what order? with what original, or conferred, or restricted powers, respectively? and not, How, on the hypothesis of presbyterial parity, might all these things have been f Bearing this in mind, let us examine the question of episcopal powers. We have seen what Mr. Asbury's powers were as "General Assistant," and they remained his as Bishop, except so far as he voluntarily relinquished them. After he became Bishop, "his powers were extraordi¬ nary, almost plenary; but he was subjected to an ex¬ traordinary amenability. Besides presiding in the Conferences, he made absolutely the appointments, or annual distribution of the preachers, having yet no cabinet of Presiding Elders. In the intervals of the Conference, he could receive, change, or suspend preachers. He decided finally appeals from both preachers and people. Ordinations depended upon the vote of a majority of the Conference, yet the Bishop had a veto power over such vote. He could unite two or more Annual Conferences, and appointed the times and places of their sessions. But he could be deposed and expelled from the Church not only for crime, but for improper conduct—a liability to which no other preacher, nor the lowliest private member, was exposed." (Stevens's History of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, vol. ii., p. 224.) As to this "liability"—"amenability" is the word most used—of the Bishops, let us see its extent. Bishop Asbury, in his controversies with ambitious and recal¬ citrant preachers in his day, made much of it, and the apologists for Episcopacy paraded it largely in the days of "radical " agitation, and in such a way as may mis¬ lead the unwary reader into supposing that it means more than the "book" makes it. When the Bishops, in their Notes, speak of being "entirely dependent," "perfectly dependent," "perfectly subject," to the Gen¬ eral Conference, let it be remembered that they were specially contrasting their episcopal powers with the 78 Tiie Disruption op the M. E. Church. power wielded by Mr. "Wesley and tliat of the English Bishops, with whom, as to claims, their enemies sought to confound them. When they speak more specifically of the items in which they were "dependent," they refer to a control over " preaching-hoiises " by the Gen¬ eral Conference—whereas, in Great Britain, these were under Mr. W.'s control; their liability to have the ap¬ pointing power taken from them if they should abuse it; the contrast of their responsibility to Mr. Wesley's irresponsibility; their subjection to "strict trial," and expulsion for even "supposed immorality;" the con¬ trol of the "funds" in the Conference, and not in themselves, as in his case; and such like differences between "our venerable father" and the American Bishops. They also contrast their power to ordain, only after election by a Conference, with that of other Bishops, in whom it resides at their own will; and they point out the difference between a diocesan Episcopacy, with its " large salaries, splendid dresses, and other ap¬ pendages of pomp and splendor," and their "Gen¬ eral Itinerant Superintendency," with its obligation "to travel" till "superannuated," or, if ceasing to do so, " their absolute deprivation of every ministerial function whatsoever in the Church." But there is not a word to indicate that the}T believed their "office" so subject to the General Conference that they might be constrained to vacate it annually, quadrennially, or after any longer or shorter term, at the option of that body.* There was no provision made for a term of office—none for confirming them in office at set times in the future, which is itself a strong proof that it was conferred for life. There was even no provision for * It is a significant fact that, in the forms of ordination, there always was, and is now, in both Churches, a pledge of obedience to superiors made by deacons and elders, while none was exacted from Bishops. If the theory of the Methodist Episcopal Church were that on which our fathers proceeded, after reading the question to deacons, " Will you reverently obey them to whom the cnarge and government over you is committed?" and to elders, " Will you reverently obey your chief ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over you?" we should expect to find in the questions to the Bishops one to this effect: " Will you reverently obey the General Con¬ ference, whose creatures you are, and to all whose decisions you are to be en¬ tirely subject?" But we find not that the Bishops were ever put under such supreme obligations. Fidelity iu "ordaining, or laying hands upon, anil sending others, and in all other duties of your (their) office," is their only official pledge. What else they pledge has reference to their duties as Chris¬ tian ministers; there is no vow of subjection to the General Conference. The Disruption of tiie M. E. Church. 79 that "inquest" into their acts now exercised by the General Conference through the "Committee on Epis¬ copacy," which was first appointed in 1816, at the instance of Bishop McKendree, because of some com¬ plaints against his administration; and then com¬ menced the usage of reporting quadrennially on the episcopal administration. And it is patent that Bishop Soule meant no more than Bishop Asbury meant when he wrote about a Bishop's amenability—as quoted heretofore from the Episcopal Address of 1814, and largely relied upon as an answer to the Protest of the Minority; for his speech at the same Conference, when the majority were seeking to apply this doctrine of "amenability" to Bishop Andrew, flatly contradicts their interpretation of this doctrine. Thus he is no authority for the majority. The same apologetic spirit that we have noticed im¬ pelled the Bev. John Dickens (see Emory's Defense, etc., p. 109), in his "Remarks" on the proceedings of the seceding Hammett, of Charleston, S. C., to say that "Mr. Asbury was chosen by the Conference both be¬ fore and after (?) he was ordained Bishop. And he is still considered as the person of their choice by being responsible to the Conference (!), who have power to remove him, and fill his place with another, if they see it necessary. And as he is liable every year to be removed, he may be considered as their annual choice" (!). To say nothing about the singular logic of the last two sentences, it may be remarked that the facts stated are not confirmed by testimony, but are contradicted by other facts, and the inferences can pass only as Mr. Dickens's (erroneous) opinion. Indeed the main fact, Mr. Asbury's liability annually to removal, was clearly impossible by the very usage which controlled the as¬ semblages and acts of the Conferences; and this con¬ firms the opinion that Mr. Asbury never suspected that he was receiving the office for one year, or for four, or any other term of years short of the time when he became physically incapable for the work.* *A little incident that appears in the Journal of 1800 farther confirms this view. A request being maae that Mr. Asbury should let the Conference know 80 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. To confirm this opinion, I refer again to Stevens, vol. ii., pp. 219, 220: The Christmas Conference was the first General Conference— that is to say, all the Annual Conferences were supposed to be there assembled. It was, therefore, the supreme judicatory of the Church. It was not yet a delegated body, but the whole ministry in session. It made no provision for any future session of the kind; but for some years legislative enactments were made as here¬ tofore—every new measure being submitted to each Annual Con¬ ference by the Superintendents, and the majority of all being necessary to its validity. Another General Conference was held, however, in 1792, no official minutes of which are extant. The third session was held in 1796, a compendium of the minutes of which was published. Thereafter a session has been held regu¬ larly every four years, and the minutes of each preserved. In the session of 1808 a motion was adopted for the better organization of the Conference as a "delegated" body. In 1812 it met in New York City as a "Delegated General Conference." Until the appointment of stated, or regular, General Conferences, the Annual Conferences continued to be considered local, or sec¬ tional, meetings of the one undivided ministry, held in different localities for the local convenience of its members, every general, or legislative, measure being submitted, as we have seen, to all the sessions before it could become law. Down to 1784 there had been but two sessions a year announced, though more were some¬ times irregularly held. The enlargement of the denomination now required more annual sessions; three were appointed for 1785 —one in Maryland, one in Virginia, and one in North Carolina. These sufficed till 1788, when five were held. The next year they increased to eleven, and in 1790 to fourteen, two being held beyond the Alleghanies. The Annual Conference was, therefore, still the supreme assem¬ bly of the Church, except when, by its appointment, a General Conference—that is to say, a collective assembly of the Annual Conferences—should intervene. In view of these facts, where was the possibility, he- fore 1792 (when Mr. Dickens wrote), of "the Confer¬ ence" removing Mr. Asbnry and filling his place? and what he had determined to do, he intimated that he did not know whether the General Conference was satisfied with his former services. It did not seem to have occurred to him that all they had to do, if dissatisfied, was to pass a " Finley," or such like, "Resolution." A member proposed that "a vote should'be taken." The vote was objected to until a reason should be assigned for the suspicion. Mr. Asbury then said that his affliction, since the last Gen¬ eral Conference, had been great; that his debility had obliged him to locate, etc., and that he did not knowwhelher the General Conference, as a body, was "satisfied with such parts of his conduct." His mind was set at rest by a resolution that the General Conference considered itself under great obliga¬ tions to him for the many services he had rendered to the Connection. Mark! the question was what Mr. Asbury would do—not what the Conference should do with him. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 81 how could he be "liable to such removal every year?" I need say nothing of the implications that may be concealed under the words "if they see it necessary." Do these words imply removal at will and without cause, as that of an officer subject to annual appoint¬ ment? or do they imply that the necessity shall be de¬ termined by law, evidence and legal conviction of improper conduct, maladministration, immorality, or crime? I am the more particular in showing that Mr. Dickens could not but have been mistaken in his broad assertions, and that he gives no testimony favoring deposition without trial, because he is the principal witness relied on by the majority of 1844 to invalidate the opinions of the Southern Delegates. (See Reply, etc.) Mow, of what I have written this is the sum: 1. Mr. Asbury did not derive his episcopal powers— whereby he could set apart men to administer the or¬ dinances—from the Conference of 1784, but from Mr. Wesley, by ordination. 2. The preachers of the "Methodist Societies" had no part in this ordination—it being conducted by the English Delegates from Mr. Wesley—assisted by Mr. Otterbein, a minister of the G-erman Lutheran Church. They but consented to receive Mr. Asbury (with Dr. Coke), after he should be ordained, as their "Superin¬ tendent," as they had received him before as Mr. Wes¬ ley's "Assistant." Thus receiving him, they could be empowered to carry to the people the sacraments for which there was a general clamor; otherwise they must seek authority elsewhere—it being a generally accepted postulate among the Methodists that ordination is es¬ sential to the orderly administration of the sacra¬ ments. 3. The Methodist Episcopal Church did not come into existence merely by Mr. Wesley's ordaining Dr. Coke —nor by his appointing him and Asbury Bishops—nor by the Conference consenting to receive them as such —nor by Asbury's ordination as deacon, elder, and Bishop, on three consecutive days—nor by the ordina¬ tion of a number of deacons; but its real existence dates from Sunday, January 2, 1785, when twelve men 4* 82 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. (previously ordained deacons) were ordained as elders for the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now, for the first time, there was among American Methodists, and be¬ longing to the "Societies," "a congregation of faithful men "■—the essential element in the "visible Church of Christ," according to our "Articles of Religion"—"in which the pure word of God" was "preached, and the sacraments" were "duly administered according to Christ's ordinance." Then and thus was the Methodist Episcopal Church born out of the Societies, and brought into being as a Church, by Bishops, who found Methodism a Society and, by the prerogatives they brought with them, con¬ verted it into a Church, and continued to rule over it with defined powers, fixed by mutual consent. Our Episcopacy had its "fountain of authority" in Mr. Wesley; our Church—as defined in the Article just quoted — its fountain of authority in our Bishops, and the General Conference of 1844 its fountain of authority in the Conferences representing the Church, by election—and in the Bishops, by that investiture of the constituent members with the eldership which, by law, is necessary to constitute any preacher eligible as a Delegate to the General Conference. Thus I establish a coordination of functions in cre¬ ating the Church, and out of the Church the General Conference, between the Bishops on the one hand, and the body of the ministry on the other hand; and I show that the Church—and of course the Conference, its representative—is more a "creature" of the Bish¬ ops than they are "creatures" of the Conference. How, then, can our Episcopacy be a merely mutable office, conferred and recalled at the will of that body of'elders? A little light is cast upon this subject by the attitude of the Bishops in and toward the General Conferences, while affairs were settling down by usage into their present form. It has been learned from this history how the Bish¬ ops fixed up the Discipline from time to time—adding to or leaving out, after consulting with the Confer¬ ences—and sometimes, perhaps, without doing it. The The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 83 Journals of the General Conference show that they very frequently made motions and opposed resolutions —perhaps voted when there was a "tie," if not at other times, as it was not till 1840 that we find the propriety of a "casting vote" doubted. Bishop Soule, the same year, offered a resolution—the last time, we believe, that a Bishop did this. In 1804 a resolution was passed to leave it to the Bishops to form a section on slavery to suit the North¬ ern and Southern States. Bishop Asbury refused to act under this order of the Conference, and the mat¬ ter was dropped. In 1808 Bishop Asbury moved, "from the chair," that one thousand copies of the Discipline be prepared for the use of the South Carolina Conference, in which the rule and section on slavery should be left out; and his motion prevailed. In 1820 the Conference made the Presiding Elders elective, and they were made "the advising council of the Bishop in stationing the preachers." But Bishop McKendree believed this measure unconstitutional, and, though he had no veto power, he had influence enough to have the law suspended, and he wrote and spoke against it, until it was finally rescinded. The difficulties offered by this question doubtless gave rise to the attempts—in 1820 and in 1824—to give the Bishops a veto power. Resolutions conferring it passed in both these General Conferences, but the Journals do not tell us whether they went round to the Conferences, or what became of them. The fact is of consequence only as showing that these General Con¬ ferences believed the Bishops to occupy a relation that made them eligible to coordinate legislative powers, and that they were so little "subject" to that body that it could not add to their powers—much less take them away without the assent of the Annual Confer¬ ences. In 1832 it was provided, at the request of the Can¬ ada Methodist Episcopal Church, that should it elect a Bishop, and wish one of our Bishops to ordain him', the Bishop "shall be at liberty to do so," provided it accord with his own judgment—and that until a Bishop 84 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. was elected in Canada, if requested by its Conference, a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church "shall be at liberty to ordain any deacons or elders," etc., for the Canada Church. In 1828, when the division as to Can¬ ada was authorized, the same liberty respecting ordain¬ ing a Bishop was granted; but none had yet been elected. Mow, would such an ordination have been an official act in and for the Methodist Episcopal Church? But farther: Bishop Hedding, who in 1829 had presided at the organization of the Canada Conference into an independent Church, was at the Conference in 1830, "not as its president, but as its visitor and friend;" and he ordained the preachers elected to orders by that Conference, giving them certificates of such ordi¬ nation. The authority to do this was not as yet granted. Mow, was Bishop H. acting here as an officer of the Methodist Episcopal Church? He was not authorized or sent on this mission by that Church, nor was he ordaining members of it, or ministers for its altars. Was he acting as an officer of the Canada Church? He did not belong to that Communion. He was acting in the premises as an Episcopal Methodist Bishop, whose acts were valid, without any other au¬ thority than his ordination gave, it conferring a func¬ tional power that gave them validity wherever they were needed and legitimately solicited—just as Coke* was a Methodist Bishop in America even before the organization of a Methodist Episcopal Church on this continent. As a Bishop, his powers were inherited from and after his ordination; as a "Superintendent" in said Church, they became his because the preachers repre¬ senting the Societies received him as such. Bishop H. was received by the Canada Conference as a Bishop— but not as a Superintendent, or officer of the Confer¬ ence; and there is thus shown an essential difference between a Bishop and a mere executive officer of the * When Bishop Coke reached New York, Mr. Dickens, the preacher there, wished him to announce at once to the Societies the power he brought from Mr. Wesley. The former declined, till he could consult Mr. Ashury. After they met, a council of the preachers near at hand was called, and'it was a question whether there should be a Conference called before Mr. Wesley's plan should be inaugurated. Bishop C. then voluntarily held his powers for a time in abeyance, as the result of that council.—Drew's Life of Coke. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 85 General Conference, subject to its lordly and capricious will.* The facts above offered prove that the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church did not consider them¬ selves, and were not considered by the Church, mere lay figures to adorn the platform of a General Confer¬ ence, to maintain order, put motions, and decide law questions subject to correction by that body, and, un¬ less decapitated, in conformity to its "sense" about some disability incurred by them, to go forth animated statues—vitalized by the breath of gracious approval— to execute its behests for another four years, and come back again to this august body, hopeful that no per¬ fectly legitimate act, performed all unwittingly of its terrible consequences,f had so "embarrassed the exer¬ cise of their office as itinerant General Superintend¬ ents" as to make it "the sense of the Conference that they desist from its exercise." Such a theory of our Episcopacy the fathers never held. It was born amid the chaos of 1844—the off¬ spring of power in wedlock with Abolitionism. *A recent illustration of this subject is found in the episcopal functions ex¬ ercised by Bishop Cummins outside that Church from which he derived them, and of which he is no longer an officer. f Bishop Hedding once, traveling with his wife, drove up to the house of the " principal man in the Society," to whom he stated that he would like to stay and preach, if they could be entertained. "Well," said the principal man, "i want first to know if you are a Mason." "That," returned the Bishop, "is a question i don't want to meddle with; there is a great deal ol excite¬ ment about it, and it is no matter whether i am or not." " Then," said the man, " i know you are one; if you are not, you would say it. We do not want to entertain you, or to hear you, unless we know you are not a Mason." The Bishop drove on. {Life and Times, p. 374.) An Annual Conference or two m a section where like prejudices prevailed would have " entirely prevented the exercise of the itinerant General Superintendency " by a Bishop belonging to "the craft," and have made it the "sense of the Conference" that he vacate his office "until the impediment was removed," which in this case could be only by death, if then—for is it not true that "once a Mason, al¬ ways a Mason ?" 86 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. CHAPTER VI. A DIVISION OF THE CHURCH DECLARED INEVITABLE BEFORE THE FINLEY RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, AND THE RESULT WAS INTENDED. THE questions heretofore discussed are now to he dismissed. They have been thus fully treated not because they are points now in issue between the two Episcopal Methodisms, but to vindicate the Southern Delegates for their resolute, even desperate, resistance to the action of the General Conference on the Einley Resolution. As living questions, they hold no place in the current controversy between the two Churches. Slavery is dead; and, I dare say, it is willingly believed to be forever dead by the large majority of even South¬ ern Methodists. The opinions of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church respecting the status of its Bishops, and their relations to the General Conference, can be of no importance to the Church, South, unless proposals for organic union should be under consideration, which seems impossible until the points now in controversy are settled satisfactorily to Southern Methodism. These two questions are therefore dismissed, as wholly irrel-' evant in the discussion of the present relations of the two Methodisms. Moreover, even the action, in 1844, in the case of Bishop Andrew retires into the background with these questions. It is no longer of practical importance whether the treatment of his case was, or was not, justifiable. His personal and official acts have been carried to a higher tribunal. For all the purposes of this discussion, it may even be granted that the South- The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 87 era Delegates were wrong in sustaining him—wrong in maintaining the principles they avowed; and yet this fact would not* alter the relations inaugurated, if not finally established, by the action of the General Con¬ ference of 1844 after Bishop Andrew's case had been acted on in that body. That case, then, no longer be¬ longs to my theme; and if it be hereafter mentioned, it will not be either to justify or censure the one or the other party in the controversy of 1844. My present purpose is to show that this case became the occasion partly of engendering, partly of exposing to view, a state of feeling between the sections—an excited and divided public sentiment—that threatened wide-spread disaster, whatever may have been the action of the General Conference on the Finley Beso- lution. In prosecuting this purpose, I shall show, by sundry arguments, that the General Conference of 1844 was driven, by the settled purposes and principles of a large section of the Church, to elect between fearful disrup¬ tions and disorganization at the North on the one hand, if it took no action on the pending issues involv¬ ing the slavery question, and division, on the other hand, between the slave-holding and non-slave-hold¬ ing Conferences,* if it took such action as would sat¬ isfy Northern clamor; and that the majority, being from the non-slave-holding Conferences, chose the lat¬ ter alternative to save its section from disaster, and thus, by its action, transferred the threatened damage to the South. In other words, the majority intended the resulting sequence—the breaking up of the one ecumen¬ ical jurisdiction into two jurisdictions—as an alterna¬ tive to another sequence more disastrous to themselves. They intended to save Northern Methodism from the dissolution that impended, no matter what might be the result to Southern Methodism. I. My first argument is derived from the attitude of the New England Delegates already detailed. -Before the Conference met, their ultimatum was stated, and the conservatives were engaged to take "the laboring oar." When there was probability that action might *The terms, though convenient and intelligible, are not perfectly accurate. 88 The Disruption of the M. E. Ciiurcii. be deferred four years, although this might save the South by the happening of many contingencies, they unanimously resolved that if it were postponed they could only save themselves by seceding in a body— which they would do, and invite Bishop Hedding to preside over them. He had signed the recommenda¬ tion to postpone action, believing that this measure would quiet the excitement; but when informed of the probable effect in Hew England, he withdrew his name, and prevented the immediate secession of that section, at the risk of whatever future damage might accrue at the South. II. My next argument is derived from the speeches of those who advocated the passage of the Finley ftesolution. When Dr. Capers proposed (May 14) a Committee on Pacification," before Bishop Andrew's case had been mentioned in open Conference, Dr. Olin, in seconding it, speaking "tenderly" and under "powerful emotion," said: This resolution was offered in a spirit of conciliation. He had feared that it was not probable they could escape from the disasters that threatened—that the difficulties now upon them would prove unmanageable. He did not see how Northern men could yield their ground, nor Southern men theirs. The Northern men are disposed, "if they believed they could without destruction and ruin to the Church, to make concessions." He looked "to this measure with desire rather than with hope." "With regard to our Southern brethren, if they concede to what the Northern brethren wish, they may as well go to the Rocky Mountains as to their own sunny plains. The people would not bear it." He be¬ lieved there was "not a man of them that would not even die if thereby he could heal this division." "If we must part, let us meet and pour out our tears together, and let us not give up until we have tried." This utterance was from one who knew both sec¬ tions well, who loved the South, and yet voted with the Morth. Dr. Durbin believed that the brethren of all parties would sac¬ rifice every thing but their ulterior principles for the continued unity of the Church—the gallant vessel, exposed to a dangerous rock in the South, and an equally dangerous one in the North. Mr. Crandall (New England Conference) said that they were standing on a volcano, which might at any moment destroy them. The Disruption of tiie M. E. Church. 89 After this effort at pacification had failed, and the Einley Kesolution was under discussion, Mr. Sandford (New York Conference) said that he thought the passage of this resolution expedient. If something were not done to remove the evils connected with the superintendence of a slave- holding Bishap out of the way, they could not possibly avoid con¬ vulsions and the loss of a very large number of members, and give various opportunities to their enemies in the majority of the [Northern] Conferences/-' This was the firm conviction, he be¬ lieved, of the Conference. On this ground he rested the expedi¬ ency of this measure. Mr. Bowen (Oneida Conference) said that they deprecated the idea of division, but secession is preferable to schism [that is, a di¬ vision of the Church to division in the Church]; and if convulsions must be felt from center to circumference, the choice of evils must lead to secession rather than schism. The peace and prosperity of the entire body required this measure, and if any portion of the Church deem itself called to secede, however " we deprecate such an event, it is unavoidable." Mr. Coleman (Troy Conference) said give them a slave-holding Bishop, and you make the whole North a magazine of gunpowder. This matter had caused more trouble than any thing he had known to take place in the Church. Mr. Spencer (Pittsburgh Conference) said: "Fearful things are said about division; but if it comes, how can we help it?" Mr. Cass (New Hampshire Conference), not very consistently, charged the South with not knowing that, if the resolution passed, "the line of division would be drawn between the North and the South;" while in the same breath, answering the argument that its failure would be attended with less evil at the North than would follow its passage at the South, he said: "But we know the minds of our people on this subject, and if Bishop Andrew holds his oflice, there will be large secessions, or whole Conferences will leave." "If this Conference does any thing less than declare slavery a moral evil, we stand on a volcano at the North." Mr. Comfort (Oneida Conference) thought the Southern brethren mistaken when they said that, if the resolution should pass, and they submit to the disability it is thought to impose, they would not be received by their people. The South was a unit—would move together; their ministers could control them. But the case *For a fuller account, see Chapter i., p. 32, et seq. It will be remembered that Orange Scott, an itinerant preacher of considerable influence in New Eng¬ land, had withdrawn, gathered many followers, calling themselves " Wesley- ans," and these were doing all they could to destroy the Church, by holding it up as " pro-slavery." Dr. Elliott says that Scott had laid his plans to plun¬ der the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to seduce and kidnap as many of her members as possible after the session of the General Conference. I have seen it stated in the Christian Advocate and Journal that, when the Finley Reso¬ lution was passed, Scott was seated in the gallery of Greene Street Chuich, an interested spectator, and, when the issue was announced, said in effect, if not in form, " Othello's occupation's gone! " 90 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. was different at the North; the people were not a unit, and the ministry could not control the diverse sentiment. Non-action would put an engine of tremendous power into the hands of their enemies, which they would ply with desperate force. Dr. Olin, speaking again, said he had made up his mind, soon after reaching the Conference, that the embarrassments were stu¬ pendous, if not insuperable. He had since made diligent inquiries of the brethren of the actual condition and sentiment of the Northern Churches, and what would be the results if things re¬ main as they are; he had refrained from going to Abolitionists— had gone to their opponents, and these declare, with one consent, that the difficulty is unmanageable and overwhelming. The most prudent men regard the present condition as pregnant with dan¬ ger, and as threatening manifold disasters and disaffection through¬ out the Methodist Episcopal Church. He had recently traveled three thousand miles in New England and New York, and his own opinion, formed by observation, was that if some action is not had on this subject to impart a sense of satisfaction to the people, there will be distractions and divisions ruinous to the people and fatal to the permanent interests of the Church. "If this great diffi¬ culty," he said, "shall result in separation from our Southern brethren, we lose not our right hand merely, but our very heart's blood." Thus we see how the departure of the South was regarded as likely to be the alternative of saving the North. III. My next argument is derived from the opinions expressed by Southern Delegates during this debate. Having in vain tried measures of pacification—having sought to postpone action, and to appeal to the Church at large—now beseeching the Conference with pro- foundest feeling not to pass this Resolution, they faith¬ fully warned that body that they would, by action, bring ruin upon Southern Methodism—that their peo¬ ple would no longer accept a ministry that would sub¬ mit to see their Bishop proscribed for what was alleged against Bishop Andrew. _ Dr. Winans (Mississippi Conference) said: "The main point re¬ lied upon in this matter is the expediency of the course contem¬ plated. I will meet this by another argument on expediency. By the vote solicited by this resolution you will render it expedient— nay more, you render it indispensable—nay more, you render it uncontrollably necessary—that as large a portion of the Church should—I dread to pronounce the word—but you understand me. Yes, you create an uncontrollable necessity that there should be a disconnection of that large portion of the Church from your body." At another time he said that the Southern men felt themselves The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 91 pressed to the verge of a precipice, from which they were to he plunged into irretrievable ruin by the action of the majority. Dr. Pierce (Georgia Conference) said: "Pass this resolution, and the whole Southern States are hurled into confusion at once." Mr. Crowder (Virginia Conference) predicted a division of the Church if this resolution was passed. Mr. Drake (Mississippi Conference) desired the unity of the Church with all his heart, but if the proposed course was pursued, that unity could not be maintained—the Church would certainly be divided. Dr. Longstreet (Georgia Conference): "The proposed course must necessarily result in the separation of the North from the South." Dr. Smith (Virginia Conference) said that the South did not de¬ sire division—that was the common sentiment. If it came, it must be forced on her. Submission to the contemplated action would put in jeopardy her missions to slaves, and close this door of usefulness. Sooner than submit to results so fatal, a division of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction would become a high and solemn duty. ""We stand," he said, "on the grand conservative platform laid down by our fathers in the Book of Discipline. As long as you will permit us to occupy that ground in peace, we are con¬ tented and happy; but allow me to assure you that we have no more inheritance among you when you shall have driven us from this ground. Demolish this platform, and we are no longer of you." Dr. A. L. P. Green (Tennessee Conference) said: ""When I have looked at our beloved Church as a mighty ship, well rigged and richly laden, standing before the breeze, moving on swiftly and smoothly toward her destined haven, I have felt my heart swell within me with joy and gratitude; but for the last few days I have seen her reeling beneath the storm, shipping heavy seas, and driven from her anchors. ... I have prayed God to avert the threatening danger. I hope he will; yet it is hope against hope, made up mainly of desire, with a very lean supply of expectation." Dr. G. P. (Bishop) Pierce would allow, as had been affirmed again and again, that, in case of non-action, there may be secession in New England—Societies split or broken up, and immense dam¬ age done; but unless Bishop Andrew is passed free of censure of any kind, the days of Methodist unity are numbered. He would infinitely prefer that all New England should secede, or be set off, with her share of the Church-property—infinitely prefer it—rather than this Conference should proceed to make this ruthless invasion upon the connectional union and the integrity of the Church. Dr. Capers contemplated the results with a bleeding heart. Never had he suffered as in view of the evil which this measure threatens against the South. The agitation has already begun there; and "though our hearts were to be torn out of our bodies, it could avail nothing when once you have awakened the feeling that we cannot be trusted with the slaves. Once you have done 92 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. this thing, you have effectually destroyed us. O close not this door! Shut us not out from this great work to which we have been so signally called of God. We ask for no concessions—we are ready to make any in our power to you. We come not to you for ourselves, hut for perishing souls"—"the souls of the negroes on our great Southern plantations." We might greatly multiply our extracts from the entreaties and warnings urged by the Southern Dele¬ gates, but there is no need. The result proved that the}7 were not idle threats, uttered to alarm the North and stay its action. And since then a terrible proof of the sensitiveness of the entire South to pragmatism—to even apprehen¬ sion of it—on this vexed question of slavery has been given in a way the world will never forget. The Con¬ federate war is an incontestable proof that the South¬ ern Delegates understood their people, and dared not, for their work's sake, come home bringing any taint of suspicion on Southern Methodism that it was in the remotest way in alliance with the enemies of Southern institutions. My citations prove that the General Conference was in a strait—that if it passed the Finley Resolution it would lose the South; if not, then the North. North¬ ern men, being in the majority, chose the former course — understandingly, advisedly. They saw the result, and intended to force the South to depart, if this were the necessary consequence—and they had every reason to expect it—of carrying out their intention to save the North. They intended the foreseen conse¬ quence upon the well-known principle of law, "the universal rule that a man shall be taken to intend that which is the necessary and immediate consequence of his act." * '^Bouvier's Law Dictionary—Art. " Intention." Another citation or two will not be out of place. Lord Ellenborough has said: " Every man must be taken to contemplate the ordinary consequences of his own act at the time the act was done." (English Common Law Reports, vol. lxxiv., pp. 96, 97.) "It is a universal principle that when a man is charged with doing an act of which the probable consequence may be highly injurious, the intention is an inference of the law resulting from the doing of the act." " If it (any result or sequence) be the probable consequence of an act, he is answerable for it as if it were his actual object. If the experience of mankind must lead one to expect the re¬ sult, he will be answerable for it." (Broom on Common Law, p. 577.) " The law presumes that every person intends the natural, necessary, and even proba¬ ble, consequences of his act." (Bishop on Criminal Law, see. 218, and citations.) The Disruption of the M. E. Ciiurcii. 93 It is no sufficient answer to this argument to say that if the Southern Delegates had prevailed, then it would have been within their intention to pro¬ duce whatever divisive sequence may have followed in the North. Let it be granted. Under the circum¬ stances they felt at liberty to save Methodism in the South if possible, in accordance with the principles and Constitution of the Church, at whatever cost to others. One speaker, we have seen, proposed to escape the dilemma by setting off New England, with her share of the property. Both parties were now like two men in the waves, who, to escape, have seized the only plank at hand. It cannot sustain both. Each intends to secure it, if he can, for himself—though he knows that, doing so, the other drowns. He does not prefer this; but intending that himself shall be saved, he can but intend the inevitable result to the other—drowning. If their claims to the plank be equal, who shall say which of the two is wrong? If not equal, then the wrong rests on him, whether he escape or drown, whose claims to it are the less. In like manner, this intention of both parties here—each to save itself at whatever unavoidable cost to the other party—may not be considered equally justifiable in both. It may be that only one was in the right—that one, for instance, whose opinions and votes on the Fin- ley Resolution were most fully justified by the "Con¬ stitution" of the General Conference and the rules and regulations heretofore adopted by that body for its government. Which party that was it does not be¬ long to my advancing argument to determine; though a just decision may, perhaps, be reached by studying thoroughly the general relations of the Church to the anti-slavery agitation, and of the Bishops to the Gen¬ eral Conference. The Southern opinion on these re¬ lations may be found in preceding chapters. But even though the opinions there advanced be erroneous, the error does not necessarily vitiate the facts, princi¬ ples, and arguments yet to be offered as to the subse¬ quent acts of the General Conference in providing for an amicable division of General Conference jurisdiction, nor the opinions respecting that act, and the relations 94 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. consequent on it, that I shall hereafter advance. It may, therefore, be left an open question now, so far as my purpose is concerned, Which of the two parties was entitled to the benefit of being "saved" in the ship¬ wreck? This much, however, may be said: It does not be¬ come either Methodism now to condemn severely those fathers of the Church, whose position we can scarcely appreciate; much less can either Methodism now be justified in repudiating that action or its consequences to which these fathers felt themselves .driven by the storm raging around them. That they felt themselves thus driven we believe is now fully established; and the inference that they passed the Einley Resolution with the intention to divide the Church, if that should be an inevitable result, is irresistible. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 95 CHAPTER VII. THE PLAN OP SEPARATION" PROPOSED AN"D ADOPTED. I RETURN" to the proceedings of the General Con¬ ference of 1844, after Bishop Andrew's case had been finally disposed of—that history which lies at the base of all present controversy between the two Meth- odisms. It was established beyond controversy, I think, in the last chapter, that the majority of the General Confer¬ ence of 1844, seeing that—whatever its action on the Einley Resolution—commotions and divisions in one or the other section would follow, intended to secure its own section from fatal results, and that this involved necessarily the inseparable intention of accepting as a consequence a division of some kind between Northern and Southern Methodism. It was at once recognized, by both parties, as a strong probability, that the one ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Methodism in the United States was already beginning to sever itself, by neces¬ sity, into two independent jurisdictions, each with equal powers in their respective territories. From that mo¬ ment there are to be recognized two parties, negotiat¬ ing with each other the terms of a peaceful separation. All that I have written as to the intention of the ma¬ jority is corroborated by the purpose and result of these negotiations, wherein the Northern majority, at the instance of the Southern Delegates, immediately made liberal and sufficient provision, should a specified contingency arise, for such a separation without de¬ stroying the Methodist Episcopal Church, as such—a division of General Conference jurisdiction, leaving 96 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. intact the essential unity of theoretic, practical, and aggressive Methodism, as it had heretofore existed. These negotiations will now engage attention. The Finley Resolution was passed June 1, and on Monday, June 3, Dr. Capers offered a paper,* looking to that Conference inaugurating a divided jurisdiction— a General Conference for the slave-holding, and one for the non-slave-holding Conferences—each to he supreme within its own territory, and to have its own Bishops ■—the Publishing interests and Foreign Missions to be managed jointly. Without debate this paper was re¬ ferred to a committee—Capers, Winans, and Crowder, *The following is the paper of Dr. Capers: "Be it resolved, by the Delegates of all the Annual Conferences in General Con¬ ference assembled, That we recommend to the Annual Conferences to sus¬ pend the constitutional restrictions which limit the powers of the General Conference so far, and so far only, as to allow of the following alterations in the government of the Church—viz.: " I. That the Methodist Episcopal Church, in these United States and terri¬ tories, and the Republic of Texas, shall constitute two General Conferences, to meet quadrennially, the one at some place south, and the other north, of the line which now divides between the States commonly designated as free States and those in which slavery exists. "2. That each one of the two General Conferences thus constituted shall have full powers, under the limitations and restrictions which are now of force and binding on the General Conference, to make rules and regulations for the Church, within their territorial limits respectively, and to elect Bishops for the same. " 3. That the two General Conferences aforesaid shall have jurisdiction as follows: The Southern General Conference shall comprehend the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and the States and territories lying south¬ erly thereto, and also the Republic of Texas, to be known and designated by the title of the Southern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States; and the Northern General Conference to com¬ prehend all those States and territories lying north of the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known and designated by the title of the Northern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. "4. And be it farther resolved. That as soon as three-fourths of all the members of all the Annual Conferences vote on these resolutions, and shall approve the same, the said Southern and Northern General Conferences shall be deemed as having been constituted by such approval; and it shall be com¬ petent for the Southern Annual Conferences to elect Delegates to said Southern General Conference to meet in the city of Nashville, Tenn., on the first of May, 1848, or sooner, if a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Annual Conferences composing that General Conference shall desire the same. "5. And be it farther resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati shall be held and conducted as the property and for the benefit of all the Annual Conferences as heretofore—the editors and agents to be elected once in four years at the time of the session of the Northern General Conference, and the votes of the Southern General Conference to be cast by the Delegates of that Conference attending the Northern for that pur¬ pose. " fi. And be it farther resolved, That our Church-organization for Foreign Missions shall be maintained and conducted jointly between the two General Conferences as one Church, in such manner as shall be agreed upon from time to time between the two great branches of the Church as represented in the said two Conferences." The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 97 of the minority, and Porter, Filmore, Akers, Hamline, Davis, and Sandford, of the majority. Dr. Capers returned this paper on the 5th, stating that the committee could not agree on a report which they judged would be acceptable to the Conference. In the afternoon of the same day Dr. Longstreet offered what is known as the "Declaration of the South¬ ern Delegates," which was signed by all the Delegates (fifty-one) of the slave-holding Conferences, except one from Texas, and by one from the Illinois Conference. This paper reads: The Delegates of the Conferences in the slave-holding States take leave to declare to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church that the continued agitation on the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church, and the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference, and especially the extrajudicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from his office as Superintendent, must produce a state of things in the South which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of this General Conference over these Conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slave-holding States. Objection was made by Mr. Sandford to the word "extrajudicial." In justifying its use, Dr. Longstreet said: We have now the calmness of despair—this is thrown out as an olive-branch of peace. It is hoped that we can now meet on some common ground; for the thing is done, the mischief is accomplished; and now we are in a situation to come together, and, viewing the wreck, see what we can save from it. We express our opinion that it is no longer desirable that this Conference have jurisdiction. Without any discussion, save as to the exception¬ able word, this paper, which was a mere "declaration," suggesting nothing, asking nothing, was, on motion of Dr. Elliott, referred to a " Committee of Nine "—singu¬ larly enough, the same persons, mostly,* to whom Dr. Capers's paper had been submitted. There was a pur¬ pose here which is to be explained hereafter. On the same day J. B. McFerrin (Tennessee Confer¬ ence) and T. Spicer (Troy Conference) offered the fol¬ lowing : *Dr. Capers, who was worn down, Mr. Sandford, who had given his opinion, and Mr. Davis, for some reason unknown to me, were substituted by Drs. Paine, Bangs, and Sargent. The others of the committee were those who had, in the morning, returned Dr. O.'s plan. " 5 98 The Disruption op the M. E. Ciiurcii. Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into considera¬ tion the communication of the Delegates from the Southern Con¬ ferences be instructed—provided they cannot, in their judgment, devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church on the subject of slavery to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church. T. Crowder's motion to strike out "constitutional" did not prevail, and the resolution passed.* On June 6 a protest against the action of the Finloy Resolution was offered by the Southern Delegates, and a committee (after some changes—Durbin, Peck, and Elliott) appointed by the Conference to prepare a state¬ ment of facts connected with the proceedings in Bishop Andrew's case. The "Committee of Nine" reported on June 7. Re- Eort laid on table, and called up on the next day, when >r. Elliott moved its adoption. The Report began (after a slight amendment) as fol¬ lows : "Whereas, a Declaration has been presented to this General"Con- ferenee, with the signatures of fifty-one Delegates of this body, from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States, represent¬ ing that, for various reasons enumerated, the objects and purposes of the Christian ministry and Church-organization cannot be suc¬ cessfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction of this Gen¬ eral Conference, as now constituted; and whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to which the Declaration asks attention as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference to meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity; therefore, 1. Resolved, by the Delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled. That should the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the following rule shall be observed with * Dr. J. T. Peek (Bishop P.), in the Methodist Quarterly Review, April, 1870, dis¬ putes the correctness of the official record here. He says that he opposed the resolution—" if division occurred, it must be entirely oh the responsibility of those who effected it." He quotes from Dr. Hamline's Life, that lie declared that he "would not go out with instructions to devise a plan to divide the, Church." On being urged he consented to go, if the instructions read, " If the South should separate, to make provision, in such a contingency, to meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity." Chance words, very happily recollected by somebody, and incorporated into the Plan of Separation! Bishop P. recollects that Mr". H. corrected the. language of the resolution, and the suggestion was accepted hv the mover—"to inquire, whether (here be any constitutional method of dividing the funds of the Church." I believe that Mr. H. did act as under this instruction, whether the amendment was inserted or not; and. as for the rest, it will not affect my argument, whether it be the record or the comment that is false. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 99 regard to the northern boundary of such Connection: Ail the So¬ cieties, stations, and Conferences adhering to the Church of the South, by a vote of a majority of the members of said Societies, stations, and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pas¬ toral care of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt toorganize Churches or Societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein, it being under¬ stood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to stations, Societies, and Conferences adhering, by vote of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church; provided, also, that this rule shall apply only to Societies, stations, and Con¬ ferences bordering on the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall, in all cases, be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated. This resolution was passed. Of the votes (146 ayes, 16 nays)* there were from non-slave-holding Confer¬ ences, ayes 95; from non-slave-holding Conferences, nays 16—majority 79; from slave-holding Conferences, ayes 51. More Northern than Southern ayes, 28, in the majority of 130 for passage. 2. That ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to the Church, South. The motion to amend by inserting "and private members" was laid on the table, and the second reso¬ lution was adopted by 139 yeas, 17 nays. The third item, usually called the "third resolu¬ tion," is framed differently from all the other items, except the first, as it, like that, has the "enacting clause," "Resolved, by the Relegates," etc. This style was adopted because it was to be a positive enactment of the General Conference, if passed in that body by a two-thirds vote, and was to be sent in this form to be acted upon by the Annual Conferences to get a "con¬ current" vote. The form shows that this resolution only was to be submitted to that ordeal. It reads: 3. Resolved, by ihe Delegates of all the Annual Conferences in "The Journal gives 135 aves to 18 navs. Actual count of recorded names gives the above figures, after changing Webber from yea to nay—as he re¬ ported to Conference of 1848 that his vote went to record wrong. Several sim¬ ilar errors of count I correct here. I give Baltimore with non-slave-holding Conferences—as it did not come South, and disallowed slave-holding in its ministry. 100 The Disruption of the M. E. Ciiurcii. General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all the An¬ nual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to authorize a change of the Sixth Restrictive Article, so that the full clause shall read thus: "They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of thetraveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may be determined xipon by the votes of two- thirds of the members of the General Conference." This resolution was passed by a vote of 146 ayes to 10 nays. From non-slave-holding Conferences, ayes 95; from non-slave-holding Conferences, nays 10—ma¬ jority 85; from slave-holding Conferences, ayes 51. More Northern than Southern ayes, 34, in a majority of 136 for passage. The change proposed was to add what is italicized above. If made, the General Con¬ ference could divide Book Concern property. This resolution, having thus received a two-thirds majority of the General Conference, was already an enacted change of the Restrictive Article, so far as it had authority. As soon as concurred in by three-fourths of the voters in the Annual Conferences the change would be consummated, without a return of the ques¬ tion to the next General Conference. A report to the Bishops, and by them to the Church, would complete the enactment. This Conference seemed not to doubt the concurrence of the Conferences, for it proceeded to add other items, conforming their action to the probable future change. They resolved that, in the event of concurrence, 4. The Agents at New York and Cincinnati were authorized to deliver to any authorized agent or appointee of the Church, South, certain properties therein specified. 5. A certain proportion—the rule for ascertaining it being stated —"of the capital and produce" of the Book Concern should be turned over to said agent of the Church, South. The fourth item carried, vote not stated. The vote on the fifth item was 151 aves, 13 nays. From non- sla re-holding Conferences, ayes 101; from non-slave- holding Conferences, nays 13—majority 88; from slave- holding Conferences, ayes 50. More Northern than Southern ayes, 38, in a majority of 138 affirmative votes. Other items contained the provisions for dividing the The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 101 Book Concern property, should separation take place and the Conferences "concur:" 6. Kegulated the form and time of the payments to Southern Church—the South to share meanwhile in net profits. 7. Appointed—when blank was filled—Drs. Bangs, Peck, and Pinley, commissioners, "with full powers to carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed with regard to the division of the property." 8. Authorized the Book Agents at New York to act in concert with Southern agents, when appointed, "so as to give the pro¬ visions of these resolutions a legally binding force." This General Conference went thus far toward con¬ summating separation, as soon as the South had acted, and its own vote on the Bestrictive Article was con¬ curred in—thus far that body actually consummated it, these contingencies being supposed met. It did more. It relinquished all claim to all property in the South held in common trust—it not being under the protection of the Sixth Bestrictive Article—on the sole contingency that a Southern organization should be consummated. It said: 9. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference-funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern organization, shall he forever free from any claim set up on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of force in the premises. 10. Gave the Church, South, an interest in the copyrights of Book Concerns in New York and Cincinnati. 11. Instructed Book Agents at New York to compensate Southern Conferences for their dividends in the Chartered Eund. And now this Conference can do no more toward effecting a separation, except to say: 12. That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part of this Report requiring the action of the Annual Conferences before them as soon as possible, beginning with the New York Con¬ ference. All these items, and then the preamble, were adopted —the count not given. This was noble; and no wonder that the Southern Delegates thought there would be a peaceable division of jurisdictions, seeing that from foundation to cap¬ stone, from inception ^ to completion, it was the NotOi- *This fact will be made to appear more fully hereafter. 102 The Disruption of the M. B. Church. em brethren who did all this; for, by a majority, above the combined Southern affirmative and Northern nega¬ tive vote—varying from 28 to 38— 1. They provided for a peaceful partition of border work. 2. They released all preachers from allegiance to the Methodist Episcopal Church—their portion of it—who should prefer to adhere South. 3. They surrendered all claim to property within the Southern territory. 4. They ordered a division of all the common property that they could control. 5. They adopted, as "a part of the Report," a plan for getting control of, and dividing, the property guarded by a Restrictive Article. 6. The General Conference did all that, by the Con¬ stitution, it could do toward changing this Restrictive Article; and the Northern members alone gave within nine votes of the two-thirds majority required for said change. 7. They requested the Bishops, as soon as possible, to lay before the Annual Conferences the resolution on which these were to act to consummate the change they had begun. 8. Anticipating that the South would depart, and that the Annual Conferences would concur in chang¬ ing the Article, they appointed commissioners to arrange the division of the property, gave to them and to the Book Agents all needful instructions respecting such division; and they arranged "to give all these provis¬ ions a legally binding force." Truly may this be called a "Plan of Separation," an agreement, contract, compact, covenant—whatever one will—that no good man, as described by the psalmist, "who sweareth" even "to his own hurt and changeth not," should think of repudiating.* *This instrument is denied—so emergent is the need to help out a weak cause—to be either a Plan of Separation or a " compact"—a word used at St. Louis by the Southern Bishops in their communication to those from the Methodist Episcopal Church. With regard to the first point, their own office¬ bearers shall settle it. On March If, 1847, at a meeting of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they not only fully recognized the Plan of Sepa¬ ration by name, but gave their official interpretation of some of its provisions. As to tire other point, I will attend to it hereafter. Or. Whedon, in Methodist Quarterly Review, April, 1870, makes both objections. The first was borrowed The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 103 And now comes the end. On Monday afternoon, June 10, the "Reply to the Protest" was reported by Dr. Durbin. At the evening session a motion was made to adopt it; a discussion followed, and finally it was ordered, by a vote of 116 to 26, that the Reply be spread upon the Journal. That act was the last in a long series of disputes be¬ tween the Methodism of the North and that of the South, as represented in the original G-eneral Confer¬ ence; and then that controversy between Northern and Southern Methodists, as such, however variant their opinions as citizens, ought properly to have ended. The differences between the two sections, from that moment, take "a new departure," and here¬ after they find their only legitimate center in the Plan of Separation—its meaning, its purpose, its conditions, its results. All other questions between the Churches are but secondary to those involved in that instru¬ ment. At a quarter past twelve o'clock on the night of June 10, 1844, the ninth and last ecumenical delegated General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States adjourned sine die, and neither that body nor its direct successor has ever since met. It was legitimately succeeded, as by agreement, by two like bodies, independent of each other — each vested with all its powers over the same membership it had heretofore legislated for, but in a divided terri¬ tory—one body with its constituency inheriting its name, the other, to avoid confusion, affixing to that name the convenient geographical designation " South " ■—both inheriting its Discipline, its purpose, its work, its obligations, its prerogatives, its rights, and its du¬ ties, each within its respective territory. Note.—And now, while waiting on the printers, I find much, that I have written respecting the inevitability of this separation corroborated by one who has done more to make it an occasion of strife than perhaps any other living man. I find in the Southern Christian Advocate, of April 21, 1875, a recent editorial from the Christian Advocate and Journal, in which Dr. Curry says: from Dr Elliott. The title is said to have been prefixed to the document by the reporter—these, cavilers forgetting, however, that the Journal and De- bates all constitute an official document of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 104 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. The separation made thirty years ago was for valid and sufficient reasons; nor was the existence of slavery more than its remote cause; and the action of the General Conference of lsf-t, in the ease of Bishop Andrew, was only the occasion for the denouement, which was certain, aside from that case, to come at that time, or very soon afterward. The separation was not the result of accidents, nor of incidents, nor of any extrinsic agencies. The dividing forces in the Methodism of thirty years ago, like those that disrupted the. nation nearly twenty years later, were from"within, and their development with the growth of the body made the division a necessity. " Two nations " lay to- f ether in the womb of early American Methodism, and while there " the chil- ren struggled together within her," and their separation was a prerequisite to their peace and increase. To separate is in some cases a high and sacred duty; and to do so without a breach of charity often calls for the highest of wisdom and real goodness. No nobler exhibition of his true greatness is given in the whole history of the patriarch Abraham than in the separation between himself and his kinsman and hitherto life-long associate, when, in language worthy of himself, he said, without the least trace of bitterness, " Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me." Had the writer learned this wisdom thirty years ago, his life had perhaps been as full of peace as it has been of war; and he would never have lent himself to he a prime agent in the repudiation of 1848. The South maintained then, as she does now, that "to sep¬ arate had become a high and sacred duty;" and in 1844 the North gave an exhibition of "true greatness" "without the least trace <>f •bitterness," when it declared it "a duty to meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity," "should the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection." And then accordingly the two sections proceeded to make such a covenant of peace as Abra¬ ham and Lot made, called the "Plan of Separation," the very covenant now in controversy between these "two" congenital "nations." The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 105 CHAPTER VIII. THE CONDITIONS OP THE PLAN OF SEPARATION. IT cannot now be doubted tbat tbe General Confer¬ ence of 1844 did all it could do to effect a peaceable separation of Methodism, so as to place it under the control of two independent jurisdictional centers—- except to inaugurate and consummate the actual sep¬ aration. This it left to the Conferences in the slave- holding States to do. It enacted a "rule" which "shall be observed," "should" these Annual Conferences "find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection." The last chapter shows how far the Con¬ ference went toward perfecting the divisive scheme. It only remained for two conditions to be fulfilled, and an amicable separation of Church and property would be consummated in conformity to this act. After that, it needed only that the designated agents set to work to perfect the details. The question now is, Did the privilege of a peaceful separation depend on one only of the conditions set? or was it made dependent on the fulfillment of both? The conditions demanded two votes, and my position is: 1. That separation per se was conditioned, by the Plan, solely upon its being inaugurated and consum¬ mated by the votes of the slave-holding Conferences. That done, then the action of the General Conference had already divided Methodism between two independ¬ ent jurisdictions. 2. That only a division of the property held in trust for all the Conferences—Book Concern property—was conditioned upon a vote of all the Conferences; that it 5* 106 The Disruption op the M. B. Church. was not intended that that vote should be considered as either concurring or non-concurring (as the result might be) with the action of the General Conference on the entire Plan; and that concurrence was not necessary to give sanction to the separation, but would only have been proof that it was to be effected peacefully. The negative of this last proposition furnishes the only possible ground for considering Southern Method¬ ism an unauthorized secession; and I shall vindicate her by an exhaustive and, I believe, a triumphant argu¬ ment. I. The Plan itself shows the fact. It is divisible into two parts, each of which begins with what may be called an "enacting clause"—"Resolved, by the Dele¬ gates," etc. The first part contains two items: (1) "Should the Annual Conferences of the slave-holding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesias¬ tical connection, the method of ascertaining the line of division shall be," etc.; (2) "Ministers of every grade may adhere to either Connection 'without blame.'" Then, after another uResolved, by the Delegates," etc., leading a resolution—usually named "the third reso¬ lution "—looking to a change of the Sixth Kestrictive Article, follow several items providing specifically (1) for an immediate division of the Book Concern prop¬ erty "whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of three-fourths, . . . shall have concurred in the rec¬ ommendation to alter " this Article; (2) surrendering to the Southern organization all title the General Con¬ ference may hold in "meeting-houses, parsonages," etc., within the Southern limits; (3) dividing interest in "copyrights," and "Chartered Fund;" and (4) re¬ questing the Bishops "to lay that part of this Report re¬ quiring the action of the Annual Conferences before them as soon as possible." Did the Bishops understand this last item? How did they proceed "to lay that part of the Report re¬ quiring the action of the Annual Conferences before them?" It was by asking a vote on the change of the Restrictive Article, and on that alone. The inference The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 107 is beyond question. The Conferences at large were to have a voice only on that one point—the Southern Conferences alone on the question of division. This ought to be enough, but I have other proofs of my proposition. II. My next proof I bring from the debate on the report of the Committee of Mine.* Dr. Capers's proposition, which was submitted to, and returned by, the first Committee of Mine as im¬ practicable, was a proposition to suspend the Restrict¬ ive Articles so as to change the Constitution of the General Conference, and it was to be enacted by two- thirds of that Conference, and then sent down to all the Annual Conferences for a three-fourths vote—a process entirely similar to that whereby certain changes could be made, otherwise inhibited by the Restrictive Articles, which, however, did not contemplate, and made no provision for, so fundamental a change as this now proposed. Hence it was returned: 1. Because "unconstitutional." f -'Indeed, so far was this Report from contemplating a reference of the ques¬ tion to all the Conferences, that it provided that " should the Delegates from the Conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary," etc. And so, after the Plan was discussed, the vote was taken; and, by 140 ayes to 23 nays, the decision of the necessity " to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection " was left with these Delegates present. This vote was reconsidered, on Dr. Paine's motion, and the Southern Conferences substituted as umpires in place of the Delegates. When this vote was taken, who dreamed that this was a question for all the Conferences to settle? Surely nobody. f The Constitution of the General Conference says: " The General Confer¬ ence shall ha Ye full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions. These are: 1. For conserving the Articles of Religion. 2. Fixing the ratio of representation in the General Con¬ ference. 3. Respects the maintaining of Episcopacy, and of the plan of Gen¬ eral Superintendency. 4. Conserves the General Rules. 5. Establishes priv¬ ilege of preachers and members to trial by committee and appeal. 6. Prohibits appropriation of produce of Book Concern, etc. Provided, however, that any of the above restrictions, except the first, may he altered by a two-thirds vote of the General, and a three-fourths vote of the Annual Conferences."The Gen¬ eral Conference might first pass upon the matter and send down to Annual Con¬ ferences, and their concurrence give effect to the regulation; or a proposed change might take the opposite course. " Constitutional," then, as under¬ stood in this discussion, was whatever was done that did not infringe these restrictions, or was .proposed to be done within their literal provisions. That was "unconstitutional " which the restrictions forbade, or which was not con¬ templated by them, or by the provision that regulated their alteration. It is impossible to understand some of the arguments used in this discussion, un¬ less we suppose that some speakers meant by " unconstitutional," " not of the.Constitution "—" not provided for by its letter." How else could it have been unconstitutional to submit Dr. Capers's plan to the only process by which certain features of the Constitution could be altered? To submit and vote on it in an Annual Conference, the fountain of General Conference authority, and to pass it round and carry it up with a three-fourths vote to a General Confer¬ ence, would not be. unconstitutional; and the reverse process could not have 108 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 2. Because, if passed by this General Conference by the requisite majority, that body would itself have in¬ augurated division, and then and there have done all it could ever do toward consummating it. And yet, within two days, a committee made up of almost the same persons reported a Plan which not only gave the two General Conferences proposed by Dr. Ca¬ pers, but went farther, by providing for a total division of labors and property, which the other did not suggest •—the difference in other respects being that not by a vote of the General Conference, but by that of the South, was the division inaugurated; and the objection of unconstitutionality being avoided by sending down to the Conferences for their concurrence only a meas¬ ure respecting property, which came within the literal provisions of the Constitution. In the debate that this Plan elicited, four questions were in view: 1. Was this measure constitutional? 2. Did the Plan contemplate a schismatic division of the Church—a dissolving of its essential elements so as to destroy its power and usefulness as a Church? or was it only an authorized separation of the central jurisdiction into two parts, leaving Methodism, as an ecclesiastical power, unimpaired under this divided ju¬ risdiction? 3. What effect would a generous vote now on this Plan have in arresting schism and premature dissolution at the South—thus preserving the unity of Southern Methodism by giving proof that Northern Methodists had not pushed the South to unavoidable separa¬ tion—to secession—and then withheld its sanction to separation, and to the South receiving its proportion of the common property? 4. What effect would an early vote on the Sixth Re¬ strictive Article by the Annual Conferences have in arresting disorder and schism in the South—preserving unity, and especially the missions—and whether their concurrence should be asked at once,* or their vote de- been unconstitutional, except that the. letter of the Constitution made no pro¬ vision for the General Conference setting on foot such a proposition. * The Northern Conferences began on June 12 with New York, and the entire round was completed with New Jersey, April 22, 1845—wanting but some six The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 109 layed until after the Southern Conferences had acted on the question of separation? We now turn to the discussion, some of the speakers discussing one point, some another.* Dr. Elliott, in moving the adoption of the Eeport on the ground of expediency, said that it was found necessary to separate this large body, for it was becoming unwieldy. The measure was not schism, but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperity. The Churches would be distinct, yet one, as were the Eastern Churches in early days. Mr. Griffith opposed, because "they dared not refer this question [of separation] to [all] the Annual Conferences, as the Constitu¬ tion required them to do, but they put it on a very different issue— viz.: when a majority of that Conference thought it [separation] expedient, then the Annual Conferences were to be applied to to distribute the property of the body." He denied that any body had a right to divide the Church. He wanted the people to know which Delegates, sent there for other purposes, consented to the separation of this great body of Methodists. Mr. Cartwright: They had no authority conferred on them, either directly or indirectly, to divide the Church. He wanted yeas and nays called. Mr. Einley could see in the Report no proposition to divide the Church [only the property?]. Nor did he see any thing unconsti¬ tutional in it [no proposition to go to the Annual Conferences that the Constitution did not send there]. The Constitution did not re¬ quire them to send abroad a proposition to divide the Church [such as Dr. C.'s proposition was]; and it would, therefore, be unconsti¬ tutional [not of the Constitution—not covered by its letter] to send such a proposition to the Annual Conferences. This division was weeks of a year. " The Conferences in the slave-holding States," sitting principally in the autumn and winter, literally included (in part) the Baltimore and Philadelphia Conferences, which sat just prior to the New Jersey Confer¬ ence. To begin with New York would carry the vote round in one year; to begin with New Jersey would postpone action on the Restrictive Article for nearly a year, and then it would be nearly another year before it would have come before all the Conferences. Which course was the better ? was one point discussed. ;>I have carefully endeavored to reach the true meaning of the speakers. The reports are brief, and are certainly not free from mistakes. If it be claimed that the official records are wrong, I may claim some errors in the re¬ ports of extempore speeches—indeed, some misunderstanding from want of explicitness in speech, where the speakers knew that they were intelligible to each other. The editor of the Debates (Dr. Peck) admits that there may be some errors in them. I have taken from the speeches only passages pertinent to the questions above stated, most generally in the speakers' own words, al¬ ways in their sense. Instead of stopping to comment on each, I have in¬ cluded what I conceived the meaning in brackets, or put words to be noted in italics. I may say generally that, here and elsewhere, I have italicized words and passages, not so marked in the original, where I have wished to call special attention to them. It saved space to treat them in this way; but I be¬ lieve that I have in no instance perverted a speaker's or writer's meaning by so doing. If complaint is made, I am willing to forego the advantage thus gained by emphasis; for I seek only the truth. 110 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. like that of the American Churches from English Wesleyanism, and of the Canada Conference from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. Hamline explained the action of the committee in respect to the Restrictive Article. When the first committee [on Dr. C.'s Plan] met, they had before them a paper which proposed a new form, or division, of the Church. There were difficulties in it. One provision was to send it to the Annual Conferences, but that was unconstitutional and revolutionary [originating new questions to send round which the Constitution had not expressly provided for]; and when their votes came back, the General Conference would have no more authority than they had now [to divide the Book Concern property, since suspending the Constitution (which the Plan proposed) so far as to form two General Conferences would not be altering |the Article in such way as, even in that case, to permit the Conference to divide the property].® Any proposition [that did not change the Article] would leave the property with the original body, though divided off till but one State remained in the Methodist Episcopal Church. But if they sent out to the An nurd Con fere noes to alter one Restrictive Article, it would be consti¬ tutional to divide the Book Concern property, so that they might be honest. The resolution makes provision, if the Conferences con¬ cur, for the security and efficiency of the Southern Church [by sharing the property with it]. And the committee thought it could not be objected to on tbe ground of constitutionality [seeing that it was one of the questions the Constitution submitted to the Conferences], He, for one, wanted his name recorded affirming them brethren, if they found they must separate. Dr. Bond presumed no one would contend that there was any constitutional provision for the separation of one part of the Church from another [no provision in the Restrictive Articles to send such a question to the Conferences]; and if the necessity of the case now required separation, it could only be justified by the adage that "necessity has no law." If it must come, "let us provide for peace through the Churches, and part in such a spirit that we can coop¬ erate in the great work in which we are all engaged." Dr. Bangs explained that the committee were instructed by the Conference to provide for separation, if they could not adjust the difficulties amicably. They had obeyed instructions—had met the constitutional difficulty by sending round to the Conferences that portion of the Report which required their concurrence. The Report did not speak of division—the word had been carefully avoided— but said "in the event of a separation taking place"—throwing the responsibility off that Conference upon those who should declare a separation necessary. It was a choice between the violent sep¬ aration of the South and its peaceable and amicable separation— *Sce Chapter iii.for Dr. Hnmline's opinion as to the supreme power the General Conference already had to legislate on any subject not, barred by the. Restrictive Articles. He certainly means here that to submit nnv question not thus inhibited was "unconstitutional and revolutionary," as did Mr. Finley, or else iliey are both unintelligible, and Dr. ii. is self-contradictory. The Disruption op the JVL E. Church. Ill the less evil. The laws, doctrine, discipline, government, all would be the same in both Churches. Mr. Filmore spoke of the opinions of both parties—the South feared hinderance in "spreading scriptural holiness" in one event; the North feared like hinderance in another; Methodism, a child of Providence always, would divide "into two bands"—thus ad¬ justing herself to circumstances. The resolutions do not force the South away, hut simply provide that, in such a contingency, it shall have the munitions of war. Mr. Sandford was opposed to providing now for division of the property. When the South had taken its course, it would he time enough to tell the South what they would do. The course now proposed was an encouragement to separation. Dr. Luckey regarded the resolution as settling nothing now, but providing in an amicable and proper way for future action. Sep¬ aration was better than a continuation of strife and warfare. Mr. Collins approved the Report. He hoped separation would not come, but if it must come, let there be a pro rata division of the Book Concern. Mr. Porter thought "the time was coming when separation must take place. The difficulty was greater now than four years ago, and must increase." The South could take no action upon it [could not claim the property] until the Annual Conferences had decided respecting the Restrictive Article; and if there were any thing radically wrong, they could arrest it there [which they did, defects or not]. Here is an outline of the opinions of all the North¬ ern members who spoke on the first nine resolutions, and there is not a word to indicate that separation was conditioned upon the passage of the Restrictive Article, but much to prove that it was deemed "unconstitu¬ tional" to ask concurrence on any other part of the Report of the committee. To the same effect is the only speech that was made by a Southern Delegate: Dr. Paine said there is not in any government a provision made to divide itself [and so none such to be looked for among the Re¬ strictive Articles]; and, consequently, if division came, it must be rather by violence, or else by common consent in a peaceful man¬ ner. The South was thrown into a peculiar attitude. Brethren who lived nearer than he had heard that their people were much excited. The possibility of separation could not be denied, and this measure was taken to effect it pleasantly. The South had re¬ sorted to this measure to avoid a greater calamity. If found neces¬ sary to keep down faction and prosecute their ministry at home, they should feel bound to separate—to carry out the provisions of this enactment—but not unless they were driven to it [to secure this quiet]. The separation [of Church and property] would not be effected [consummated] by the passage of these resolutions 112 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. through the General Conference. They must pass the Annual Conferences, beginning at New York; and when they came round to the South [where the Conferences sat late in the year], the preachers there would think and deliberate, and feel the pulse of public sentiment and of the members of the Church, and act in the fear of God and with a single desire for his glory. They had no revolutionary designs, but desired to go home to their people prepared to satisfy their demands, and prepared for the worst. They should be one people until it was formally announced by a Convention of the Southern Churches that they had resolved to ask an organization according to the provisions of this Report. Twelve or eighteen months would elapse ere they [the Southern Confer¬ ences and Convention] could act in the premises, by which time the feverish excitement—if such it be—will have passed away. The Southern Delegates, however, felt seriously apprehensive that the necessity even now existed. Brethren who had heard from their people were alarmed at the increasing dissatisfaction among them; and all the Southern brethren desired was to have some ground to stand on when they got home [some offering to the South that would prevent disintegration of the Church], ' This measure had been concocted in a spirit of compromise and fraternal feeling, in the hope of preventing agitation and schism."*" "When the tenth resolution came up in the afternoon, Dr. Durbin had understood that action was to commence at the South [and he was correct on the vote for separation per se], but by this resolu¬ tion it was to commence at New York next week, which, he said, had its disadvantages until the South had taken action and proved its necessity [by voting for separation]; and then there would be additional reason for the brethren in the North favoring it. He would substitute New Jersey Conference [which would meet in April, 1845].t *Dr. Paine, at the Louisville Convention, said that the separation was not schism—defining schism to be a movement in the Church, disturbing its pence and destroying its harmony. It was this he wished, and the Plan gave it to them. He also, in the South-western (Nashville) Advocate, of August 2, 1844, speaking of the action of this Conference, says: " If was the wish of some of us to separate only so far as to have two General Conferences, thus simply di¬ viding the great ifield of labor, and leaving to each section of the work the regulation of its own affairs; but such a Plan was not acceptable to the com¬ mittee. The six brethren from the non-slave-holding Conferences exerted their influ¬ ence to procure the adoption of the Plan of the General Conference. In adopting the Plan, the Conference has so sanctioned the organization of a Methodist Episco¬ pal Church in the South that, should it be effected, they will be bound to re¬ gard us as an integral part of the real Methodist family. And should the change he effected by the, Annual Conferences in the. Sixth Restrictive. Article, as recommended by the General Conference, the South will receive her pro- piortion of the property and funds of the Church, amounting to $800,(100." Dr. Elliott's disingenuousness is shown by his copying only the last sentence of this letter to prove that Dr. Paine thought the sanction of separation was sus¬ pended on the change of this Article. | That Dr. Durbin agreed with Dr. Paine as to the fact that the Southern Conferences alone may decide the question of separation under the Plan, not¬ withstanding this temporary difference as to details, is proved by a letter in the Christian Advocate, and Journal. October lfi, 1844, where Dr. D. writes: "As separation is deemed very probable, under stress of necessity, as declared hv the South, the resolutions were passed as a peace measure asked by the South, The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 113 Dr. Paine explained that, if this amendment were adopted, it would be nearly twelve months before the Conferences would begin to act on the change of the Restrictive Article, and another twelve months before the question could go round to all the Conferences, and thus two years would elapse "before the South would know whether they had leave [not to separate—this was for them to de¬ cide—but] peacefully to separate." Dr. Capers said the Church at home was not calm; that this was a compromise measure, designed to effect that peaceably wkick other¬ wise, he feared, would be done violently. Every mail increased the apprehension of the Southern brethren. They stood like men at the death. If the Conference suspended action too long, it would come too late, and would not save them [from the popular indig¬ nation excited against Methodism by the action of that General Conference], Dr. Winans said "it would be observed that there was only one provision of this whole Report that went to the Annual Confer¬ ences, and that merely authorized the appropriation of the proceeds of the Book Concern otherwise than as now appropriated. They were not sending round to the Annual Conferences any propo¬ sition in which the action of the South in reference to separation is concerned." Dr. Durbin withdrew his amendment. Mr. Hamline said that the Article referred to the Annual Con¬ ferences had not necessarily any connection with division—they had carefully avoided presenting [to the Annual Conferences] any resolution which would embrace the idea of separation or division. On other grounds it was thought well to alter this Restrictive Ar¬ ticle. Mr. Eilmore said the views of the committee had been fully ex¬ plained. The Restrictive Article ought to be changed in any event. Although the only passage of this entire discussion used to prove that the vote on the Restrictive Article was understood to be a vote on the merits of the Plan as a whole is quoded fully among the above extracts, I think the careful reader will see that they, taken as a whole, entirely overthrow that opinion. On the con¬ trary, it proves that this last ecumenical General Con¬ ference intended to agree to a peaceful departure of the Southern Conferences from its jurisdiction at their own option alone; that it was not submitted to the An¬ nual Conferences to confirm this action in order to and were intended [not, as perverted interpretation says, to prevent separation, hut] to abate, if not wholly prevent, the evils which were apprehended in case the South should find, it necessary to separate. The warrant for separation is not in the ■resolutions of the General Conference, hut, if it exist at all, it is in the necessity of the case, of which the Church in the South must be the judge." 114 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. make the act valid; but that it was only designed to secure, by their vote, an equitable division of the prop¬ erty held in common. III. That the concurrence of the Annual Conferences was not deemed necessary to give validity to the Plan of Separation is established by the discussions of the framers of that Plan. But I propose to add farther proof from opinions given by the Northern actors in this memorable conclave. I call up the Commissioners appointed to carry out, contingently, the purpose of the Conference — Drs. Bangs,* Peck, and Finley. Dr. Tomlinson wrote to these gentlemen, through the Western Christian Advo¬ cate, of November 1, 1844, asking some questions, un¬ important to us here, but the answers involved their construction of the purpose of the Plan. Drs. Bangs and Peck answered, November 8, much at length. The document is found in Great Secession. We give a few passages: The General Conference only provided for the apparently proba¬ ble contingency that a separate organization would take place by the action of the Southern Conferences; and, should such separate organization actually occur, marked the line of division and fixed the terms on which it should finally be settled. . . . We do not understand that these Conferences will put themselves in the attitude of a secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, pro¬ vided they divide according to the Plan laid down by the General Conference. . . . "We conclude that it is left entirely with the slave-holding Conferences whether they will form a separate or¬ ganization or remain in the Methodist Episcopal Church. If they resolve on separation, and carry their resolution into effect, accord¬ ing to the Plan fixed by the General Conference, peaceably and in good faith; and if three-fourths of all the votes, present and voting on the resolution, authorize the division in the event of a separation, then they will be entitled to their share of the property. . . . It will be seen by the resolutions that the General Conference pro¬ vided for carrying the conditions of the separation into complete effect by the Book Agents and Commissioners, without waiting for any additional powers, so soon as the'separate organization is formed by the action of the Southern Conferences, and the Agents * Dr. Bangs had previously—September 18,1844—written to the Christian Ad¬ vocate and Journal that, " at the General Conference, the facts forced it on his mind with irresistible conviction that union, under the circumstances, was impracticable. He rejoiced that the, committee, of which he was a member, adjusted the matter so that should the South find it necessary to separate themselves from the. Methodist Episcopal Church, it would be done in a,peaceful manner." (Great'Secession, p. 380.) The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 115 and Commissioners are authorized to discharge their duties "by the change of the Restrictive Article." (Great Secession, p. 1058.) Dr. Finley goes so far even as to make the General Conference provide for the secession of the South— that dreadful crime now attributed to it as the un¬ pardonable ecclesiastical sin. He writes, November 12, 1844, That his understanding was that the division of the Book Con¬ cern, etc., was to be made if the South should secede. Dr. Capers presented resolutions for an amicable division of the Church, which were not carried, and it was stated that the South would have to secede; and the resolutions of the Committee of Nine were passed in direct reference to such a result; or why should it be necessary to alter tbe Sixth Restrictive Article, unless it was to enable those who might secede to obtain their proportion of the stock? Did these Commissioners think the concurrence of the Conferences a condition antecedent to making valid the action of the Southern Conferences, should they "form a separate organization," as Drs. B. and P. wrote, or "secede," as Dr. F. wrote? uCredat Judccus Apella/" IV. I proceed to fortify my position farther by show¬ ing that when the Northern Conferences were voting on the resolution for changing the Article, they did not understand that they were voting concurrence or non-concurrence on the entire Plan. Dr. Elliott gives the action of fourteen of them, and to his book I refer for particulars. Not one of them so declared itself. Some voted for concurrence, explaining or resolving at the same time that they were opposed to division. Some voted non-concurrence, on the ground that to concur would encourage the South to depart; but if she would depart, they could divide the property after¬ ward. Some "non-concurred" because they preferred the Article as it stood; but not a man—at least not a Conference—seemed to have sagacity enough to say: "The South looks to our vote, in addition to that of the General Conference, to justify their departure from us; and by non-concurring, we negative the action of the General Conference on the entire Plan of Separation. The question was, by that body, left to us as the ulti¬ mate constituency, having plenary power to decide, 116 The Disruption op tiie M. E. Church. and we do not concur because we intend, by our negative vote, to defeat the entire scheme." Did the one thou¬ sand one hundred and sixty-four members* of non- slave-holding Conferences who voted for concurrence believe they were voting on the merits of the entire question—voting for division? Did those Conferences which postponed action for a year, because they would wait to see the course the South would take, think that their vote was needed, in part, to settle the question of division? How could conscientious men, charged with high responsibilities, knowing that their votes were to be counted either for or against the separation of the Southern Conferences (to which they were op¬ posed), either vote for the change of the Restrictive Article—or postpone altogether until their vote would be worthless—or vote against it, on any less ground than thus wholly to annul the action of the General Conference? No; to suppose that they thus acted, with such a belief, is an aspersion upon them. How, on the theory I am combating, shall we ac¬ count for the action of the Providence Conference, held within a month after the Plan was passed? That Conference voted unanimously for the change, yet said that the General Conference has no power to divide the Church—that "the present act provides for the separation as a contingency to be brought about by the South alone. . . . Yet the General Conference abets, and virtually enacts, the division while it ac¬ knowledges that it has no right to make it." Did that Conference, when giving its unanimous concurring vote, believe that it was voting on the entire Plan, and thus "abetting and virtually enacting the divis¬ ion" to which it was opposed? Surely men could not so stultify themselves. Let Dr. Stevens, a leading member, explain for them, in Zion's Herald, of Julv 17, 1844: Were there a hope of effectually checking that Plan by our re¬ fusal of the alteration of the Sixth Article [that it could not have *1 have found no official record in the Journal of this vote. It is given in an extract, from a speeoh of Dr. Durbin in Great. Scrcssion. A majority,"but not three-fourths, of the Northern preachers voted for concurrence. The vote is stated to be: For concurrence—Northern Conferences, 1,164; Southern, 971; total, '2,135. For non-concurrence, 1,070. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 117 been done by a three-fourths vote against it is here assumed], we should do so by all the regard for the integrity of our polity and the rights of the people; but the Plan is enacted [mark what we here emphasize—is already enacted—fully passed]—our action will not deter the South; let us not incur the charge of parsimony and meanness by a pecuniary consideration. Still we may qualify our consent—we may prevent its being interpreted into a sanction of the General Plan—by accompanying it with suitable resolutions, or statements, as the Providence Conference has done. But if the vote for or against concurrence was, in effect, a vote for or against "the General Plan," what need for qualification? Would not the vote explain itself? Could their assertion of hostility to the Gen¬ eral Plan neutralize the effect of their vote for it, had this, indeed, been believed to be the purport of this vote for concurrence? What muddled brains such a procedure would have indicated! It is patent, then, that the Northern Conferences, in voting on "the part of the Plan" submitted to them, did not take the ground (1) that their vote affected the validity of the Plan, or would have any other effect than (2) to allow of a distribution of the property and a peaceful separation. Every member of the Confer¬ ences opposed to separation who held to the first of these two opinions, and did not vote against the third resolution of the Plan, was guilty of treachery to his real opinions — a dishonesty that ought not to be charged on "the fathers" by writers of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Y. I adduce the action of the Bishops of the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church as sustaining my proposition. After the non-concurrence of the Conferences, these Bishops, having full knowledge of all the facts, on two occasions—July 2, 1845, and March 23, 1847—by con¬ forming their action to the provisions of the Plan of Separation, using that name, acknowledged its validity. At their first meeting after the Louisville Convention, they passed the following resolutions: 1. Besolved, That the Plan reported by the Select Committee of Nine, at the last General Conference, and adopted by that body, in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical connection, should such a course be found necessary by the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises so far as our administration is concerned. 118 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 2. Resolved, That in order to ascertain fairly the desire and pur¬ pose of those Societies bordering on the line of division in regard to their adherence to the Church,'North, or South, due notice should be given of the time, place, and object of meeting for the above purpose, at which a chairman and secretary should be appointed, and the sense of all the members present be ascertained, and the same be forwarded to the Bishop who may preside at the ensuing Annual Conference, or forward to said presiding Bishop a written request to be recognized and have a preacher sent them, with the names of the majority appended thereto.'* They, moreover, gave notice to the Conferences South, in the districts previously assigned to them re¬ spectively, that they "respectfully declined attending said Conferences." At the meeting in 1847 they considered several sub¬ jects connected with their "administration relative to border work under the Plan of Separation adopted by the last General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church," and then proceeded to "resolve" on the princi¬ ples by which they will shape their action as to "Sta¬ tions or Societies South or North of the line of separa¬ tion." Thus they fully recognize the Plan—act upon it—and their administration was approved by the Gen¬ eral Conference of 1848. One farther fact deserves notice in this connection. After the Louisville Conference of 1845, the second border Conference to act on the question of adherence was in Missouri. Here it was claimed that the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church would have a Conference at any rate; for if they could not secure a majority, they would organize with a minority, transact the regular business of the Missouri Conference, and draw the dividend from the Book Concern. The better to ac¬ complish their purposes, Bishop Morris was written to and invited to attend the Conference, with a desire that he would take charge of this Conference. To this invitation he gave the following noble response; Burlington, Iowa, September 8, 1845. Rev. Wilson S. McMurry—Dear Brother: Your letter of the 1st instant is now before me. The resolutions to which you refer "•'■' Is it not wonderful that Dr. Elliott, who was so industrious in hunting up documents, never found this? It is not in his Great Secession. I am indebted for it to a newspaper of the day, and to a History of the Division, published by Dr. McFerrin in 1815. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 119 did pass in the meeting of the Bishops at New York, in July, unanimously. We all believe they are in accordance with the Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference. Whether that Plan was wise or foolish, constitutional or unconstitutional, did not become us to say, it being our duty, as Bishops, to know what the General Conference ordered to he done in a certain contingency, which has actually transpired, and to carry it out in good faith. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the resolutions were not immediately published, but it was not thought necessary by a majority at the time they passed. Still our administration will be conformed to them. Bishop Soule's notice was doubtless founded upon them. As I am the responsible man at the Indiana Conference, October 8, it will not be in my power to attend the Missouri Conference; nor do I think it important to do so. Were I there, I could not, with my views of propriety and responsibility, encourage subdi¬ vision. If a majority of the Missouri Conference resolve to come under the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that would destroy the identity of the Missouri Conference as an integral part of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As to having two Missouri Confer¬ ences, each claiming to be the true one, and demanding the divi¬ dends of the Book Concern, and claiming the Church-property, that is the very thing that the General Conference designed to prevent by adopting the amicable Plan of Separation. It is true that the mi¬ nority preachers have a right, according to the General Rule in the Plan of Separation, to be recognized still in the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church; but, in order to do that, they must go to some ad¬ joining Conference in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The border charges may also, by a majority of votes, decide which or¬ ganization they will adhere to, and if reported in regular order to the Conference from which they wish to be supplied, or to the Bishop presiding, they will be attended to on either side of the line of separation. But if any brethren suppose the Bishops will send preachers from the North to interior charges South, or to mi¬ norities of border charges, to produce disruption, or that they will encourage minority preachers on either side of the line to organize opposition lines, by establishing one Conference in the bounds of another, they are misled. That would he departing from the plain letter of the rule prescribed by the General Conference in the premises. Editors may teach such nullification, and answer for it, if they will; but the Bishops all understand their duty better than to indorse such principles. I acknowledge that, under the prac¬ tical operation of the Plan of Separation, some hard cases may arise; but the Bishops do not make, and have not the power to re¬ lieve, them. It is the fault of the rule, and not of the executive administration of it. In the meantime, there is much more bad feeling indulged in respecting the separation than there is necessity for. If the Plan of Separation had been carried out in good faith and Christian feeling on both sides, it would scarcely have been felt any more than the division of an Annual Conference. It need not destroy confidence or embarrass the work if the 120 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. business be managed in the spirit of Cbrist. I trust the time is not very far distant when brethren, North and South, will cease their hostilities, and betake themselves to their prayers and other appropriate duties in earnest. Then, and not till then, may we expect the Lord to bless us as in former days. I am, dear brother, yours, respectfully and affectionately, Thos. A. Morris. One thing puzzles me: How could the General Con¬ ference of 1848 approve the administration of the Bishops, which avowedly embraced conformity to the Plan, and yet say that its validity, and consequently the propriety of acting by it—which they did—de¬ pended on a three-fourths' vote of the Conferences? The testimony I have thus far brought to sustain my opinion has been—with slight exceptions—from members, Bishops, and Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This ought to settle the question that Conference concurrence in the change of the Re¬ strictive Article was not a condition of legitimating the separation. But it is fair that the South should be heard on that point. I might here adduce the action of the Southern Con¬ ferences to sustain my view, had they not utterly ig¬ nored every reference to the vote on the Restrictive Article, as involving the sanction of the General Con¬ ference action on the entire Plan. 'That idea seems never to have entered into their conceptions. So we get no help here, except that of silence—and this con¬ cession to our opinion is weighty. But two of these Conferences mention the property question:* the Vir¬ ginia Conference, to instruct its Delegates to Louisville " not to allow the question of property to enter into the calculation whether or. not we shall exist as a separate organization ; " and the Georgia Conference, to leave to its Delegates the exercise of their own discretion be¬ tween abandonment of the property and separation. VI. I bring now Southern authority to corroborate what has been so clearly established by Northern tes¬ timony—that the concurrence of the Annual Confer¬ ences was never intended to be an element in the legitimacy of the Plan of Separation. Hertford's Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. South, for the documents. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 121 As we have seen, Dr. Capers proposed a plan inau¬ gurating division in the General Conference itself; in¬ deed, perfecting it, so far as its own vote went, and sending the plan to the Annual Conferences to confirm its action. A three-fourths' majority would then have divided the Church absolutely, whether the Southern Conferences desired it or not. Dr. C. gives a history of the action on this proposi¬ tion, in a letter addressed to the South Carolina Con¬ ference, dated June 17, 1844, immediately after the ad¬ journment of the General Conference, and published in the Southern Christian Advocate, of June 21, which says: This paper [his proposed constitutional amendment] was referred to a committee, etc. [naming them]. They could not agree on the basis of the proposition committed to them, the Northern members of the committee deeming it im¬ practicable to get the requisite vote of three-fourths of the Annual Conferences for such a change of the Constitution of the Church as it contemplated. But a plan was set on foot to meet the case, by anticipating a declaration of all the Southern Delegates as to the absolute necessity of a change of jurisdiction; on which declara¬ tion a committee should recommend to the General Conference the adoption of a measure which would receive a general vote, and re¬ fer it to the Annual Conferences, in the South, to act on the whole matter; and for all the Annual Conferences to act on so much only as should respect a division of the Book Concern. The committee, therefore, reported on the 5th of June that they could not recom¬ mend the adoption of the paper referred to them, but had come to the conclusion that some other amicable arrangement might ho made; and asked to be relieved. As soon as the morning session was over, in which the committee reported as above, a meeting of the Southern Delegations was called; and in the afternoon session of the same day the following solemn Declaration, with the signatures thereto, was read and put on record. [Here follows the "Declaration" of the Southern Delegates, that separation seemed inevitable.] The document was referred to a committee of nine; the same persons as former committee, except, etc. Dr. Capers again writes, in the Southern Christian Advocate, March 28, 1845, to answer the assertion of Dr. Elliott that his (Capers's) plan was not even con¬ sidered, was "set aside," because the committee would not entertain the idea of division in any sense. To show that they did entertain it, Dr. C. writes: It will be remembered that these resolutions [his plan] provided 6 122 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. for the separation of the Northern and Southern Conference?, a? regarded the jurisdiction over them only; appointing two General Conferences, hut retaining a common interest in the Book Concern and Missions. This feature of the resolutions was at once and gen¬ erally objected to hy the Northern members of the committee, who said that if a division took place it ought to be entire; and they seemed to be firmly settled in this opinion of the matter. Another prevailing objection to the resolutions, and which precluded alto¬ gether their being reported to the Conference, even in an amended form, was that, constituted as the Conference and committee were—■ with a majority of Northern members in both—it was not seemly to originate and pass any measure for a division before it had been formally called for by the South. They would (and we thought reasonably) put the onns of the measure on the Southern Delegates, so as to make it manifest that we had required it to be done under our convictions of an adequate necessity for it, arising out of the previous action of the Conference in the cases of Brother Harding and the Bishop; and not to appear as if that action had been adopted to produce separation, or as if they were willing to grant it on any other ground than that of a necessity solemnly set forth by the South. I think it was Doctor (now Bishop) Hamline who proposed in the committee the manner of our report; and that I should call a meeting of the Southern Delegates to memorialize the Conference on the subject of division, and that such memorial being made and referred to a committee, a provisional Plan of Separation, or divis¬ ion, should follow. This was unanimously agreed to by the com¬ mittee, and the verbal report (on Dr. C.'s plan) was accordingly made. . . . Is it not remarkable that the first word and movement for the calling of the meeting of the Southern Delegates which produced the memorable Declaration should have been heard from a North¬ ern member (of this I am positive, and I think he was Dr. Ham- line) of the first Committee of Nine, and proceeded from that com¬ mittee through its chairman, by their general if not unanimous consent? And this, too, lest they might appear too ready to grant the South protection from an action which they had been con¬ strained to adopt by the condition of the Northern Churches. Yes, there were hearts of men—noble Christian hearts—in that committee; and would to God that such hearts in a world like ours could be kept aloof from the strife of tongues! Dr. Paine, chairman of the Committee of Nine, wrote to the South-western (Nashville) Christian Advocate, Oc¬ tober 25, 1844, as follows: Shortly after the degradation of Bishop Andrew by a vote of the General Conference, Dr. Capers moved a committee with a view of drawing up a plan by which the South could be relieved from the effects of legislation by the General Conference on the subject of slavery, without a division of the Church, and consequently with¬ out separating our interests in the Book Concern, the Missions, and the other great charities of the Church. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 123 The committee was appointed, a large majority being from non- slave-holding States; and the result was that the Southern Delega¬ tion was called together and informed that as a necessary pre¬ liminary step the South must ask formally of the Conference for a division. Dr. Longstreet, Dr. Smith, and myself, were ap¬ pointed a commission to draw up a declaration. Dr. S. and myself (Dr. L. not being able to be present) consulted together and agreed that we did not want a division of the Church, but a separate Gen¬ eral Conference for the South, on the basis of our Articles of Re¬ ligion, General Rules, and the Constitutional Limitations and Re¬ strictions, as at present existing in the Methodist Episcopal Church. And therefore, with much care, and after mature deliberation, we drew up and presented to a meeting of the Southern Delegates a declaration with which we believed the South would he satisfied.® This proposition was set aside, because it was understood that the committee would not agree to report any such plan, and that the South must explicitly ask for a division of the Church; and, therefore, the "Declaration," which has so often appeared in print, was substituted. We were told this was what we could get by ask¬ ing for it, but that nothing less could be obtained. Another and final effort was made by myself, in the last Committee of Nine, to prevent a total division, and that, too, failed. And then nothing remained to us hut unconditional submission to the lawless acts of the majority, or to accept such terms as they would dictate. We preferred the latter, and the Church is now called upon to accept or reject these terms. * This Declaration, which showed what the South wanted, and what the North would not grant, is as follows: " The Delegates of the Southern and South-western Conferences having been appealed to, by the committee appointed by the General Conference on the sub¬ ject of the proposed division of the Church, for their views in the premises, con¬ cur in the following declaration of sentiment: " 1. That they have always deprecated division of any kind, and still regard it as a dernier ressort, which nothing short of imperative and uncontrollable necessity could reconcile them even for a moment to entertain. " 2. Such necessity, they have been constrained to feel, is now imposed upon them by the extrajudicial action of a majority of the General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew, taken as it has been in defiance of our united re¬ monstrance, made in view of averting this precise calamity, as well as our repeated assurances, given the Conference, that such action would render it in¬ evitable. "3. Thus compelled, against our will, to entertain the idea of division, we cannot even now consent to a division of the Church, but only a division of our great field of ministerial labor, by the organization of two General Conferences, each retaining the patronymic name, Methodist Episcopal Church, the Arti¬ cles of Religion, General Rules, and Restrictive Articles. Such a division of the work would not necessarily involve either schism or secession, to both of which we are irreconcilably opposed. " 4. This kind of division in the General Conference we regard as necessary, and even desirable, unless the future agitation of the subject of slavery in the General Conference can be wholly interdicted by express statute, excluding it from the councils of the Church, as belonging alone to the civil government. "5. It is only under stress of these circumstances that we concur in soliciting the committee to report a plan for the amicable division, not of the Church, but onlv of our field of ministerial labor, including an equitable partition of the property and funds heretofore held in common by all the Annual Confer¬ ences." 124 The Disruption of the M. E. Churcii. These letters furnish the following facts, pertinent to my argument: The Northern members of the com¬ mittee on Dr. Capers's plan deemed it impossible to get a three-fourths' majority in the Annual Confer¬ ences for such a radical change of Constitution as he proposed—they urging that if division came, it must be entire, and not partial—that it was not seem^ that a committee largely composed of Northern members should propose to a Conference having a Northern majority a plan of division before the South had de¬ clared it essential—that to originate and pass a measure of division before formally called for by the South might look as if their action on the Finley Resolution had been taken to procure that result, under the pre¬ tense only that they had been constrained to adopt it by the condition of the Northern Churches—and that the onus must fall on the Southern Delegates of mak¬ ing its necessity manifest. But a Northern Delegate (Dr. Hamline, Dr. C. thinks) proposed a plan to reach the case. The Southern Delegates were to declare their belief in the necessity of a change of jurisdiction, where¬ upon a committee on the declaration would recommend to the Conference a measure that would receive a gen¬ eral vote, and refer it to the Annual Conferences and membership of the South to act on the whole matter, and to all the Annual Conferences to act on so much only as should respect a division of the Book Concern. The committee reported that they could not adopt Dr. C.'s paper, but thought some other amicable arrangement might be made. After morning adjournment, the Southern Delegates were called together, and told that, as a necessary preliminary to farther action, the South must ask formally for a division. A committee was appointed to draw up a declaration. Drs. Paine and Smith agreed that they did not want a division of the Church, but only a separate General Conference for the South, altogether on the basis of the present Discipline in other respects. They drew up a paper to this effect, strongly opposing total division. This proposition was set aside by the Southern Delegates, because it was understood that the Committee of "Nine would not agree to report any such plan, and that the The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 125 South must explicitly ask for a division of the Church, and therefore the Declaration offered was substituted. They were told this separation was what the South could get by asking for it, but that nothing less could he obtained. Another and final effort was made by Dr. P., in the Committee of Nine, to prevent a total di¬ vision—and that, too, failed* It may be interesting now to ascertain the genesis of this idea, that it would be proper for the Northern Conferences to "non-concur" on this third resolution. There was little doubt, at first, that the Conferences, however opposed their members might be to division per se, would vote for it, as it did not affect that ques¬ tion, but only property division. But "bad blood" came in, and the first hint we find that this resolution might not carry is found in an editorial in Zion's Herald, in July, 1844, which says: "We regret the excitemeyit at the South, for the effect it is having in New England, in reference to the resolution that is to come before us on a division of the Church-property. It is understood, of course, that the South have no legal claim to the property. . . . It is a questionable point whether it will be morally proper for the North to sanction, by liberal largesses, a schism which, however desirable, if properly conducted, is evidently to be ... a battery of un¬ ceasing hostility and abuse against ourselves. We regret to state that these circumstances render the fate of the resolution (for di¬ viding the property) exceedingly doubtful in New England. Our best hope for it is that it may be deferred a year, to ascertain the attitude of the South, but even this is doubtful. New England can defeat the measure [not of separation, surely, for we have al- *This narrative explains a few facts heretofore obscure: 1. Why the Declara¬ tion was referred to almost the identical committee which had reported that they could not harmonize on Dr. C.'s plan. 2. What Dr. H. meant by refusing (as I allow) to farther consider a plan for the " constitutional division of the Church," but would consider a plan for the "constitutional division of the property;" because, as his speeches show, he believed that the "Constitu¬ tion" required a plan with this object, to be sent round to the Conferences, while it did not require a plan for division to be so submitted—it already hav¬ ing all power, outside the Restrictive Articles—hence the former process would be conformable to the Constitution, the latter " unconstitutional "—not conforming to the letter of the Constitution—and its enactment be, conse¬ quently, an immediate division of the Church. 3. Why Mr. Crowder, who was on the first committee, moved to strike the word "constitutional" from Dr. MeFerrin's resolution instructing the second committee to devise a " consti¬ tutional division of the Church," since Mr. C. knew, and the other did not, perhaps, that the committee had already settled in mind what could and what could not be done " constitutionally," and had a plan in view conforming to Dr. H.'s opinions on this subject. It is here confirmed — 4. That the words "constitutional " and unconstitutional were used, the one in the sense " re¬ quired by the Constitution "—the other, " not required by the Constitution—not embraced in its provisos! " 126 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. ready quoted a contrary opinion from the same paper but of property division],and she is beginning to feel that self-respect, as well as moral propriety, will compel her to do it. Dr. Capers, commenting on this, in the Southern Christian Advocate, July 26, says: One object that Dr. Bond and Mr. Stevens have in their editorial essays against the pacificating measure of the General Conference is to gain the weight of the pecuniary consideration of the Book Concern to influence the action of the Southern Conferences. I ap¬ prehend the importance that Mr. S. attaches to it (our portion of the Book Concern) is full proof of his ignorance of our situation; for surely no one of any conscience could talk about money as a matter to govern our conduct, if he knew what is the stress of the necessity under which we must act. If we even knew that they had both the will and the ability to defraud us (which is impossi¬ ble), still it could not in the least degree affect our conduct. Men who struggle for existence cannot he diverted from the last hold on life to preserve their money. ... I doubt if even Dr. Bond would join Mr. S. in his threat; and as to our Northern brethren generally, I would not for my right hand harbor such a thought of them. Nor do I find any thing from Dr. Bond on this sub¬ ject until all the Conferences had taken action, when (April 16, 1845), announcing the result, he said: On the other arrangements, contained in the report of the com¬ mittee adopted by the General Conference, the Annual Confer¬ ences were not called upon to act; hut, as they are necessarily dependent on the amendment of the Discipline which has been rejected, they fall with it. If this mean anything more than that the "other arrangements" providing, by commissioners, etc., for the division of the property, in case the Conferences concurred in the third resolution, "was dependent on this amendment"—which is very true—then Dr. Bond here contradicts what he had said at an earlier day, as reported by Dr. Elliott, from the Advocate and Journal, of June 26, 1844. Dr. E. writes: Dr. B. gave an able article, headed, "The true grounds upon which the Southern portion of the Methodist Episcopal Church must rest, if the contemplated separation from their present con¬ nection he effected." He stated that the question of separation or continued union is to be settled by the South, as the consent to and arrangements for the amicable withdrawal of the South were at the earnest request of the Delegates of the Southern Annual Confer¬ ences. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 127 This from Dr. B , written the month the General Conference adjourned, is a more reliable construction of its act than that claimed for what he wrote a year later. What I have marked with italics fully corrob¬ orates the proposition I have argued, and supports fully the opinions quoted from Drs. Durbin, Bangs, Peck, and Finley. Besides. Dr. B., in the article first quoted from, at¬ tributes the failure to concur to the bitterness engen¬ dered by the controversies between the sections for the past year, and to the use the South made of the permission to depart by departing, and not to a better reason—had it been true—that the Conferences op¬ posed to division had vetoed the entire action of the General Conference. I have thus shown the origin of that idea which, ever since the General Conference of 1848, has been set forth prominently, and urged strenuously, because it is really the only possible vindication of repudiation— namely: "that the Plan was not fairly valid without the consent of three-fourths of the members of the Annual Conferences." That the opinion has no firm foundation in fact I think now fully proved, and I offer these facts to the unprejudiced judgment of the Christian world, in the full confidence that it will ac¬ quit Southern Methodism of being either a secession or a schism. So far from its being either, the method of procedure for effecting a separation was devised and proposed by the leading "constitutional lawyer" of the Northern party; the Southern Delegates conformed to his advice, his Plan was proposed by a committee of which he was a member, was advocated by himself and every other member of the committee, and was enacted by a large majority of the Northern votes— all these facts establishing the hypothesis that separa¬ tion was looked upon as inevitable on the passage of the Finley Resolution, and that, under all the circum¬ stances, this result was intended. 128 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. CHAPTER IX. action of tiie south on the plan of separation. A LMOST the last act of the General Conference of 1 \ 1841 was the receiving of the "Reply to the Pro¬ test"—the statement of facts, as the majority under¬ stood them—in relation to its action on the Finley Resolution. I do not propose to call in question that statement. Bishop Andrew's case and slavery have passed out of the controversy 'between the two Churches, and need only be mentioned to get down to the real matter at issue—the action that followed the "Declaration." * We are told that after that action, until this paper was read, the excitement had measurably subsided. But its reading seems to have renewed it. Mr. Crowder (Virginia Conference) said that, before that Reply was read, he "had hoped they might yet avoid division. The passage of that Report would render it inevitable. They had no choice left." He repeated, with much warmth and earnestness, his conviction as to the disas¬ trous consequences to be produced by the publication of that paper. Mr. Early had sad and fearful forebodings of the consequences if the paper was adopted. Already the South was in a flame, in consequence of past action, and the Reply was calculated to increase it. He had letters detailing the excitement prevailing. This excited state of feeling had been before brought to the attention of the Conference. The Finley Reso¬ lution and matters connected therewith had been dis¬ cussed nearly three weeks. Though that was not the Tiie Disruption of the M. E. Church. 129 day of telegraphs and numerous railroads, yet the daily and weekly papers had reached all sections, and, in return, the mails had conveyed to the Dele¬ gates many expressions of popular opinion. The Northern Delegates had doubtless been subjected by their constituency, near at hand, to great "outside pressure." The more distant South had begun to feel the throes of dissolution. We have already quoted what Drs. Capers, Winans, and Paine said respecting the news from the South. As early as May 29 Mr. Dunwody, of South Carolina, had a letter informing him that the greatest alarm prevailed now in the South, and he said he did not know but that another Confer¬ ence would be called there to take measures to secede altogether. The fear was, as Mr. Filmore recollected in 1848, "that the people would drive away the preach¬ ers." As I have already said, we have had terrible proof of the jealousy with which the South met any —though but anticipated—interference with its insti¬ tutions; and the people would have risen en masse against Methodism, in every form, if it were believed to be under the domination of even anti-slavery, much less abolition, sentiment; and they would have be¬ lieved this of it unless the action of this Conference were repudiated by the Southern Delegates. The Northern members had been made aware of this feet, and had acted on the information by passing a Plan allowing peaceable separation, rather than have gen¬ eral dissolution. By the time the Conference closed, it had become a serious question with the Southern Delegates whether their people could be held together long enough for calm consultation and united action. Methodism had many enemies, who would be quick to promote disrup¬ tion and schism; and any seeming hesitancy of these Delegates to show fealty to their own section, amid its present excitements, would be the signal for breaking up many Churches and all their missions among the slaves. It was hoped that the Plan of Separation would vindicate not only that fealty, but the sense of justice in ecumenical Methodism, and thus allay ex¬ citement. Thus it became "a peace measure." The G* 130 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. question with the Delegates now was how they might best stay all irregular and schismatic proceedings, and make the Plan best subserve the purpose of conserv¬ ing the integrity of Southern Methodism. Tiiey fell upon the wisest scheme by prevising for the future and fixing a time—nearly a year after—to which all de¬ cisive action should be postponed, to give space for re¬ flection, consultation, and united action, whether it might be to abide under, or depart from, the jurisdic¬ tion of the common General Conference. Thej'-might thus, wisely and in the interests of Christianity, direct, if they could not suppress, the excitement. It may be granted that had there been no Plan of Separation devised, and had the Methodist Episcopal Church persisted in maintaining her jurisdiction in the South, there might have been found in many "Socie¬ ties" a nucleus of members remaining true to her— as also here and there some preachers. But this would have involved schism and the general dissolution of the Church. There were Northern men, and some who sympathized with the North on that question, which proved the occasion of this revolution. But the great body of Methodists were not of this sort—es¬ pecially the leading men in the Church. The wealth and intelligence of her membership would have been arrayed against any preachers or people who attempted to maintain Church-fellowship with Northern Method¬ ists on their principles. The war would have been transferred from the border to nine out of ten of all the Societies of Southern Methodism; and if these prominent Methodists could not have carried their So¬ cieties, one by one, out of the Northern organization, they would, by tens of thousands, have withdrawn from Episcopal Methodism. The united front of the Delegates and their wise suggestions preserved the unity of the Church, in that it kept the influential classes from disrupting or abandoning it. Had they gone, a remnant might have remained in many Socie¬ ties, out of which it would have been as difficult to reestablish the pristine power of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church in the South as it has proved to he in later years to regain to its fold the white people of this The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 131 section. But for the wise forecast of these Delegates, the Methodist Episcopal Church* in the South, after 1844, might have been but a prophecy of itself as now existing—plus the "meeting-houses" and minus the negroes. The Delegates met on June 11, in Mew York, and conferred calmly and prayerfully respecting the sit¬ uation. Their deliberations resulted in appointing a time and place when and at which the entire Southern Church might speak and act in concert; and thus they forestalled all excuse for immediate and divided action by Societies, neighborhoods, or circuits. They devised a plan by which to get at the sentiment and purpose of the membership, so that whatever was done it should be the act of the Church at large. They pro¬ vided against precipitate action in the more excitable Conferences by suggesting that nothing be done till all the Conferences they represented could meet in a General Convention; and "submitted" to their "con¬ sideration" that May 1,1845, would be a suitable time, and Louisville, Ky., a fit place, for such a Convention; and that their Delegates—chosen in a ratio (to the preachers) suggested, to procure uniformity—be in¬ structed "on the points on which action is contem¬ plated—the instructions conforming, as far as possible, to the opinions and wishes of the members of the Church." What could have been done more consider¬ ately for the sake of peace? It was impossible that they could vindicate the action of the General Confer¬ ence after their speeches, in resisting that action, had gone to their people. They could not so stultify them¬ selves, and no sane man in the North could have ex¬ pected it of them. No more could they be silent when they returned home; and had each returned home with his own plan for the future, and with divided counsels, the Church might have been torn asunder, Conference by Conference. Their constituents looked to them for advice, and rightly they proffered it—such advice, too, "■The Committee on the State of the Church, in the General Conference of 18-18 tell ns that two thousand seven hundred and thirty-five members within the 'bounds of the. Southern organization had petitioned that body not to set. them adrift, but to send them the gospel; and they felt under solemn obliga¬ tion to do it. 132 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. as compacted rather than broke up Southern Method¬ ism into fragments. I venture to say that no body of ju¬ dicious men on earth, under like circumstances, would have done otherwise. It was what the Hew England Delegates intended to do early in the Conference, when they began to organize to keep their Churches to¬ gether, and their incipient steps toward "secession" were arrested by success. They also issued a brief "Address to the Ministers and Members" of their Conferences. They said to them what they had said over and again in the Con¬ ference, and what the official organs of that body had already reported to every corner of the land as falling from their lips—what, indeed, some of the Northern Delegates had uttered without any qualification— that "the time is coming when separation must take place." * They state fairly and truthfully, as for days past, that the opinions and purposes of the Church in the North on the subject of slavery are in direct con¬ flict with those of the South, "destroying the harmony of the Church," and will finally prove extremely hurt¬ ful, if not ruinous, to the South—a statement fully vindicated when even the "conservative" Baltimore Conference felt forced, in 1860, to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church. They briefly stated the action of the Conference in agreeing "to a -plan of final and pacific separation, by which the Southern Conferences are to have a distinct and inde¬ pendent organization of their own, in no way subject to Northern jurisdiction." They said: "It affords us pleasure to state that there were those found among the majority who met this proposition with every man¬ ifestation of justice and liberality; and should a simi¬ lar spirit be exhibited by the Annual Conferences in the North when an opportunity to manifest, by a vote on the Restrictive Article, justice and liberality is submit¬ ted to them, as provided for in the Plan itself, there will remain no legal impediment to its peaceful consum¬ mation." As "it might be expected of them" (and it was) to express their views fully, they say that they *See Mr. Porter's remarks, before quoted, when the Plan was under dis¬ cussion. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 133 regard separation, at no distant day, inevitable—which is certainly what the Conference expected, when it ar¬ ranged all the details for dividing the Book Concern property within a year or two, if the Conferences changed the Restrictive Article. They besought a careful examination of the entire question as to methods and time, deprecated all excitement, and advised that the question be approached and disposed of with can¬ dor and forbearance. The paper, in short, is but a fair report to their constituents of sentiments and opinions that they had, for many days, been expressing to their opponents. And their constituents not only sympathized fully with them, but anticipated them, many of them speak¬ ing out before they knew all that the Conference did, and before this Address could have reached them. A casual meeting in Alabama—a meeting of citizens for some local political object, as early as June 8, knowing only of the discussions on the Finley Resolution—may be cited, as giving a fair exhibition of the public temper toward a submissive Southern Methodism. They say that they have observed the proceedings of the Con¬ ference "with intense interest and painful anxiety," and reprobate them with some severity, and invoke the clergy of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South, in case that Resolution is passed, "to take immediate measures for secession," assuring them "of the warm sympathy and unalterable support of the whole South¬ ern States of every sect and denomination." Hundreds of thousands of Southerners — not Methodists—were ready to deliver like utterances, if encouraged to speak on this subject. On the same day, on Chesterfield Circuit, Virginia, the Church began to deliver her opinion, and from that time scarce a day passed for months but some as¬ sembly swelled the popular voice in condemnation of the action of the Conference, and in commendation of the course of the Southern Delegates—some before the Conference adjourned, many before the Address of the Delegates could have reached them. In the Southern Christian Advocate, alone, I find reported thirty meet¬ ings, held within one month of the adjournment of the 134 The Disruption of tiie M. E. Church. Conference — meetings of Churches, or circuits, or Quarterly Conferences—in towns, in cities, in country places, from Norfolk to New Orleans—all speaking in one voice. And these, perhaps, were but a tithe of the entire number held.* And from September 11, 1844, till March 1, 1845, the Southern Conferences were uttering their voices. The voices were many, but the speech was one. They dep¬ recated separation, but the necessity was on them, and separation must come, unless the North could relievo the pressure upon them. In one or two instances, measures of relief were suggested; but they came to naught. Those who will take the trouble to read the utterances of these Conferences f will find that the history of the world does not offer a parallel to the unanimity of sentiment, thought, and purpose which they exhibited on a subject of so momentous conse¬ quence. Their course was taken reluctantly, sadly, but firmly, for the preseiwation of Southern Method¬ ism and for the glory of God. On May 1, 1845, a Convention of Delegates from Conferences in the slave-holding States met in Louis¬ ville, Ky. I propose only to give results—therefore, I shall not follow them up through the twenty days of the session. A Committee on Organization was ap¬ pointed to canvass the acts of the several Annual Con¬ ferences; to consider the propriety and necessity of a Southern organization, according to the "Plan of Sep¬ aration," and. to report the best method of securing the objects contemplated in the appointment of the Convention; and were instructed, also, to inquire if any thing had taken place during the year to render it possible to maintain the unity of Methodism under the same General Conference jurisdiction without the ruin of Southern Methodism. r After a free interchange of views from day to day, on the 15th of May this committee reported at length. Their report covered much ground, but they reached these conclusions: That the General Conference of 1844 igave full, and express, and exclusive authority to "the ^ * See note at end of this chapter. f See Kedford's Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 135 Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States" to) judge of the propriety, and decide upon the necessity, of organizing "a separate ecclesiastical Connection in the South;" that sixteen* such Conferences were here represented; that it is in evidence that the ministry and membership of the South, nearly five hundred thousand, in the proportion of about ninety-five in the hundred, deem a division of jurisdiction indispen¬ sable—an urgent necessity; that unless this is effected, about a million of slaves, now hearing the gospel from our ministers, will be withdrawn from their care; that a mere division of jurisdiction cannot affect the moral unity of the great American Methodist family—the Methodist Episcopal Church—as this expressly authorized division only proposes to invest the general jurisdiction in two great organs of Church-action and control, in¬ stead of in one, as at present; that not only will the moral oneness and integrity of the great Methodist body not be affected by it, but peace and unity will be restored to the Church; and that while thus taking their position upon the ground assigned them by the General Conference of 1844, as a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, the Southern Conferences are ready and most willing to treat with the Morthern division of the Church at any time, in view of adjusting the difficulties of this controversy upon terms and principles that may be satisfactory to both; and then these Delegates did ''solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over the Annual Conferences represented in the Con¬ vention by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church entirely dissolved; and that said An¬ nual Conferences are hereby constituted a separate ec¬ clesiastical Connection under the Provisional Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference of 1844; and, hased upon the Discipline of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical miles and regula¬ tions of said Discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a distinct organization^ *The Tcxfis Conference elected Delegates to this Convention before it. was divided, which was done at the same session—hence, Delegates from fifteen represented sixteen Conferences. 136 Tiie Disruption op the M. E. Church. which is to he known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." The only legislation was to provide for a session of the General Conference next year, and to fix the ratio of representation.* Thus was effected the division of ecumenical Meth¬ odism, and the organization of its Southern division— the Plan of Separation of 1844 being strictly observed in every particular. Bishop Andrew "adhered," and Bishop Soule an¬ nounced his purpose to adhere, to this new organiza¬ tion. Some of these Conferences had been included in the plan of visitation of the other Bishops, and they met, July 3, 1845, to consider whether they should go South to preside. "After much solemn and prayerful consideration, they resolved that, acting under the au¬ thority of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and amenable to it, they would not consider themselves justifiable in presiding in said Conferences," and gave notice to them to that effect; so they recognized the action of the Convention, and withdrew their Superintendence' from the Conferences to which they had been designated. In May, 1846, the first General Conference of South¬ ern Methodism met in Petersburg, Va. It made no considerable changes beyond what were necessary for * And thus the Convention realized the expectations of Dr. Elliott, when the action of the General Conference was fresh in memory, and before he conceived that he would acquire fame by showing how the Methodist Episcopal Church could contradict, without stultifying, itself. What I quote is found in the West- era Christian Advocate, of August 16, 1844: " Calculating, then, from present ap¬ pearances, we see no other prospect than that the South will form an inde¬ pendent Methodist Episcopal Church. . . . We may be wrong in our view; but we confess we can see no injury that will accrue to religion from this new organization, or rather modification or adjustment of the old one. At an early age, Christianity was resolved into many distinct connectional organizations, called Churches—as the Churches of Anlioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. . . . Even Methodism has given examples of similar character. There is the British Conference, the Irish Conference, the Canadian Conference—all act¬ ing independently—all cooperating—all in friendly relations. Our Church is actually become unwieldy, in consequence of its great size and the vast ex¬ tent of territory over which it is spread, with people entertaining different views on topics calculated to create different action. How can we see any more evil that can arise from dividing the Church into two great independent eccle¬ siastical confederations than (comparing small with great) in dividing classes, circuits, stations, districts, Conferences, etc. . . . Indeed, we are persuaded that distinct organizations must exist, in the nature of things, in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States; and that necessity and Scripture princi¬ ples will inevitably enforce them. We believe that the unity, purity, power, and ertendin;/ influence of Methodism may be promoted by these means." AlasI '• how had the mighty fallen" before 1848! The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 137 organizing the several departments of Church-work. Its most important utterance was the interpretation fixed by the Conference of the pi*ovisions of the Plan with respect to the "border;" and what that was, and whether it was right or wrong, it does not belong to my argument to consider. Nor need I inquire whether the Bishops of the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church were right or wrong in their diverse interpretation of the same provisions, when they came together, March 3, 1847, to consider "sev¬ eral subjects connected with our [their] administration relative to border-work, under the Plan of Separation adopted by the last General Conference of the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church." Though the variant usage on both sides, under these diverse interpretations of the Plan, became the prolific source of contention and a ground of its repudiation, yet, as I design treating the subject in hand, it is not necessary here to justify either interpretation, as my readers will see when I come to treat of the legal as¬ pects of the Plan of Separation. I close this chapter at the point where the two inde¬ pendent and coordinate Methodist Episcopal Churches are found coexistent, organized and at work in every respect, and to the same great end of "spreading script¬ ural holiness over these lands," only differing in that they were no longer under the jurisdiction of one ecur- menical General Conference, but each under the head¬ ship of its own high Church-court of this name. 0 why could they not have been at peace? Why did preju¬ dice, and passion, and the personal bickerings and an¬ imosities of leaders, and editors, and other writers, arouse bitterness and hostility between these kindred branches of the great Methodist family—distinct in jurisdiction, but one in purpose? Note.—Much has been written of the animus of the resolutions passed in the primary and official meetings of the Church in the South held in the autumn of 1844. Dr. Elliott describes them as of "the most intemperate character"—as differing "in temper very little from the language and spirit of the proceedings which char¬ acterize the political party proceedings of the day." It is true that some hard things were said; hut the candid reader, who has 138 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. followed my narrative thus far, must acknowledge that it needed very plain, if not very strong, language to "characterize" this en¬ tire transaction. Dr. E. gives what lie calls "ample selections" from them. In every case, however, he omits the arguments on which they are based, wherein is found the vindication of the opin¬ ions that prevailed in the South respecting the action of the Gen¬ eral Conference. Among others he gives resolutions passed by the Church in Milledgeville, Ga., June 22, 1844, where the writer, then in his early ministry, was stationed; but he omits the "long and elaborate argument" which precedes the resolutions. The meet¬ ing, as the writer recollects, was instigated by the leading members of the Church, and he, with a committee of gentlemen—whose names, if mentioned here, would be recognized as those of promi¬ nent citizens of the State—was appointed to draft an expression of opinion suitable to the occasion. The following, from his pen, was subsequently offered and unanimously adopted. The resolu¬ tions doubtless contain some strong words; but I reproduce them here, willing that the reader shall judge of the reasons the South could then give to justify "its temper and language;" and, also, as a fair sample of the prevalent arguments in Southern Methodist circles: Whereas, As members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we feel ourselves sorely aggrieved by the action of the late General Conference of said Church in virtually requiring Bishop Andrew to desist from the exercise of his epis¬ copal functions so long as he is a slave-holder, we deem it our duty to express publicly our unqualified condemnation of the unconstitutional, impolitic, dis¬ ingenuous, and tyrannical proceedings of the said Conference, and our hearty approval of the patient and firm adhesion by the Southern Delegates to the interests of Southern Methodism in this trying juncture. We hold that the action of the General Conference in the premises is uncon¬ stitutional. The Discipline of the Church—which is its Constitution—contains no law that excludes or ejects a slave-holder from the Episcopacy. On the contrary, it provides that a preacher shall, for holding slaves, forfeit his min¬ isterial character only unclcr certain well-defined circumstances, thereby inferentially securing all ecclesiastical rights to slave-holding ministers in whom these conditions do not meet. It was not pretended that Bishop Andrew was de¬ barred the benefit of such constitutional allowance, or that he could be ejected from office by the operation of any rule of Discipline. He is, therefore, con¬ stitutionally a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and any procedure which declares him incompetent to the exercise of his episcopal functions in any portion of that Church, for holding slaves, is grossly violative of its Con¬ stitution. Such is the action of the General Conference which seeks to deprive him either of his civil privileges as a citizen of a slave-holding State, or else of his ecclesiastical privileges of a Bishop—privileges which, "so far from be¬ ing incompatible according to the Discipline, are secured to him by its pro¬ visions. Its interference,"therefore, with either his civil or his ministerial rights, on the ground that he is a slave-holder, is without law and against law, and, consequently, unconstitutional. It, moreover, violates the Constitution, because, without depriving him of office by direct action, its effect is to bar him from the exercise of that office in several Conferences, and thereby encroaches upon that constitutional pro¬ vision which secures to the Church a " General Superintendency." It is unconstitutional, because it demands that he pretermit the discharge of the official duties enjoined by the Discipline, for a reason which it does not make sufficient to relieve him from his episcopal responsibility, and thereby warrants a neglect of duty, which the Constitution of the Church condemns, and for which he could be arraigned and expelled from office. It is unconstitutional, because it virtually deposes him from office without any allegation of prior unfaithfulness as an officer or as a Christian, or tho pretense of present moral, mental, or physical incompetency to discharge the The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 139 duties of his office; and as without impeachment, so, consequently, without proper trial, is he deposed—whereas the Discipline secures to every minister trial according to specific provision before he can be disfranchised of any ecclesiastical immunities. We pronounce the action of the Conference impolitic., and we are ready to maintain the allegation. The interests of the Church in the slave-holding States require that all religious Communions leave the subject of slavery to the voluntary action of the civil authority; and we would deem it wholly in¬ expedient for any Southern Church, or the representatives of such Church,'to deprive of his ecclesiastical privileges a slave-holder, merely because he is one. This the General Conference has done virtually in the case of Bishop Andrew. Though this is not an act of the Southern Church, yet, as an act of our General Conference, it becomes ours, and we are responsible to the South¬ ern people for this outrage upon their opinions and feelings, unless we sol¬ emnly disavow all participation in such decision. We need hardly say how odious our Church wouldbecome, and how fatal it would be to our peaceful and prosperous existence, were we to yield an unresisting acquiescence in an act based upon the principle that such is the uncompromising hostility of the Methodist Episcopal Church to slavery that a pure-minded", self-sacrificing, and useful Bishop must cease to discharge his episcopal duties as soon as in any way he becomes " connected with slavery." Let us sanction this act, and thus make it our own, and we bring upon our Church in the slave-holding States a storm of indignation which would soon sweep it from the land. This we cannot, we will not, do. Sooner than do it we would willingly see our con- nectional union broken into a thousand fragments. We deem, therefore, the action of the Conference impolitic, heeause it will array against the Church all the prejudice and hostility which Southerners feel toward those who illegitimately interfere with the subject of slavery. It is impolitic, because it leads the community to infer that the Methodist Episcopal Church will eventually consider itself constrained to legislate upon a civil institution so far as to deprive the slave-holding members either of their civil rights or of their Church-membership—an anticipated issue that at once places our Church in the South in imminent jeopardy. It is impolitic, because calculated to excite the animosity of slave-holders against our Church, and to prompt them to exclude our preachers from that unrestricted access to the slaves by which alone their spiritual interests can be advanced. It is impolitic, because, for the purpose of retaining in Church-communion discontented fanatics and disorganizing radicals, it does violence to the feelings of a respectable portion of the ministry in the non-slave-holding States, gives dissatisfaction to a large number of the better-informed and more judicious of our Northern brethren, and drives the Church to a position where a division, by either peaceable or schismatic measures, is inevitable; bringing with it all those disastrous civil and religious consequences which disunion among brethren and alienation of feeling in a large and respectable Christian Com¬ munion will undoubtedly produce. The. action of the Conference in this case was disingenuous. Without deposing Bishop Andrew by an overt act, it trammels him in the discharge of his official duties. By declaring him unacceptable to a majority of the Conferences, it deprives him virtually of all episcopal authority in those Conferences, yet leaves him liable to censure for neglect of duty on the one hand, or of contumacy on the other, as he may not, or may, undertake to discharge the duties the Discipline enjoins. It leaves him a Bishop, and yet it prohibits the exercise of his episcopal functions. Though coming under the guise of a mere ex¬ pression of opinion, it is in fact a suspension from office—as the Discipline defines that office. This anomalous procedure can be understood only by supposing that the Conference ungenerously sought to transfer the responsi¬ bility of all the unhappy consequences of "its iniquitous act from itself to Bishop Andrew. It requires that he indorse, by a voluntary relinquishment of his official station, its unwarrantable assumptions that a slave-holder is not fit for a Bishop, that the Church cannot constitutionally have any respect to the sanction of' slavery by governmental authority, and that the civil and ec¬ clesiastical rights of its members are at variance, and it thus seeks to involve him in the odium which attaches to the Conference for its oppressive meas¬ ures. Fully aware, too, from the reiterated assertions of Southern Delegates, that any interference with Bishop Andrew's official standing would necessarily result in a division of the Church, it seeks to make him responsible for such an issue, by pretending that he first violated Church-order, and that the South 140 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. sustains him in his act even to the destruction of the integrity of the Church; whereas, the severance of our Church-union cannot result trom any past or prospective act of Bishop Andrew, but must inevitably take place in conse¬ quence of the unconstitutional position taken by the General Conference to¬ ward the institutions of the South—a position which the direct expulsion of Bishop Andrew could not render more unsatisfactory, and which is not to be changed by his resignation. We hold that this unfair attempt to make Bishop Andrew responsible either to Southern sentiment by resigning and thus sus¬ taining the reprehensible act of the Conference, or to the Constitution by an unauthorized cessation of his official duties, or to the Conference as a contu¬ macious officer, or to the whole Church as the author of its disunion, is as dis¬ ingenuous and unworthy of true-hearted men as the decision by which this bitterness of spirit was manifested is contrary to sound policy and constitu¬ tional provisions. The action of the Conference was tyrannical. It was the act of a majority, governed by false views and unjustifiable prejudices—unconstitutional, impol¬ itic, and oppressive; and yet an act which the Conference persisted in con¬ summating, despite every effort used, every argument urged, and every en¬ treaty employed, to dissuade it from final action for four years, so that the voice of the Church and of the Annual Conferences could be heard 011 the sub¬ ject. Such postponement could not have seriously affected the interests of the Church, and in the interim the "sense" of the "whole Church could have been ascertained. Such an act, so unauthorized, for lack of formal instruction from those who are the proper final judges of the extent of Bishop Andrew's " embarrassment," and one persisted in, unnecessarily, in full view of the dis¬ astrous consequences, must be characterized as a tyrannical exercise of power, which deprives us of undoubted rights; and it is so ominous of future unjust oppressions that we, as Southern members of the Methodist Episco¬ pal Church, have lost all hope of a maintenance of our constitutional immu¬ nities under the present organization of that Church. Therefore, 1. Resolved, That we recommend to the Georgia Annual Conference, at its next session, to adopt such measures as its wisdom can devise for the immediate severance of our ecclesiastical union, in every respect, with tliat portion of the Methodist Episcopal Church which sustains the action of the late General Conference, in virtually suspending a Bishop from his high office merely be¬ cause he is a slave-holder; and we farther recommend the organization of a separate Methodist Episcopal Church, composed of members and ministers residing in the slave-holding States, and of such as can unite with them on their principles. 2. Resolved, That we cordially approve of the conduct of the Delegates to the General Conference from the slave-holding States in resisting firmly and dispassionately all the encroachments of a lawless and tyrannical majority upon the rights of slave-holders, sustaining ministerial or official rank m the Church. 3. Resolved, That we highly esteem those Delegates from the non-slave- holding States who supported, by their advocacy and their votes, the Consti¬ tution of the Church, and the rights of slave-hol'ders, firmly adhering to prin¬ ciples, even when they knew that "they of their own household " would be their future enemies. 4. Resolved, That we tender to Bishop Andrew our cordial sympathy in this most afflictive trial to his mind and feelings, applaud him for'maintaining his position so decidedly against the formidable array of opposition which he had to encounter, and express to him our desire that he yield no deference to the declared " sense " of the Conference, but continue in the discharge of his epis¬ copal duties in the Southern Conferences, where his labor may be bestowed upon those who appreciate his ability, love his character, and delight to htmor both. 5. Resolved, That we admire the capacity and zeal with which the venerable and beloved Bishop Soulc opposed the unconstitutional aggressions of the majority of the Conference—hope that when the Church is divided he will be with us in fact as he is in principle, and pray that he may live many years to exercise the office of a Bishop in the Southern Methodist Episcopal Church. The above argument and resolutions, Dr. Elliott being judge, are a fair "sample" of the immediate expression of opinion at the South; and I leave it to the candid reader of the history of this entire transaction to judge if the strength of the language is not fully justified by the facts and the arguments. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 141 CHAPTER, X. THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1848.—REPUDIATION OF THE PLAN OF SEPARATION. THE next important event bearing on the question in hand is the' action of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1848. I con¬ fine myself to those facts directly related to my sub¬ ject. I. I notice first the reception of the Fraternal Mes¬ senger from the Church, South, appointed by the Pe¬ tersburg General Conference in 1846. Dr. Lovick Pierce, who was the messenger selected, was early at the Conference, and addressed a respectful note to that body, stating his mission—that he was sent to bear to them the Christian salutations of the Church, South, and to assure them that it sincerely desired that the two great Wesleyan bodies should maintain at all times a warm and confiding fraternal relation to each other; and that he ardently desired that they, on their part, would accept the offer in the same spirit of brotherly love and kindness. The Committee on the State of the Church, to which this note was referred, reported, in two days, That whereas there are serious questions and difficulties exist¬ ing between the two bodies, therefore, Resolved, That, while we tender to Rev. Dr. Pierce all personal courtesies, and invite him to attend our sessions, this General Con¬ ference does not consider it proper at present to enter into fra¬ ternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South: Providedhowever, that nothing in this resolution shall be so con¬ strued as to operate as a bar to any propositions from Dr. Pierce, or any other representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 142 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. South, toward the settlement of existing difficulties between that body and this. But as there were no "difficulties"—or, if any, at least none known in any official way to the Petersburg General Conference, unless as to the property ques¬ tion, which was in the hands of Commissioners of both Conferences*—Dr. Pierce could only depart with a kind word—stating that if ever the Methodist Episco¬ pal Church should at any time make the offer of fra¬ ternal relations to the Church, South, on the basis of the Plan of Separation of 1844, that Church will cordially entertain the proposition.f Let us inquire into the reasons for declining fra¬ ternization : Dr. Elliott tells us (p. 637) that neither the Church, South, nor Dr. Pierce considered, or acknowledged, that difficulties existed, and therefore a fraternal recognition would, in effect, go to say that the course of the South was as it ought to he, and the fraterniza¬ tion once recognized would preclude all farther adjustment, and this would virtually acknowledge the course of the South, and that the Methodist Episcopal Church was at fault. And again (p. 695): Had Dr. Pierce's fraternizing proposition been accepted while the difficulties existed, there would be neither propriety nor place for adjusting difficulties, as the very act of fraternization must have superseded any such adjustment. And again (p. 677): There was little hope in the General Conference of an adjustment. It was not supposed that Dr. P. could assure the General Conference that Bishops Soule and Andrew would confess their offenses and promise amendment; that the South would retract the decisions of the Petersburg General Conference in approving their Bishops; that all claims to the Book Concern would be relinquished, except on the terms originally entered into by the whole Church; that the Southern editors should publicly retract their course—those and many unsound doctrines connected with them, it was believed, would not he retracted by the South; and to ask even such things would be received as an insult by the South. And yet, proh pudor! the Conference told Dr. Pierce if he had any propositions to make respecting these "difficulties," which "it was not supposed ho had," he would be received fraternally. * Commissioners from the Church, South, reported themselves present in 1818 "to adjust and settle all matters pertaining to the division of the Church- property and funds, as provided for in the Plan of Separation." f By some means this communication did not <;et into the Journal. Dr. El¬ liott quotes it from the Christian Adrorale and Jouiiud. Found also in Journal of St. Louis Conference, Church, South. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 143 And Dr. Peck, chairman of the Committee on the State of the Church (here elected editor of the Chris¬ tian Advocate and Journal), wrote, July 12: Dr. Pierce asked the General Conference to settle the question of fraternal relations, as a preliminary measure. He professed to have no power to settle difficulties; the conflicts for territory and Church-property were beyond his reach. The two bodies were not in a state of amity, therefore a messenger for that object alone could not be received. To receive Dr. P. would he considered as acknowledging the course of the South, and even to give a pledge •to submit to such proceedings in future. (See Great Secession, p. b77.) The Church, South, ought perhaps to he excused—■ having just set up—for not recognizing these principles before seeking fraternal relations; but her fatal mis¬ take ought to be a warning to all other bodies, under like circumstances, to settle all outstanding difficulties before attempting fraternization. II. But the General Conference of 1848 is noted in this controversy for repudiating the Plan of Separation of 1844. Let me say first of this body that it was not a party to the agreement of 1844; for, 1. Of course it was a body elected after an interval of four years, and representing a constituency of that date rather than of the past. It was a new General Conference out and out—not the same body—conse¬ quently, in that sense, not a party to the agreement. 2. It did not represent the same constituency, except in part. In 1844 the preachers of thirty-three Annual Conferences were represented; in 1848, of these Con¬ ferences, only twenty remained as the constituency of this body, the other thirteen having, by an arrange¬ ment made by "the whole Church," as Dr. Elliott, per¬ haps inadvertently, but truly, says above, considered themselves at liberty to meet elsewhere, without detri¬ ment to any of their rights. This Conference did not succeed, did not represent, the Conference of 1844 or its constituency, and so was not a party to the Plan it repudiated. But of this I will say more hereafter. Its action was ex parte, is all I need say now, and those aggrieved and injured by it were not, and never have been, heard in defense of the allegations against them. 144 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 3. It may be gratifying to Methodists of the present generation, who delight to honor "the fathers" for their Christian consistency, to knOw that of the rep¬ resentatives of this partial constituency of the old Church there were but few who in 1844 voted for the Plan that in 1848 repudiated it; in another sense, therefore, the Conference of 1848 was not a party to the agreement of 1844. On the rescinding resolution there were 142 votes—132 ayes, 10 nays. Of the voters 41 were at the Conference of 1844; of the 41 there were 11 who voted against the Plan; of the 30 remain¬ ing 5* voted against repudiation—leaving but 25, out of the 132 ayes, who repudiated their own action of 1844; and these might have been subtracted then from the affirmative vote, and yet the Plan have carried by a Northern majority. If it be said that only those of the Conference of 1844 who were pledged to repudiation were reelected in 1848, it speaks well for the majority of 1844; and while it shows that even good men may sometimes mistake policy for principle, it does not make repudiation righteous. And now we examine the action of 1848 more par¬ ticularly. It took the shape of four "declarations"— the last divided into eight items. I judge, from what Dr. Elliott says, that the Report "furnishing the rea¬ sons for the action of the Conference" was not pre¬ sented till some days afterward, it being now "in course of preparation." But though the repudiation came first, and the reasons for it afterward, I shall ex¬ amine both in conjunction. First Declaration.—There exists no power in the General Con¬ ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, either directly or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions a division of said Church. Here is a begging of the question, and the "final re¬ port" does not argue the point. As to the abstract question, I have something to say hereafter. This was a case of declaring principles after, as was charged, they had been infracted in 1844 by the majority, and that majority one of representatives of their own * One of these went over a day or two afterward, making 20. The Disruption op the M. B. Church. 145 Conferences. The remedy was not to put the mi¬ nority, who had already accepted the Plan in good faith, in the wrong, but it would have been to de¬ vise some measure to make that action legitimate. Illegal acts, done by mistake or through inadvertency, are often legalized. General agreement, the lapse of time, peaceful possession for a term of years, and even necessity, in cases where great personal injustice does not offset the great public benefit, often make legiti¬ mate ultimately what was not wholly so in its incipiency; and where not thus becoming legitimate, subsequent legislation has often made it so. I do not offer this as argument, but only to show that doubt as to legality did not make repudiation imperative. Second Declaration.—It is the right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church, unless guilty of the violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any member of said right. No need to discuss this, for even if true, under all circumstances, it is not pertinent. If it prove any thing, it prpves too much—it proves that if one single member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the Church, had demanded, in opposition to five hundred thousand members, that the jurisdiction of the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church must not be withdrawn, for he wished "to remain in said Church," and it must not "deprive him of the right," then must the entire body have yielded to his wish. Preposterous! And it was not much better with two thousand seven hundred and thirty-five making this claim out of the half million. Third Declaration.—This right being inviolably secured by the Fifth Restrictive Article of the Discipline, which guarantees to members, ministers, and preachers the right of trial and appeal, any acts of the Church otherwise separating them from the Church contravene the constitutional rights and privileges of ministry and membership. Dr. Durbin wisely said: "The Fifth Restrictive Ar¬ ticle referred only to privileges where members are ac¬ cused of some immorality or violation of discipline. In such cases they must have a trial and privilege of 7 146 The Disruption of the II. E. Church. appeal." I suppose that those who passed this Declara¬ tion would allow that it was a strained construction of the Constitution to apply it to the case of the "divis¬ ion" of the Church, when they had so often said that the Constitution never contemplated division—had no¬ where provided for or agai nst it. This Article was made to secure justice to an accused member—one in Tennes¬ see, we will say. Does the Plan provide for an in¬ fraction of the Article? After separation of the Tennessee Conference from the original jurisdiction, such a member would be tried in the same Society, by the same persons and law, have an appeal to the same Quarterly or Annual Conference (beyond which no ap¬ peal of a private member or local preacher could go), as though the Church had remained undivided. Whose rights,then, did division take away? Traveling preach¬ ers could carry an appeal to the General Conference, and for them the division made no change, except that the appellate body was not constituted now of both Northern and Southern Delegates. If any preacher on either side objected, he was at liberty, "without blame," to transfer his "adherence"—as some did. This division of the Church was about equivalent to that which took place when charges, or circuits, or Conferences* were divided, and the expulsion less, in effect, than was constantly happening by the leaving out of appointments from the "plan of the circuit." This interpretation would have made it "unconstitu¬ tional" thus to leave out an isolated and almost de¬ funct "Society" of one or two members. Not only was this a strained construction of the Constitution, but it contradicts all precedent. Mr. Wesley had set off the American Societies, releasing them from amenability to himself, and yet it was not considered that the members thereby lost any of their rights as Methodists.f Nor did Mr. Wesley consider that this partition of jurisdiction was in any evil sense a division of Methodism. He wrote, within about a See Bishop Morris's letter, p. 118. f Divisions of jurisdiction between the British Wesleyans and their distantSo- cieties have been frequent—one while these chapters are preparing for the press —viz.: that by which the independent "Methodist Church in Tjanadn" has been erected, by consent of the British Conference, from the Wesleyan So¬ cieties. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 147 month of his death, to the Dev. Ezekiel Cooper, in this country: " See that you never give place to one thought of separating from your brethren in Europe; lose no opportunity of declaring to all men that the Methodists are one people in all the world, and that it is their de¬ termination so to continue." Farther precedents were to be found in the surrender of Lower Canada to the English Wesleyans in 1820-1, and in the provision made in 1828 for a peaceful sep¬ aration of the Conference in Upper Canada, and its erection into an independent Methodist Episcopal Church. But as these cases are said not to contradict this first dictum of the Declaration, and that they can¬ not be pleaded as precedents,* I shall discuss them here¬ after very fully. It seemed difficult to make the fourth Declaration satisfactory. Mr. Collins proposed, as a substitute, a board of commissioners, in effect, to settle all "difficul¬ ties" and to confirm the separation; lost—only twen¬ ty-two voting for it. Dr. Gr. Peck offered a substitute, which was laid on the table, and one offered by Dr. Simpson prevailed. This was divided into eight sec¬ tions. I give them, changing the order a little for con¬ venience of examination: 1. Sec. 1. The Report of the Select Committee on the Declara¬ tion, etc., of which the memorialists [two thousand seven hundred and thirty-five Methodists in the South] complain, and the opera¬ tion of which deprived them of their privileges as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, was intended to meet a necessity which, it was alleged, might arise, and was given as a peace-offer¬ ing to secure harmony on the Southern border. This may be granted, provided it was not understood to be "a peace-offering" only—good if the Plan was never acted on; to be revoked if accepted and acted on, *The value and authority of precedents in resolving doubtful constitutional questions is stated in Story on the Constitution, pp. 127—9: "A more alarming doc¬ trine could not be promulgated by any court than that it was at liberty to dis¬ regard all former rules and decisions, and to decide for itself, without reference to the settled course of antecedent principles. ... If there ever was a case in which uniformity of interpretation might be well deemed a necessary postulate, it would seem to be that of a fundamental law of government. ' Moreover, the Methodist Episcopal Church ought not to have pronounced so broadly its doctrine above, and thus repudiated its precedents; for the oppo¬ site doctrine and the precedents may yet be needed by that Church—will be if that idea, mooted at times, prevails of setting apart the foreign European work into a distinct jurisdiction. Or, war might create the necessity 01 up¬ holding a different doctrine. 148 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. as if offered in good faith—granted if something more and better than a ruse, a "tub to the whale," a "sop to Cerberus." The South does not so discount the hon¬ esty of "the fathers" as to imagine they were playing a trick amid their tears and prayers. 2. Sec. 4. Without waiting, as this Conference believes, for the occurrence of the anticipated necessity for which the Plan was framed, action was taken in the premises by the Southern Dele¬ gates. The final report complains much of what the Dele¬ gates did after the General Conference. The acts of the General Conference, they say, did not produce the necessity of separation. The Delegates did it. They should have gone home, quieted the public mind, re¬ sisted insubordination—or, if not, have done nothing. But I submit that this General Conference was not the proper judge of the necessities of the Southern Church. The Plan left it to the Southern Conferences alone to settle this question, and they did it. I refer to what I have heretofore written to prove, and I claim that all history will sustain my opinion, that the action of the Delegates was wise, conserved the Church from break¬ ing into fragments, and saved Methodism at the South. 3. Sec. 2. It was farther made dependent (1) upon the conse¬ quence [sic, concurrence (?) ] of three-fourths of the members of the several Annual Conferences, in reference to a part of its regu¬ lations. And, Sec. 5. The Annual Conferences, by their votes, officially received, have refused to concur with that part of the Plan. This last is not a controverted fact (though I have found no official report of the vote), unless it be on the ground of abstention from voting by some Conferences. Then, whether the vote was negative may be questioned on the principle of law, "Qui tacet ve'rbo et facto, ubi eloqui vet resistere potest ac debet, consentire videtur "* —in effect, in this case, the Conferences voted affirm¬ atively. (See Liebefs Hermeneutics, p. 18.) The "final report" asserts that though "the ratifi¬ cation of the Plan was not directly, and in so many words, submitted to the Annual Conferences, yet it is * Whs it on this principle that Dr. Durbin, voting generally "yea," voted " nay " on this section? The Disruption op the M. B. Church. 149 evident that, in the honest opinion of the Southern brethren, it was, in effect, so submitted." The proof is found in two extracts, which, the committee say, "in their connections," establish their opinion. I have, in former instances, given these "extracts, in their connec¬ tions, and I give the reader liberty to find them—if he can. That the assumption of the General Conference of 1848 is not justified by the facts of the case, I have, I think, conclusively proved, not only by the terms and form of the Plan itself, but also (1) by the expressed opinions of Northern Delegates of 1844—both of those favoring and of those opposing the Plan; (2) by the opinions, then given, of Drs. Capers, Paine, and Winans; (3) by letters and articles written within a little time by Drs. Bangs, Peck, Finley, Bond, Durbin, Capers, and Paine; (4) by the action of the Northern Confer¬ ences on the Bestrictive Article; (5) by the action of the Southern Conferences, and their instructions to Delegates to the Louisville Convention; (6) by showing that the earliest intimation of non-concurrence did not contemplate a defeat of separation, but only of with¬ holding the property from the South; (7) by the course of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, after the Conferences had voted on the Bestrictive Article, in conforming their administration to the Plan, inter¬ preting its provisions, and giving instructions to the Churches how to carry them out—action approved by the Conference of 1848. It is not for me to vindicate any inconsistency there. In farther proof of the falsity of this assumption, I will add: It might have been proved, in the cases afterward brought before the courts, that the Plan of Separation was never enacted; because the Conferences had not concurred. This being established, there would have been no need for any other argument. It was pleaded; yet even Judge Leavitt, who decided the Ohio case in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, did not base his decision on this ground, but on the want of plenary power in the General Conference it¬ self. 4. Sec. 3. And (2) upon the observance of certain provisions rc- 150 The Disruption op the M. B. Church. specting a boundary, by the distinct ecclesiastical Connection sep¬ arating from us, should such Connection be formed. And, Sec. 6. And the provisions respecting a boundary have been violated by the highest authorities of said Connection, which sep¬ arated from us, and thereby the peace and harmony of many So¬ cieties in our Southern border have been destroyed. I shall not controvert this last statement. However true, the annulling of the Plan was not the proper rem¬ edy. But the Plan could not have made separation de¬ pend upon observing provisions respecting a "border," when there could have been no border till after separa¬ tion had been consummated. The observance of this provision was no condition whatever, except a condi¬ tion of subsequent peace and harmony. The General Conference of 1848—not the Plan—made it a condition to keeping faith with the South; and the Methodist Episcopal Church, for any violations on the part of the South, has amply avenged itself, from Maryland to Texas. .The "border" difficulty grew out of the variant in¬ terpretations of the Plan.* It was a question of "con¬ struction;" and the remedy, the only righteous rem¬ edy, was in arbitration, or in the courts of justice. This question will come up hereafter. 5. Sec. 7. Therefore, in view of these facts, as well as for the principles contained in the preceding declarations, there exists no obligation on the part of this Conference to observe the previsions of said Plan. Sec. 8. And it is hereby declared null and void. And now the gist of the "difficulties" between the two Churches is whether or not this repudiation was authorized by the facts on which it was based, or is sustained by sound moral and legal principles, or is a righteous judgment in any aspect. Mr. Davis, who, in 1844, was one of those who took the "laboring oar," left the Conference without the excuse of hasty and inconsiderate blundering, for he, opposing these resolutions, maintained: This Conference has not the right to pronounce the Plan*" null and void." It involves the right to separate, without revolution, with¬ out violent disruption, without the reproach of schism, and of peace¬ able and unmolested occupation of territory. On constitutional * See note at conclusion of chapter. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 151 grounds, this Conference has no right to pass upon the acts of 1844. The Plan may be unconstitutional, "but we have not the right to pronounce it so." Manifestly right; for to repeal the legislation of a past General Conference, which it might effect if repeal dis¬ turb no rights acquired by such legislation, is far dif¬ ferent from undoing its acts—nullifying a solemn cove¬ nant—whereby rights have been conveyed that can¬ not, and ought not to, be recalled. But more of this .hereafter. Let us get on with the history of connected events. The Book Concern question was still unsettled. It was resolved that the Agents should take legal advice as to the power the Conference might have of submit¬ ting the claims of the South to arbitration. If not au¬ thorized to do this, should suit be commenced, then they were to tender adjustment by legal arbitration. To proffer arbitration to the South was deemed unau¬ thorized, and the South would not submit to arbitra¬ tion as to the legality of its action in consummating the separation. Suits were brought in the United States Circuit Courts of Mew York, June 13, 1849, and of Ohio, July 12, 1849,* for the property in Mew York and Cincinnati. In the Mew York suit, decision was given in favor of the Church, South, Movember 11,1851, and the matter settled December 8, 1853. The case in Cincinnati in July, 1,852, went adversely to the Church, South; and it was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States, where, on April 25, 1854, by a full bench of eight justices—Judge McLean, a Methodist, who had already expressed his opinions, declining to sit in the case—the judgment of the Ohio Circuit Court was re¬ versed, and the Plan of Separation enforced. Thus was the action of the South vindicated by the highest judicial authority in the land. That decision offered a fit opportunity for the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church, without loss of honor or self- respect, to pronounce that, whatever its decision in 1848, it was now fully justified in recalling it, and ac¬ knowledging the Church, South, as a legitimate out- *1 am particular in giving these dates, because it has been often alleged that Dr. Fierce was not received in 1848, lest it should prejudice the issue of pending suits for the Book Concern property. 152 The Disruption of the M. B. Church. growth of the ecumenical Methodism of 1844, as pro¬ vided for by the Plan of Separation, and that, too, without constraining the opinions of any person con¬ cerning the reasons for, and the propriety of, enacting that Plan. But, unfortunately for Christian harmony, this was not done; and so there is more history to write. Note.—I have said that the variant interpretations of the Plan respecting the border was a question of "construction," for arbitra¬ tors or for the courts to settle. Without pretending to decide which of these diverse interpretations was right, I submit both of them here to the judgment of my readers—asking them to refer likewise to that earlier interpretation given by Bishop Morris in the letter from him, given at page 118. Southern Construction, Given at the Petersburg General -Conference, 1846. The construction put upon the provisions of this rule by the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, nnd by those of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for any thing that appears to the contrary to your committee is that it gives a plain, permissive grant of occupancy to the Southern Churches along the borders northwardly, until the dividing line is satisfactorily settled nnd de¬ termined, by the formal adherence North of a definite line of Societies and stations. This ascertained, then the Societies and stations lying beyond that lino become interior charges,which are to be left undisturbed by the Southern ministry. But the line of division never becomes fixed until such an act. of adherence North takes place. This act alone is made, by the aforesaid rule, the condition of protection against the advance of the Southern boundary, and vice versa. Such a construction of the law alone secures to border Societies the rights and privileges allowed by the Plan of Separation, and provides, at the same time, for the peace and security of the border region. A question has been raised whether the decisions of a border Annual Con¬ ference to adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church does not necessarily carry with it all the Societies and stations on the Southern border. To affirm this, however, would be to deny to these Societies and stations the precise rights of choice and adherence guaranteed to them by the very terms of the Plan of Separation. The rule embraces stations, Societies, and Confer¬ ences, To the former, in broad distinction from the latter, it grants the priv¬ ilege of choosing, independently of the position of the Annual Conference, to which of the tvvo'Churches they prefer to adhere. The very terms of the Plan, as well as its principles and the animus imponentis, settle" this question, and concede to all border charges, irrespective of Conference action, the right to elect for themselves, by resolution of the majority, the ecclesiastical position which they prefer; and so far from its being true that the Annual Conferences hold the right of determining primarily in this matter, the reverse is the fact. It is connection with the border, and not with the Annual Conferences, which is the material thing. Conferences, as such, may make their adherence, North or South; but so may Societies and stations on the boundary-line, with the freedom of election perfectly untrammeled by what the General Conference has done, and with a right, so far as the provisional grant of the Plan is con¬ cerned, as distinct and primary, as that of the Conference, since no distinc¬ tion in favor of one or the other is made in the grant. The disciplinary boundary-line of a border Conference, adhering North or South, prior to the action of the Societies, brings those Societies lying on the line into the Northern or Southern Church, as the case may be, and renders it unnecessary for the Societies here referred to to take formal action, if they agree in sentiment with the Annual Conference. If, however, they do not thus agree, the Conference action does not bind them. They may take action as Societies, or as charges—that is, circuits—and, adhering to the other Church, they transfer the boundary-line to the next tier of Societies adjoining, which thus become a line of border Societies; and they may, in time, by a similar The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 153 action, transmit the border relation and the provisional rights and privileges to those immediately beyond them. Thus the line is movable, northwardly or southwardly, until a line of Societies or circuits is found which coincides in their affinities and election with those of the Annual Conference, and thus it becomes fixed. Then all beyond is considered the field of "interior charges," which, by the terms of the Plan, are, in all cases, to be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated. The right of the border circuits to the benefits of the provisional arrangements of the Plan has also been denied. This has been urged chiefly on the ground that in the Plan the term circuits is not used. The construction in question maintains that those Societies alone of a border circuit lying adjoining the dividing line are in¬ vested with the right of choice, and violently considers the remainder of the circuit interior charges! which, by this summary interpretation, are cut off from all participation in the privilege of electing for themselves the Church to which they will adhere. But the answer to this is obvious. The. Methodist Book of Discipline and the law of Methodist usage nowhere consider a single Society or a circuit a charge. The entire circuit, composed of many or few Societies, as the case may be, is a single charge, under the pastoral oversight of a preacher, stationed by the authorized officer at the An¬ nual Conference. No one"Society, except it be a station, is a pastoral charge to the exclusion of the rest comprehended in the circuit. Interior charges are circuits, or stations, distinct in supervision, and lying back of the frontier, or border-line, and barred from the provisions of the Plan only by the adverse action of the intermediate circuit or station. Northern Construction. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church gave their interpretation of the rule nearly a year afterward, March 3, 4, 1847. Their Minutes say: " Bishop Hedding presented for consideration several subjects connected with our administration, relative to border work under the Plan of Separation, adopted by the last General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, when it was " 1. Resolved, That the Plan of Separation aforesaid provides for taking the votes by Conferences, stations, ana Societies, and not by circuits, in fixing their Church-relations. "2. Resolved, That in our administration, under said Plan of Separation, we consider the period of taking the vote of the Conferences, stations, and So¬ cieties is limited: for Conferences to the time of their next session after the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Chuch, South, and for stations and Societies to the time of the first session of their respective Annual Conferences subsequent to said organization. " 3. Resolved, That in our administration we will, under the Plan of Separa¬ tion aforesaid, consider the first vote regularly and fairly taken after the or¬ ganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by any border station or Society South of the line of separation as final in fixing its relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church, or the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. "4. Resolved, therefore, That we can send no preacher to any station or So¬ ciety South of the line of separation, which, subsequent to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has once received a preacher from said Church, without remonstrance from a majority of its members. " 5. Resolved, also, That when a border station or Society North of the line of separation has once received a preacher from the Methodist Episcopal Church—subsequent to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South—without remonstrance from the majority of said station or Society, it fixes the Church-relation of said station or Society to the Methodist Episcopal Church, even if it were to be admitted that the Plan of Separation allows sta¬ tions and Societies North of said line to vote on this subject of Church-rela¬ tionship." ' Let it be borne in mind that we do not assert either the correct¬ ness or incorrectness of one or the other of these interpretations. But we do insist that it was a question of "construction" for the courts to settle, and not for the ex parte decision of the Conference of 1848. 7* 154 The Disruption of the M. E. CnuRcn. CHAPTER XI. TWO DIVISIONS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH PRIOR TO 1844. I IT view of the facts of previous history, those were very extraordinary postulates of the General Con¬ ference of 1848—namely: That there exists no power in the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, either directly or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions a division of said Church; that it is the right of every member to remain in said Church, unless guilty of a violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to de¬ prive any member of said right—a right inviolably secured by the Eifth Restrictive Article in the Discipline, which guarantees to members, ministers, and preachers the right of trial and appeal; and any acts of the Church otherwise separating them from the Church contravene the constitutional rights and privileges of min¬ istry and membership. I propose to show that these reasons, given for pro¬ nouncing the Plan of Separation "null and void," are themselves rendered "null and void" by two instances in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, when what is here pronounced unconstitutional was done by the General Conference itself. I allude to partitions in Canada, of which I proceed to give ac¬ count. The first case was an absolute surrender of Lower Canada to the British Wesleyan Conference—an ex¬ change of Church-territory; and as it was done without consulting the members, there were, doubtless, some who were thus "directly deprived of the right to re¬ main in the Methodist Episcopal Church" for no "vio- The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 155 lation of its rules." Dr. John Emory was the Ameri¬ can Agent in this transfer, and we find a fair account of this transaction in his Life* Methodism had been planted in Canada by the pio¬ neer preachers of Northern New York. During the War of 1812 the American Conference was careful to appoint natives of Great Britain; but their Church- relations with this country made them objectionable to some, who preferred to receive their preachers from the British Conference. Yet the majority were strongly attached to the American preachers. Out of these facts grew events more or less parallel with—though, in some things, much unlike—other events to be re¬ corded in a subsequent chapter. But it is well to note the agreement, or disagreement, as we pass on. The British Conference, taking advantage of circum¬ stances, sent missionaries into Lower Canada. These, "instead of directing their etforts, as they had been in¬ structed, to unoccupied ground, began to interfere with the Societies already formed by the American preach¬ ers, taking possession of their chapels [I do not know that the war minister ordered it, as in a parallel case in the South], and endeavoring to induce the members to join the British Connection." A church in Mon¬ treal was taken possession of by the British missionary, who had been sent, by request of a few official mem¬ bers, to the exclusion of the regularly appointed preacher. [Farther parallelism.] Bishop Asbury wrote, January 15, 1816, to the Rev. Joseph Benson: "We have planted, we have watered, we have taken a most sacred charge of Upper and Lower Canada for ahout twenty-two years. . . . We, as ministers of Christ, think it a sin of sins to divide the body of Christ" [of course by local divisions, such as these mis¬ sionaries were effecting]. He says that special caution to avoid all civil and political interference was given to his missionaries [parallelism fails]; and that "two-thirds of the Society in Mon¬ treal would prefer our preachers." He adds: "But we shall bear long, suffer long, make every explanation, till the charge is given up to us. Whether this thing has been done through ignorance or the influence of wicked and designing men, we shall give our fathers and brethren time to inform themselves, and time to cor¬ rect their conduct; for we are sure that our Episcopacy could never -See, .also, Bang.s'.s History of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 156 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. so act out of order as to send a preacher to take possession of a charge so consequential under the oversight of the parent Con¬ nection." There was no agreement between the two Connec¬ tions violated in this case, as in the intrusion, during and after the Confederate war, into the South; and Bishop Andrew might have addressed Bishop Ames— mutatis mutandis—a much stronger letter in 1865-6. But I am anticipating. Delegates from the British Conference were at the General Conference of 1816, proposing that the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church should be confined to Upper Canada, and that Lower Canada should be surrendered to the "YVesleyans. The answer was: We cannot, consistently with our duty to the Societies under our charge in the Canadas, give up any part of them, or any of our chapels in those Provinces, to the superintendence of the British Connection. Subsequent Conferences wisely reviewed and set aside this opinion, as we shall see, and consented to the exchange.* The next British Conference sent three more mis¬ sionaries, and continued its labor in Montreal—recom¬ mending, however, "that the premises be given up, unless voluntary use of them be allowed." In 1819 Bishop McKendree received a letter from the Missionary Committee, London, stating That instructions had been given to their missionaries " to preach in no chapel now jointly occupied by the American brethren; and, for the sake of peace, to pursue their labors separately, and not to continue in any station previously occupied by the American brethren, except where the population is so large and so scattered that it is evident a very considerable part of them is neglected. Instructions have been sent to these missionaries that it was not intended they should invade the Societies raised up by the preach¬ ers appointed by the American Conference, and divide them," etc. In short, they were instructed not to pursue a policy of "disintegration and absorption," and here the par¬ allelism fails. In 1820 urgent memorials were sent to the General *It is interesting to inquire, just here, Where was the " compact "—the legal fiction of 1828, to be noted presently—when Bishop Asbury thus wrote, and the Conference thus answered, this proposal? The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 157 Conference from Societies in the Canadas, praying for some prompt and decisive action in reference to the increasing difficulties, and it was Resolved, That it is the duty of the Methodist Episcopal Church to continue their episcopal charge over our Societies in the Can¬ adas: Provided, nevertheless, that the Episcopacy shall have au¬ thority to negotiate with the British Conference respecting Lower Canada, in the way and manner they shall see fit. The Bishops—McKendree, George, and Roberts— were authorized to send a commissioner to England. They selected Dr. Emory, and, in their instructions, said: "We are of opinion that the most effectual means to prevent col¬ lisions in future will he to establish a specific line, by which our field of labor shall be bounded on the one side and that of the British missionaries on the other. [Almost the precise Plan fallen on in 1844.] Tou are at liberty to stipulate that our preachers shall confine their labors in Canada to the Upper Province, pro¬ vided that the British missionaries will confine theirs to the Lower. Here we have divisive action "authorized" by the Conference, and inaugurated by the Bishops, in direct contravention of the denial in 1848 of power to do this thing. And the division was consummated; for Dr. Emory went to England, and was received grace¬ fully by the Missionary Committee. He writes: By some of the most distinguished members of it the union of the Methodist bodies throughout the world was distinctly avowed as of most sacred and paramount importance; the occupation of our premises in Montreal was admitted to be wholly indefensible; and, also, any interference with our Societies or chapels in any other part; the influence of political considerations was held to be inconsistent with the character and duties of the committee; . . . in short, they declared themselves heartily glad to have this opportunity to correct any mistakes which might have been heretofore made. Here, again, the parallel has thus far failed; and I ask attention to the facts cited, as they show how Christian men can undo a wrong, they or their repre¬ sentatives may have done, gracefully and without any sense'of humiliation, or without "eating humble pie," as Dr. Curry would elegantly characterize a like con¬ cession to justice on the part of his Church. 158 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. Dr. Emory succeeded in his mission, and the Confer¬ ence of 1824: received his report, and returned to him "thanks for his active zeal and indefatigable diligence in faithfully and satisfactorily fulfilling the duties of his office," etc.—that is, for having exchanged away a portion of Episcopal Methodism, local preachers and people, chapels and parsonages, not to an autonomic coordinate jurisdiction, but to become a dependency to an alien, though kindred, Communion. Yet there is no power in a General Conference, said that body in 1848, "to pass any act which, directly or indirectly, authorizes, effectuates, or sanctions a division of said Church," or which can deprive one of membership in it, excep't after proper trial for violating law! In conformity to a stipulation with Dr. Emory that the American Bishops should address "the private and official members, trustees," etc., under the care of their preachers in Lower Canada, Bishop McKendree, Octo¬ ber 16, 1820, sent them a circular letter, in which he said: It has been agreed that our British brethren shall supply the Lower Provinces, and our preachers the Upper. It becomes our duty, therefore, to inform you of this agreement, and to advise you, in the most affectionate and earnest manner, to put yourselves and your chapels under the care of our British brethren, as their Societies and chapels in the Upper Province will he put under our care. . . . This communication, we confess, is not made with¬ out pain. . . . But necessity is laid upon us. . . . It is a peace-offering. . . . Forgive, therefore, our seeming to give you up. When Bishop McKendree wrote this, how did he un¬ derstand that "constitutional" provision which so fully "guarantees to members, ministers, and preachers the right of trial and appeal," as that "-any acts of the Church otherwise separating them from our Church contravene" their "constitutional rights?" for this thing was done not with the consent of all the mem¬ bership; and another division—that of Upper Can¬ ada, in 1828—was, in part, the result of disaffection growing out of this transaction. This division was consummated when, in February, 1821, commission¬ ers from each Connection met in Montreal, and fixed the time and manner of delivering up the sev- The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 159 eral charges which were to be relinquished on both sides. Dr. Elliott endeavors to break the force of this prec¬ edent by saying that, in 1820, the "Bishops withdrew their supervision from Lower Canada, and the Societies acquiesced" in it. But not every member; and, be¬ sides, what the Bishops did was authorized and ap¬ proved—sanctioned—by the General Conference, and Dr. Emory was applauded for negotiating the affair. The case is beautifully analogous to that of the Church, South. In July, 1845, as has been seen, the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, acting under au¬ thority of the Plan of Separation, "withdrew their supervision" from the Southern Conferences, and the Societies more than acquiesced in it; and the acts of the Bishops were approved at the next General Con¬ ference—but the acquiescence of those who inaugurated the movement is lacking. It is refreshing, amid the bitter contentions of these latter years, to look back to those days of yore, and see the lofty Christian spirit which prevailed in this transaction. "What a happy, practical method was that of "the fathers" of inaugurating and perpetuating fraternal relations!—the reality of fellowship rather than the appearance—something more than "vox, et prceterea nihil.''' How easily could the two Methodisms now make peace, if a spirit prevailed like that which dictated the instructions from the Secretaries of the British Missionary Committee to their missionaries in Canada! A few passages from the document—doubt¬ less from the pen of the eminent Bichard Watson— may be inserted here, as peculiarly suggestive. After referring to the resolution of the British Conference respecting this partition of jurisdiction, the Secretaries write: We have given you the resolutions in full, that you may see that we have recognized the principle that the Methodist body is one throughout the world; and that, therefore, its members are bound to cordial affection and brotherly union. The resolutions of the committee, passed some time ago and for¬ warded for j'our guidance, prohibiting any interference with the work of the American brethren, would show you that the existence of collisions between us and them gave us serious concern, and 160 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. that the committee were anxious to remove, as far as they at that time were acquainted with the circumstances, every occasion of dispute. Certainly the case of Montreal Chapel was one which we could never justify to our minds; and the committee have, in many in¬ stances, had but a partial knowledge of the real religious wants of the Upper Province, and of its means of supply. The only rea¬ son we could have for increasing the number of missionaries in that Province was the presumption of a strong necessity arising out of the destitute condition of the inhabitants, and the total want, or too great distance, of ministers. On no other ground could we apply money raised for missionary purposes for the supply of preachers to Upper Canada. The in¬ formation we have had for two years past has all served to show that the number of preachers employed there by the American brethren was greater than we had at first supposed, and was con¬ stantly increasing. To us, therefore, it now appears that, though there may be places in that Province which are not visited, they are within the range, or constantly coming within the range, of the extended American itinerancy; and that Upper Canada does not present to our efforts a ground so fully and decidedly missionary as the Lower Province, where much less help exists, and a great part of the population is involved in popish superstition. We know that political reasons exist in many minds for supply¬ ing even Upper Canada, as far as possible, with British missiona¬ ries; and however natural this feeling may he to Englishmen, and even praiseworthy when not carried too far, it will be obvious to you that this is a ground on which, as a missionary society, and especially as a society under the direction of a committee which recognizes as brethren, and one with itself, the American Method¬ ists, we cannot act. Upon any political feeling, which may exist either in your minds or in the minds of a party in any place, we cannot, therefore, pro¬ ceed. Our objects are purely spiritual, and our American brethren and ourselves are one body of Christians, sprung from a common stock, holding the same doctrines, enforcing the same discipline, and striving in common to spread the light of true religion through the world. In conformity with these views, we have long thought it a re¬ proach, and doing more injury by disturbing the harmony of the two Connections than could be counterbalanced by any local good, that the same city or town should see two congregations, and two Socie¬ ties, and two preachers professing the same form of Christianity, and yet thus proclaiming themselves rivals to each other, and, in some instances, invading each other's Societies and chapels, and thus producing party feelings. The purposes of each, we are ready to allow, have been good, though mistaken; and we rather blame ourselves for not having obtained more accurate information on The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 161 some particulars than intimate any dissatisfaction with the mission¬ aries in the Canadas, with whose zeal and labors we have so much reason to be satisfied. Tou will consider these resolutions as the fruit of a very ample inquiry, and of serious deliberation. None of the principles here adopted by us do indeed go farther than to prevent interference with each other's labors among tlie American and British missionaries, and the setting up of "altar against altar" in the same city, town, or village; but knowing that circumstances of irritation exist, and that too near a proximity might, through the infirmity of human nature, lead to a violation of that union which the Conference has deemed a matter of para¬ mount importance to maintain, we have thought it best to adopt a geographical division of the labor of each, and that the Upper Province should be left to the American brethren, and the Lower to you. The reasons for this are: 1. That the Upper Province is so adequately supplied by the American Conference as not to present that pressing case of neces¬ sity which will justify our expending our funds upon it. A transfer of Societies and places of preaching will of course follow. Our Societies in Upper Canada are to be put under the care of the American brethren; theirs in the Lower Province un¬ der yours. Peel that you are one with your American brethren, embarked in the same great cause, and eminently of the same religious fam¬ ily, and the little difficulties of arrangement will be easily sur¬ mounted; and if any warm spirits (which is probable) rise up to trouble you, remember that you are to act upon the gre^fc principle sanctioned by the Conference, and not upon local prejudices. The same advices, Mr. Emory has pledged himself, shall be given to the American preachers, and you will each endeavor ta transfer the same spirit into the Societies respectively. "When the preach¬ ers recognize each other as brethren, the people will naturally fall under the influence of the same feeling. I pass now to another instance of division in the Methodist Episcopal Ohtirch. The arrangement just detailed was not satisfactory to all the Canada Methodists, and there followed, in a few years, the separation of "Upper Canada into an inde¬ pendent jurisdiction first, and eventually the absorption of a large proportion of the membership into the Wes- leyan Connection. It has been denied that this second division of Episcopal Methodism can he pleaded as a precedent for that of 1844. Here I join issue. Dr. Elliott gives what he holds to he the differentia 162 The Disruption op the M. B. Church. in the two cases. I will examine such of the points as are pertinent to the question of the right of a General Conference to "indirectly authorize" a division of the Church. He says: The General Conference of 1828 decided that they had no power to divide the Methodist Episcopal Church; and should the Canada Conference separate or secede, she must do it on her own responsi¬ bility—without authority from the General Conference for so doing. I will try the truth of this statement bj facts. Let us see what the General Conference of 1828 did really say and do. As in 1814, so then, it was asserted that the General Conference had not power directly to divide the Church; but it did, nevertheless, "pass an act" which "indirectly"—if not directly, indeed—"author¬ ized and sanctioned a division of the Church." This act is found in Volume I. of the Journal of the General Conference, pp. 406, 407. It reads: Resolved, by the Delegates, etc., . . . That whereas, the juris¬ diction of the Methodist Episcopal Church, etc., . . . has heretofore extended over the ministers and members in connection with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada by mutual agreement, and by the desire and consent of the brethren in the said Province [what else could have been said of the members, etc., in the South?]; and whereas, this General Conference is satisfacto¬ rily assured that our brethren in the said Province, under peculiar and pressing circumstances, do now desire to form themselves into a distinct Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relation with the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States [so all but two thousand seven hundred and thirty-five, out of about five hundred thousand, Methodists said in 1848—sending a fraternal messenger to show the desire of fraternity]; therefore, be it re¬ solved, by, etc.: 1. If the Annual Conference in Upper Canada . . . shall definitely determine on this course [the Plan of 1844 said: "Should the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States find it neces¬ sary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connection"], and elect a General Superintendent, etc., . . . this Conference does here¬ by authorize any one or more of the General Superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church ... to ordain such Superin¬ tendent, etc. [with a proviso that said Canada Bishop should never exercise any jurisdiction whatever in the United States—equiva¬ lent to the designation of a "boundary" line in the act of 1844. "What would be thought of the honor of the Methodist Episcopal Church should it now, after this compact, partition Canada out into Conferences, and expend a large sum in sending missionaries there?] The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 163 2. The British Conference* is earnestly and affectionately desired to continue with that branch of Episcopal Methodism the compact of 1820, restricting its own operations to Lower Canada. 3. Books and periodicals were to he furnished to the Canada brethren on same terms as to preachers in the States; and the Book Agents were to divide to Canada an equal proportion of the annual dividend to the Conferences so long as its patronage con¬ tinued. If this does not "authorize, and sanction," and pro¬ vide for a division of the Church—whether "directly" or "indirectly" is immaterial—the Canada brethren to decide on its necessity, quite as fully as the Plan of 1844 provides for a like division—the Southern Conferences to decide as to its necessity, then words have no mean¬ ing. So difference number one is scattered to the winds. Dr. Elliott says, also, that in 1828 the Societies in Upper Canada separated themselves from the jurisdic¬ tion of the General Conference, and that body acqui¬ esced, and authorized its Bishops to ordain for them a Bishop. This puts the facts in a false light, as the res¬ olution above quoted shows. It was passed May 21, 1828, by 108 yeas to 22 nays; but the separation did not take place till the following session of the Canada Conference, held in October, 1828, by Bishop Hedding. After the usual Conference-business had all been transacted, resolutions were introduced and adopted by the body declaring their ecclesiastical connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church, etc., dissolved, and organizing themselves into a separate and independent Church. Bishop Hedding then, after congratu¬ lating them on their prosperity, and upon the amicable attainment of this result, vacated the chair, and the Canada Conference be¬ came the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada. (Life of Hed¬ ding, p. 365.] In view of all these facts, how could the Conference of 1848 declare that there existed "no power" in the Conference of 1844 "to pass any act which either di¬ rectly or indirectly authorizes or sanctions a division of the Church?" Who authorized Bishop Hedding to preside over this separation? Why did he not inter¬ pose his official authority to stay this rupture? Be¬ cause the Church was divided by the "sanction" of the General Conference, given in advance. 164 The Disruption of the M. B. Church. But Dr. Elliott gives another difference, namely: "That the connection between the Societies in Canada —at least from 1816 to 1818 [1828?]—was matter of mutual consent; and, consequently, it could be dis¬ solved by either party without schism." If there is not an omission here—"the connection between the Societies in Canada [and the Methodist Episcopal Church]," and a misprint of 1818 for 1828— I cannot fathom this argument. But in 1828 there was much made of an hypothetical "mutual consent" be¬ tween the Church and the Canada Societies, and the subject demands some attention. In 1824 "a petition was presented from a portion of the preachers in' Upper Canada, asking to be set off as an independent Conference, with the privilege of elect¬ ing a Bishop to reside among them and superintend their affairs." (Bangs's History, vol. iii., p. 277.) This was not granted, but the province was erected into a separate Annual Conference—it having been heretofore included in other Conferences in the States—and a cir¬ cular letter was addressed to the preachers and mem¬ bers there, "expressive of our zeal for their prosperity, and urging the importance of their maintaining union among themselves." Dr. Bangs says: These measures were by no means satisfactory to those in Upper Canada who were desirous of having a separate and independent Church-organization in that Province. Accordingly, on the re¬ turn of the Delegates to the General Conference, a spirit of dissat¬ isfaction was widely diffused, the local preachers were convened, a Conference was organized, and a declaration of grievances, rights, and future mode of operations, published and circulated. All this took place before the Canada Annual Conference assembled. On its assembling, however, Bishops George and Hedding being present, mutual explanations being made and pledges given by the Bishops to sanction measures for a separate organization in Canada hereafter, peace was measurably restored, and all things went on as heretofore. (Pp. 278, 279.) This is the nearest approach to a "mutual compact" I can find from 1816 down, and that was an agreement that if the Canada brethren would be quiet and con¬ tent for the present the Bishops would promote their wish for an independent organization. Again: In 1828 more petitions came to the General The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 165 Conference asking for such organization in Canada. The committee to whom they were referred reported that the Conference "had no right to set off the breth¬ ren in Upper Canada as an independent body." This view prevailed—in effect the dictum of 1848, thus far, that the Conference has no power directly to effectuate a division of the Church. But a happy thought was fallen upon; and it was embraced by the Conference, which proceeded to "authorize and sanction" a divis¬ ion pretty much as the Conference of 1844 did the same thing for the South; and it passed the resolutions we have cited, under which Bishop Hedding helped to consummate the division. The argument that led them through this strait was: The preachers who went to Canada from the United States went, in the first instance, as missionaries; and ever afterward, whenever additional help was needed, Bishop Asbury and his successors asked for volunteers, not claiming the right to send them in the same authoritative manner in which they were sent to the different parts of the United States; hence it follows that the compact be¬ tween us and our brethren in Canada was altogether of a voluntary character—we had offered them our services, and they had accepted them—and, therefore, as they were no longer willing to receive or accept of our labors and superintendence, they had a perfect right to request us to withdraw our services, and we the same right to withhold them. [Bangs, vol. iii., p. 391.) Grant the premise true—that the preachers sent to Canada were volunteers—the conclusion is a non sequi- tur. The compact—if any—was not with the Canada Methodists, but with the American preachers, that they should not be sent, without their consent, outside the United States. Hence the call for volunteers to go to a foreign land.' Adhesion to this compact would have been permission to these volunteers to return perma¬ nently, not the setting of them off—a sort of per¬ petual banishment—into a separate jurisdiction. It passes comprehension how a compact could be formed in these circumstances between the Conference and the ministry, or membership, in Canada. The first preachers had gone there, it is said, because the people were willing to receive their labors, and the superintend¬ ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church; but just so other preachers had "first" come into the South, and 166 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. tbev, too, had been "received and accepted." If, then, this fact of acceptance constituted a "compact" be¬ tween the Conference and the Canada Societies, which gave them a "perfect right to request a withdrawal of the services" of the Conference, and gave it "the same right to withhold them," a like fact gave quite as good a right to the half million of Methodists in the South to request, and to the General Conference to grant, a withdravv'al of its jurisdiction. This the Southern Methodists did, prior to 1848; but then the argument had been forgotten. After this exposition, it seems hardly needful to ask if the premise of this argument be true or false. It can be shown that Methodism worked its way into Canada very much as it came into America, and ex¬ tended from a few centers in every direction. First, a stray Methodist or two settles here or there; then, an itinerant preacher falls in among them, gathers the people and preaches to them; he forms a class; they ask him#to come again; send word, oral or written, to the Bishop at Conference that they want a preacher sent them—will support one; and, if the work is new and distant, and particularly difficult, the Bishop asks for volunteers, and he sends thither some, or all, who offer. Thus, in 1789, when Mr. Wesley asked, "Who is willing to go to America?" Boardman and Pilmore volunteered. The first sentence in Asbury's Journal tells us that when, in 1771, "it was proposed that some preachers go to America, I spoke my mind, and made offer of myself." It was thus that William Losee passed over from his circuit in Northern New York in 1790 to see his kindred in Canada, preached a few times, won the hearts of the people, carried to the next New York Conference a petition for a preacher, "offered to be the first preacher in those Northern climes, and was sent by Bishop Asbury, in 1791, with instructions to form a circuit." (Stevens's History, vol. ii., p. 397.) In 1792 Dr. Dunham was sent as his col¬ league; "Methodism was now completely organized in Upper Canada, with circuits, classes, Societies, and all other essentials of a Church, under the General Con¬ ference, and the episcojial administration of Asbury." The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 167 When this had been done the Methodist Discipline contained the only terms of union—the only "mutual compact"—and this was the same for all Episcopal Methodists, whether in the United States or in Can¬ ada. And because it was known that Bishop Asbury sent only those who would volunteer to this distant work, the people, fearing that some would hesitate to return when they went away to Conference, "offered them lands," to induce them to stay and to secure them compensation. But where, in the introduction of Methodism into Canada, do we find any more of a "compact" between the members there and the General Conference than existed between the American Societies and Mr. Wes¬ ley, when he sent volunteers to preach and administer discipline among them? Or who, that has read Meth¬ odist history, does not know that circuits, and districts, and entire Conferences, in the outlying regions of our country, have begun and grown up, in greater or less measure, under this volunteer system? Yet there was no "mutual compact" here. It would be just as wise to say that there is a compact between the Methodist Episcopal Church and its converts in India and China, as to say it existed in the Canada case; but who dreams that to these belong any rights not assured in that Discipline which gives and limits rights of members and Conferences alike to all Episcopal Methodists, at home or abroad? Nor could Mr. Asbury have known anything of this "mutual compact" when he wrote the letter to Mr. Benson, quoted above; and if he knew not of it, there was none. The conclusion is that the Canada Societies stood in like relation with all other Societies to the General Conference—that if there was a compact in this case with them, so is there one in all other cases—so was there one with Southern and South-western Method¬ ists ; and, therefore, on the compact principle, the South had just such a right to expect an authorization and sanction of its erecting itself into an independent ju¬ risdiction as was allowed in this concession of rights to the Canada Methodists. 168 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. Thus it appears that the Conference of 1848 was par¬ ticularly oblivious of Methodist history when it uttered its dictum that the Conference of 1844 had "no power to pass any act that either directly or indirectly effect¬ uates, authorizes, or sanctions a division of the Church." The General Conference had heretofore " directly effect¬ uated " one division, without asking the consent of the membership in Lower Canada; and it had "indirectly," if not "directly, authorized and sanctioned" a division in Upper Canada, which was "effectuated" under the administration of one of its Bishops, acting by author¬ ity, within the scope of his legitimate powers. And there is no better reason than this I have set aside, on the ground of contradicting precedents, given for that celebrated "Declaration" of 1848, wherein the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church repudiated the "mutual compact" of 1844 with the Church, South, and declared it "null and void;" and I leave it to the reader to say, after reading this and the preceding chapter, if that repudiation itself is not "null and void." The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 169 CHAPTER XII. THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE SUBJECT. THUS far I have treated of the Plan of Separation as an agreement, or covenant, between fair-minded Christian men, who, in discharge of their trust for the Church, and considering the irreconcilable differences in its two sections, bound themselves by mutual en¬ gagements, considering more the moral than the legal force of the obligations they interchanged. Having treated of the moral, I come now to consider the legal, aspects of the Plan of Separation. These, indeed, have been settled by the highest tri¬ bunal of the nation; but, in this controversy, the Church, South, has to deal with some who have no more respect for a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States than they have for the credit for accuracy of their own official records, when either does not sustain their own opinions. In the Meth¬ odist Quarterly Review, April, 1870, Dr. D. A. Whedon says: As secular law, whether expounded or manufactured [?] by that court, requiring the division of the property, we obeyed the decis¬ ion; but as deciding for us a moral or ecclesiastical question, it has no more value or force than the opinion of any other equally able lawyers. That same court, by the mouth of Eoger Taney, a name of evil omen in judicial history, decided that no negro was a citizen, or possessed any rights which any man is bound to respect. . . . The decision against us was made when slavery was in the height of its power—when Presidents, and Congress, and courts were humble tools of slavery—and when political parties were bowing in pros¬ tration before the same power. . . . But could that case but come before the Supreme Court of to-day, what Southerner dreams that 8 170 The Disruption op the M. B. Church. the action of the General Conference (1844) would he pronounced a division of the Church?* * Judge Leavitt, of the Circuit Court of Ohio, pronouncing a decision in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the case carried up to the Supremo Court, exhibits a diffidence as to the unquestionable accuracy of his judgment not in the least shared by Dr. Whedon as to his own. His Honor said: "Al¬ though the conclusions to which I have arrived have been satisfactory to my¬ self, 1 experience the highest gratification from the reflection that, if I have misconceived the points arising in the case, and have been led to wrong re¬ sults, my errors will be corrected by that high tribunal to which the rights of these parties will, without doubt, be submitted for final adjudication." " Just sentiments," says Dr. Elliott; "and they may furnish a caution to the relig¬ ious press, as well as an example of conduct worthy of imitation." I may add: A caution not heeded, an example not followed, by those who thus as¬ perse the whole Bench of Supreme Justices. Farther; the untrustworthincss of Dr. W., as a historian, is shown by his retailing the slander against Chief- justice Taney, who did not assert as his own opinion what is attributed to him in the passage italicized in the text. A reference to the " Dred Scott" decision would nave convinced him that, by perverting language, he had aspersed six out of eight of the most eminent judges in our land; besides uttering the un¬ worthy insinuation that those now on the bench would decide the case, if again before them, not on its merits, but in view of their general political opinions. Chief-justice Taney was not giving his own opinion, but that of a previous age. He was solving the question historically as to the status of the African among civilized men when the Declaration of Independence was written, to learn whether the negro was included in the "all men" there declared " equal." He argued from the treatment that Africans everywhere received, and quoted largely from New England statutes, to prove that the founders of the Republic could not, in idea, have extended this epithet to the negro. Giving the opin¬ ions of a former age, all history attests that he gave them correctly. He was interpreting a certain dictum as it was understood by those who uttered it— not giving his opinion as to its correctness; and while he furnishes ample historical proof that the opinion falsely attributed to himself prevailed in 1770, he says: "If they [the words of the Declaration of Independence] were used in a similar instrument at this day, they would be considered" to embrace "the whole human family." A few extracts from the decision will establish the truth of this position. He says: " It becomes necessary to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted; and, in order to do this, we must recur to the governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties— . . . inquire wno were recognized, at that time, as the peo¬ ple, or citizens, of a State, . . . and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of government to defend their rights by force of arms. In the opinion of the court the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were there acknowledged as a part of the people, or intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable in¬ strument. It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in re¬ lation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted ; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as be¬ ings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; ami so far inferior that they had no rightswhich the white man was bound to respect [had they not been so regarded?]; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion ivas at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals, as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in so¬ ciety daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 171 This treatment of a decision which gave legal force to the instrument whereby Southern Methodism holds all its Church-property owned prior to 1844 raises the question whether or not this is a general sentiment in tfie Methodist Episcopal Church. It certainly has heen hinted many times that this question might yet again reach the Supreme Court in some form. A quotation or two from official organs will show my meaning: The authorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church have valid title to the Church-property (meeting-houses and parsonages). None of these have been before the Supreme Court at Washington. If ever brought before that tribunal, we have no doubt that the final decision will be in our favor. When the secession occurred there were churches and parsonages all over the South built by money given by that (Methodist Episcopal) Church for that purpose, and to be held by that Church forever. These churches were claimed by those who hold them without authority, by no legal or moral right. All such property belongs in law and equity to the Meth¬ odist Episcopal Church. In certain cases "duty may lie in the di¬ rection of taking that which is our own." (Methodist Advocate, Atlanta, April, 1869.) And the Virginia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1870—saying that she "has, at sundry times, been displaced from her churches and real estate in Virginia, in many places where the title to that property should be claimed at once"—declares, "We owe it to ourselves, our people, and the principles we advocate, to make every legal and righteous effort to recover our Church-prop¬ erty," and then instructs the Presiding Elders to employ counsel. Again : We caution our Southern friends not to be too sure of the legal validity of the "Plan of Separation." Another appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States may not fare so well as the first did. It is clear to every Northern Methodist that the "Plan" was not fairly valid without the consent of three-fourths of the mem¬ bers of tbe Annual Conferences. The two courts of first instance, in New York and Cincinnati, decided the question in precisely op¬ posite ways; on appeal, the case was decided against us by a Su¬ preme Court of decided Southern leanings. That court has been known to reverse its decisions, and in the present altered temper of the times might do so again. Overmuch confidence in the Plan of Separation may prove to be disastrous to Southern Methodism. {New York Methodist—not official—July 18, 1874.) When the last-named paper at one time conceded the force of the Plan of Separation, a preacher from this opinion And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed, or more uniformly acted upon, than by the English Government and English people," etc Mr Wesley confirms this opinion in Works, vol. vii., p. 2U7. 172 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. the "border" wrote at once of the decision of the court: It is a decision that the loyal statesmen and jurists of the South, who are struggling to reconstruct the country, look upon with anger, and a firm resolve to rip it up, if the legislative body of the coun¬ try will let us into the courts of the United States. Dr. Curry said, in the Christian Advocate and Journal, of the Methodist's indorsement of the decision of the Supreme Court, that "every true Methodist in the country indignantly protests" against it. Are these only sporadic utterances? or do such sen¬ timents prevail in the Methodist Episcopal Church? These writers are correct, and the members of the Church, South, must be rated as only legalized robbers, if the decision of the Supreme Court be wrong, and the Conference decision of 1848 be right; and, with these insinuations and threats floating around, they have no means of knowing by which decision the Methodist Episcopal Church intends to shape her future course. This uncertainty makes the most se¬ rious of the "serious difficulties" between the two Churches; for, unless this point is settled, this genera¬ tion may leave a heritage of annoyance and litigation, and, if the utterances quoted are prophetic, of loss to our descendants.* * Even while I write there is litigation. In Jnne, 1871, a deeision in favor of the Church, South, was given in the Chancery Court at .Jonesboro, Tennessee, for camp-ground and parsonage property, held since 1811. It came to the Church, South, by the Plan; in 18(15 was turned over by trustees, who had gone to the Methodist Episcopal Church, to that body; was claimed by the former Church under the Plan, and the decision was in its favor. But the case is not permitted to rest there. An appeal has been taken by the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the Supreme Court of the State, and they sig¬ nify their intention, if they lose in that court, if possible, to carry the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. [Since this was written the State Supreme Court has decided this case, reaffirming the decision of the lower court on the basis of the Plan. I am not advised whether or not the ease has been carried farther.] And there must- be litigation. The Methodist has kindly, and no doubt sincerely, said " that the property rights acquired by them (tlie Church, South) under the Plan of Separation are to remain undisturbed;" but what " property rights " could have been acquired under an illegitimate Plan ? None. The Methodist Episcopal Church says: " Our General Conference did wrong, in 1844, in surrendering to you a large amount of property which the Church held in trust for its membership, and we repudiate its act as null and void;" and yet kindly-disposed members of the Church say: "You may keep what the Conference then gave you." Is not this a violation of trust? "Has any in¬ dividual, any number of individuals, however well disposed, a right to surren¬ der a trust "property which the General Conference of 1844 had no right to surrender? This seems to us the light in which this matter is to be viewed. It is not a question of love, or fellowship, or fraternity, but one of rights in trust. There is no telling how often, or for how many years, such property The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 173 It is proper, in view of the differences of opinion as to the legitimate powers of the G-eneral Conference, to examine into the legal aspects of the question, and to try to find some common ground of opinion where both parties may meet for unprejudiced discussion—■ some ground not tainted by " slaveocracy." I. Legally, then, the Plan of Separation was a com¬ pact. This is denied by Dr. Whedon in the article re¬ ferred to above, he confining the term, however, to one only of its meanings—an international treaty. A few citations will settle the question: "Contract" includes every description of agreement or obligation whereby one party becomes bound to another to . . . perform or omit to do a certain act ... an agreement between two or more persons concerning some thing to be done, whereby both par¬ ties are bound to each other, or one is bound to the other. Defined also to be a compact between two or more persons. (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under word. See, also, Parsons on Contracts, pp. 6, 7; Kent's Commentaries, vol. ii., pp. 449, 463-5.) Mutual consent is requisite to the creation of a contract; and it becomes binding when a proposition is made on one side and accepted on the other. (Ib. p. 476.) "Compact"—an agreement, or contract, usually of themore formal or solemn kind. (Burrell's Law Dictionary.) Agreement, contract, compact, nearly synonyms, and used interchangeably. (See Dictionaries.) The parties to this agreement, contract, compact, were the Delegates of all the Conferences, acting in General Conference capacity, on the one hand, and the Delegates of the Conferences in the slave-holding States on the other. There was one "condition precedent"* which must he fulfilled, or the contract would have been a nullity. If the latter party should find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, then the other party would acquit of blame all preachers adhering to either organization, and release to the Church, South, all claim upon its property in that section, with the farther "conditional stipulation" that if all the Con- questions may come up wherever the Methodist Episcopal Church has spread over the South, and can proselyte a few members and office-bearers, as in the Tennessee case. This may ensue until that Church, by its General Conference, formally acknowledges the validity of the division of tmt, in 1814, between two jurisdictions. * " Condition precedent"—an act essential to be performed by one party, prior to any obligation attaching upon any other party, to do or perform an¬ other given act. 174 The Disruption of the M. B. Church. ferences concurred with the General Conference in changing the Sixth Restrictive Article, the Church would also divide the Book Concern property. There was also a stipulation without force until the separation was consummated and a dividing line be¬ came necessary. It was a u condition dependent," and of mutual obligation—viz.: that when actual division should produce a border territory, both pai'ties would "observe" a given "rule" respecting the partition line. It was claimed by the General Conference, in 1848, that the infraction of this "rule" by the South gave it warrant to declare the contract "null and void."* I join issue here. Owing to variant construction of the "rule" by the Bishops on either side, differences had arisen. The remedy for "border" troubles grow¬ ing out of these interpretations lay in the courts where the aggrieved parties resided, and this remedy was sought in several instances. To declare the entire contract void for the infraction of a dependent condi¬ tion, when the condition upon which it depended had been kept in good faith, whereby the relation of par¬ ties and aspect of affairs had been wholly changed, was a violation of every rule of equity. One of the parties to a contract cannot declare it "null and void," unless both parties are placed in statu quo. Here are authorities: A contract cannot in general be rescinded by one party unless both parties can be placed in the same situation, and can stand upon the same terms as existed when the contract was made. It would be unjust to destroy a contract in toto where one party has derived a partial benefit by part performance of the agreement. (Chiity on Contracts, p. 276.) In order to rescind a contract, and treat it as wholly determined, both parties must be placed in the same situation as they were be¬ fore the contract was made. (Comyn on Contracts, p. 50. See Ad¬ dison on Contracts, p. 1072.) *Kent's Commentary on Law of Nations was quoted to prove it, and Dr. Whe- don, in the Methodist Quarterly Review, has borrowed the idea. The case cited is the "annihilation," in 17t)8, by the United States Government of the treaty with France. Yet, in the same connection. Chancellor Kent says: " The vio¬ lation of one article of a treaty is a violation of the whole treaty; for aU the articles are dqiendent on each other; and a violation of any single article over¬ throws the whole treaty, if the misused party elect so to consider it." But this reason for the decision in the French treaty case does not hold here, as i show that the articles are not " all dependent on each other." Tiie Disruption op tiie M. E. Church. 175 It was impossible to restore the status quo in this case. The Southern jurisdiction had been organized in strict accordance with the compact, one General Conference had been held, officials elected, Bishops or¬ dained, boundaries fixed, with here and there only a "border" dispute—all before the Plan was pronounced "null and void." The status quo could have been re¬ stored only by undoing all this, and reversing the de¬ cisions of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and sending them back to preside in the Southern Conferences. It was not possible to restore the status quo, and the General Conference of 1848 did not attempt it; and by every principle of law—to say' nothing of good morals—their repudiation of the Plan is itself "null and void." It had a legal remedy against any infractions of the Plan by the South. The course adopted was neither legal nor a remedy. II. I come now to examine that "Declaration" of 1848—that the General Conference had no right to ef¬ fectuate, or authorize, or sanction a division of the Church—and I shall show, by authority the Methodist Episcopal Church cannot reject, that the Conference of 1844 had the power, and used it. Everybody grants that the General Conference was "created" by a company of Methodist elders, meeting from time to time at their own option. An extract from the Report of the Committee on Organization, at the Louisville Convention, throws some historical light on the subject that will not be controverted: "We do nothing but what we are expressly authorized to do by the supreme, or rather highest, legislative power of the Church. Would the Church authorize us to do wrong? The division relates only to the power of general jurisdiction, which it is not proposed to de¬ stroy, or reduce, but simply to invest it in two great organs of Church action and control, instead of in one as at present. Such a change in the present system of general control cannot disturb the moral unity of the Church, for it is strictly an agreed modifi¬ cation of General Conference jurisdiction; and such an agreement and consent of parties must preclude the idea of disunion. In view of what is the alleged disunion predicated? Is the purpose and act of becoming a separate organization proof of disunion, or want of proper Church unity? This cannot be urged with any show of con¬ sistency, inasmuch as the "several Annual Conferences, in General Conference assembled"—that is to say, the Church, through its own 176 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. constitutional organ of action on all subjects involving the power of legislation—not only agreed to tlie separate organization, South, but made full constitutional provision for carrying it into effect. It is separation by consent of parties under the highest authority of the Church. Is it intended that the modal unity of the Church depends upon the modal uniformity of the jurisdiction in question? If this be so, the Methodist Episcopal Church has lost its unity at several different times. The general jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church has undergone modifications at several different times, not less vital, if not greatly more so, than the one now pro¬ posed. The high conventional powers, of which we are so often re¬ minded, exercised in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were in the hands of a Conference of unordained lay preach¬ ers, under the sole superintendence of an appointee of Mr. Wesley. This was the first General Conference type and original form of the jurisdiction in question. The jurisdictional power now pro¬ posed [possessed?] by the General Conference was for years exer¬ cised by small Annual Conferences, without any defined boundaries, and acting separately on all measures proposed for their determi¬ nation. [And it might have been added that, after the organizing Christmas Conference of 1784, these Annual Conferences passed upon, altered, and even suspended, regulations of that General Con¬ ference.] This general power of jurisdiction next passed into the hands of the "Bishops' Council," consisting of some ten persons, where it remained for a term of years. Next it passed into the hands of the whole itinerant ministry in full connection, and was exercised by them, in collective action, as a General Conference of the whole body, met together at the same time. The power was afterward vested [by them] in the whole body of traveling elders, and from thence finally passed into the hands of Delegates, elected by the Annual Conferences, to meet and act quadrennially as a General Conference, under constitutional restrictions and limita¬ tions. Here are several successive reorganizations of General Con¬ ference jurisdiction, each involving a much more material change than that contemplated in the GenerabConference Plan, by author¬ ity of which this Convention is about to erect sixteen Annual Con¬ ferences in the slave-holding States into a separate organization. We change no principle in the existing theory of General Confe - ence jurisdiction. We distinctly recognize the jurisdiction of a Delegated General Conference, receiving its appointment and au¬ thority from the whole constituency of Annual Conferences. [That constituency being represented in the Conference of 1844—which authorized this separate organization.] Begging the reader to keep this history in mind, I take the ground that the right of the General Confer¬ ence to "authorize and sanction a division of the Church" is founded in the same "constitutional" pre¬ rogatives as were claimed for the Conference to vindi¬ cate its action on the Finley Resolution. I sustain my The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 177 proposition by quoting from Dr. Hamline, and he is, I suppose, good authority with the Methodist Episcopal Church. Dr. Hamline's authority is none the less valuable he- cause he states the principle incidentally, as a well- known and acknowledged postulate, requiring neither specific statement nor proof. He is making an argu¬ ment on the constitutional power of the G-eneral Con¬ ference to deal, directly and without prevenient legisla¬ tion as to episcopal improprieties, etc., with Bishop Andrew—claiming that that body has plenary power, legislative, judicial, and executive—which last, by the way, it executed in this case by making Bishop A. him¬ self its executive officer—asking him to disrobe himself —a sort of ecclesiastical hari-kari.* I quote some of Dr. Hamline's arguments: In Church and in State there must always he some ultimate or supreme authority, and the exercise of it must he independent, so far as systematic responsibility is concerned. . . . The General Conference, adjunct in certain exigences with the Annual Confer¬ ences, is the ultimate depository of power in the Church. . . . I shall argue our authority to depose a Bishop summarily . . . from the relations of the General Conference to the Church and to the Episcopacy. "This Conference, adjunct (but rarely) with the Annual Confer¬ ences, is supreme. Its supremacy is universal. It has legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy. . . . Under self-assumed re¬ strictions, which are now of constitutional force and virtue (espe¬ cially as they originated in a General Conference composed not of Delegates, but of traveling preachers), it can make rules of every sort for the government of the Church. The restrictions are few and simple. They embrace (1) our Articles of Religion, (2) the ratio of representation, (3) the perpetuity of Episcopacy and the Gen¬ eral Superintendency, (4) the General Rules, (5) trial by commit¬ tee and appeal, and (6) the avails of the Book Concern. Beyond these slender restrictions its legislation is legitimate and conclu¬ sive; and within them it is so, if the members of the Annual Con¬ ferences are consenting." Again: ". . . so our Constitution says to this General Conference, Under such and such restrictions, you are commissioned with full powers to make rules and regulations for cultivating the fields of Methodism." And again: "Our Con¬ stitution leaves all the powers of the three great departments of government ... in this General Conference. . . . The grant of power is to us in mass. . . . "Whatever this General Confer- Or is it hari-ka.ru, that act hy which a convicted Japanese official, condemned to death, executes the sentence by disemboweling himself? 8* 178 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. ence can constitutional!}7 do, it can do without first resolving that it has power to do it. ... I have argued that the Conference has power, from the grant of the Constitution—which is a catholic grant, embracing nil but a few enumerated restrictions to try a Bishop for crime and depose him summarily for improper con¬ duct." And again, in reply to Dr. Smith: "The administrative powers of this Conference are supreme—which means that, while acting within the constitutional limits, its decisions are final and all-controlling." . . . And he argues that if the Conference wanted to restrict its power in any case, not covered by the con¬ stitutional restrictions, it could call on the Annual Conferences to aid it in assuming such a restriction—and the inference is that, where it has not asked such a restriction on its power, it intends to hold it and exercise it when necessary. [That is, it would seem, it cannot limit its own power beyond the limit the restrictions put upon it, without the sanction of the Conferences.] Now, compare these utterances with a few in Judge Leavitt's decision in the Ohio case. He says: The question is not whether there does or does not exist in the Methodist Episcopal Church a power to destroy its organization, and entirely reconstruct its Discipline, but whether the former right exists in the General Conference. The power of change— of destruction itself—exists somewhere; but if not specially dele¬ gated [which it was "in mass," Dr. H. says], it remains with those who are the original depositaries of all power. . . . Prior to 1808 the General Conference was essentially a democracy, in which the masses of preachers met together to transact their business. By the Constitution adopted in 1808, the General Conference has con¬ stituents to whom they [sic] are answerable, and they are limited in their powers by express constitutional restrictions. . . . This court has no hesitancy in avowing that the power of division would belong to the body of the traveling ministry, assembled en masse, in a constitutional capacity. Now, let us compare the opinions of these two high authorities in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Judge Leavitt holds that the preachers en masse could divide the Church, "but the General Conference, whose pow¬ ers are limited by express constitutional restrictions, could not do it"—yet he does not claim that these re¬ strictions inhibit a division of the Church. Dr. Ham- line holds that the "traveling preachers"—Judge L.'s "traveling ministry en masse"—originated the Consti¬ tution, with its restrictions, "few and simple," and that■"beyond these slender restrictions its legislative power is legitimate and conclusive"—"supreme"— that it is "commissioned with 'full powers to make The Disruption op tiie M. B. Church. 179 rules and regulations' for cultivating the fields of Methodism." Judge Leavitt bases his decision against the Church, South, not in that these Articles restrict the Confer¬ ence from dividing the Church, but in that the power to "make rules and regulations" does not include the power to divide.* . Dr. H., as far as reported, gives no express opinion on this point, either pro or con, and we must infer his belief from his acts and speeches. Though personally opposed to division, and restrained by motives of deli¬ cacy and propriety f from forwarding a movement in the Conference whereby it should originate division, he became the earnest advocate of a plan—if, indeed, he did not suggest it—which would consummate division, if the Southern Conferences so elected; and he consid¬ ered all constitutional objections to it obviated by send¬ ing to the Conferences for concurrence "that part of the Plan" which inaugurated a constitutional change in the rule restricting a disposition of the common funds, so as to allow a division of them with the South. I argue that Dr. H.—who believed that its inherent and non-restricted power authorized the General Con- *1 have already hinted that Judge Leavitt took infinite pains to set aside the Plan of Separation as invalid, when the hypothesis that it was made depend¬ ent on the concurrent votes of the Annual Conferences would have disposed of it in a single sentence. He could have dismissed the matter by saying: " Whatever power the General Conference has, or has not, the division was conditioned on the change of the. Restrictive Article. It was not changed— hence the Church was not divided"—and there would have been no necessity for a long discussion on the powers of the General Conference. Judge L. does say: " The Plan shows the condition on which the withdrawal is to be consum¬ mated, should the South consider it necessary to withdraw; and provision is made for future friendly relations with the new Church"—manifestly, by providing for a friendly division of trust property, which—the property, not the Church —Judge L. says could not be divided, because this " condition " failed. fSee Dr. Capers's statement, pages 121,122. Dr. H. did not object to Dr. C.'s plan of partial division that it was unconstitutional. He said: "There were difficulties in the way of such a proposition. One provision was to send this plan to the Annual Conferences, but that [the sending] was unconstitutional and revolutionary in its character; and when it came back the General Conference would have no more authority than they have now." He could not have meant that the subject-matter of the plan was " unconstitutional and revolutionary," while he was advocating a more radical plan of division than Dr. C.'s, but that the sending to the Conferences a regulation not contemplated by the Restrictive Article was so—as it was temporarily vacating their inherent powers—and use¬ lessly, too, for they, being supreme already, would not be enhanced when the vote of concurrence came back to them. In his passage at arms with Dr. Smith, ho had previously taught that the Conference could not divest itself of its in¬ herent powers without the sanction of the Annual Conferences, obtained by asking for additional restrictions, and if it had not done this as to any item of its power, it was because it reserved the right to exercise it " when necessary." 180 The Disruption op the M. B. Church. ference to "depose a Bishop summarily for 'improper conduct'"—also believed that its power "to make rules and regulations" could compass even a division of the Conference jurisdiction, if necessary "for culti¬ vating the fields of Methodism." This being so, the point of difference between my two authorities is as to the ground covered by the terms "rules and regula¬ tions." And perhaps there would liave been no differ¬ ence if Judge L., who seemed to have a vague suspicion that he may have "misconceived the points," had been as conversant as Dr. H. with the tentative efforts and constant changes of early Methodism in trying to es¬ tablish a satisfactory High Court. But this was not to be expected. Thus the differences—as to the Plan—between North¬ ern and Southern Methodism are narrowed down, by my argument, to a question of the logical extension of the words "rules and regulations." As Dr. Hamline is manifestly an advocate here for Southern opinion, and as this is clearly a question of "construction,", properly cognizable by the courts, I may surely now claim the support of the United States Supreme Court, especially as Judge Leavitt modestly expressed his sat¬ isfaction in believing that the Bench of Supreme Jus¬ tices could, and would, correct any "misconception of points" which may have "led" him "to wrong re¬ sults." * * We have means of correcting Judge Leavitt, when he denies to the Gen¬ eral Conference, under its "full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church," whereby "to spread scriptural holiness over these lands," the power to divide into two jurisdictions for this purpose. In the Dred Scott case, Mr. Justice Curtis, of Massachusetts, gave a decision on the compass of these words, "rules and regulations," which shows that "full powers" means full powers—except where restricted, by specific act; and thus he. sus¬ tains Dr. Hamline's opinion. As this eminent man cannot be suspected of leaning to the " slaveoeracy," a few sentences from his decision may have weight with those who repudiate his fellow-justices. The point he is discuss¬ ing embraces a passage from the Federal Constitution, which he quotes: " The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula¬ tions respecting the territory belonging to the United States;" and he says: " It has been urged that the words ' rules and regulations ' are not appropriate terms in which to convey authority to make laws for the government of the ter¬ ritory. But it must be remembered that this is a grant of power to Congress— necessarily, therefore, a grant of power to legislate; and, certainly, rules and regulations respecting a particular subject, made by the legislative, power of a country, can be nothing but law. . . . Power ... to make all ' need¬ ful rules* and regulations' . . . is power to pass all needful laws. . . . If. then, this clause does contain a power to legislate respecting the territory, what is the limit of that power? To this I answer, that ... it finds limits in the express prohibitions on Congress not to do certain things; that in the The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 181 And they did correct. That eminent judicial author¬ ity with a full Bench—and Judge McLean, a leading Methodist, at hand to help them to avoid gross errors, though he did not sit in judgment on the case—that court sustained Judge L.'s opinion that the preachers en masse had power to divide the Church, and Dr. H.'s opinion that they had transferred all their power to the Delegated General Conference, except where the "few and simple" restrictions did not bar its action— which, on this point of division, they did not. The court says that the power which the General Confer¬ ence of 1784, composed of all the traveling preachers, had, to have constructed then two ecclesiastical organ¬ izations instead of one over the territory of the United States, remained with future Conferences similarly exercise of the legislative power, Congress cannot pass an ex post, facto law, or a bill of attainder; and so of each of the other prohibitions in the Constitu¬ tion. [That is, to apply the principle to our case, nothing must be done in¬ hibited" by the Restrictive Articles.] Besides this, the rules and regulations must be needful. But, undoubtedly, whether a particular rule or regulation be needful must be finally determined by Congress itself. Whether a law be needful is a legislative or political, not a judicial, question. Whatever Con¬ gress deems needful is so, under a grant of power. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations ' re¬ specting the territory belonging to the United States.' The assertion is that though the Constitution says all without qualification, it means all except such, etc. It cannot be doubted that it is incumbent on those who would thus in¬ troduce an exception, not found in the language of the instrument, to exhibit some solid and satisfactory reasons drawn from tne subject-matter, or the pur¬ poses and object of the claim—the context, or from other provisions of the Constitution—showing that the words employed in this clause are not to be understood according to their clear, plain, and natural signification. . . . There is nothing in the context which qualifies the grant of power. Where the Constitution has said all needful-regulations, I must find more than theo¬ retical reasoning to induce me to say it does not mean all." Observe: Justice Curtis was on the bench when Judge Leavitt's decision came under review, and at the same term he delivered this decision, and also coincided on the de¬ cision in the Church suit, for it was unanimous. [Judge McLean did not sit, but was present, and had made strenuous efforts to divide the property be¬ fore any decision was had in the courts. He, too, must therefore have thought the action of the General Conference legitimate.] This decision of Justice Curtis helps my case in more ways than one. The General Conference of 1844 had said that the " full power to make rules and regulations" author¬ ized their action on the Finley Resolution, because it was " needful " ex¬ pedient" was the word they used. But Justice Curtis's decision would con¬ demn this act; because, (lj if the Conference ever had the power to pass it, as Dr. H. said, " without first resolving that it had power to do it" (equivalent to making the law and applying it simultaneously), it was an ex post facto law; and (2) because it was, in truth, " a bill of attainder." But as to the power to authorize a division of the Church, since Judge Leavitt exhibited none of those " solid and satisfactory reasons " which Justice Curtis indicates for restricting the interpretation of a clause embracing " full powers to make rules and reg¬ ulations," we must claim the opinion of the latter as sustaining, by analogy, Dr. H.'s opinion of the constitutional power of the General Conference—es- pecially as the former's condition that the exercise must he "needful was fully met, when the Conference of 18-14 thought it necessary to enact the Plan of Separation. 182 The Disruption of the M E. Church. composed, and was neither taken away nor given np, when they formed a Delegated General Conference, which possesses the same powers as when the Confer¬ ence was constituted of the whole body of preachers— save what was withheld by the Restrictive Articles, none of which affect the question of jurisdictional di¬ vision—so that "in every thing else that concerns the welfare of the Church the General Conference repre¬ sents the sovereign power the same as before" 1808. The court farther decides that under the resolutions of 1844—the Plan—and in virtue of the power of the General Conference, "it was well agreed and deter¬ mined by the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as then existing," that in case the Southern Conferences "should find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connection," certain specified things were to follow; that the Southern Con¬ ferences did so find, and that, by force of the power of the General Conference, and by virtue of the determi¬ nation of the Southern Conferences, and of their self- organization into a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, "the religious association, known as the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States of America, was divided into two associations, or distinct Method¬ ist Episcopal Churches." (See Howard's Reports, vol. xvi.) Thus was Judge Leavitt's "construction" of the terms "rules and regulations" set aside, and what I have shown to have been Dr. Hamline's sustained. The court farther held—what I have fully proved— that the change of the Restrictive Article was unot made a condition of division. That depended upon the decision of the Southern Conferences." And farther: The removal of the limitation imposed by this Article was not a condition of the right of the Church, South, to its share of the property, but was sought as a step taken [as Dr. H. had said] in order to enable the Gen¬ eral Conference to complete the partition of the prop¬ erty; which, however, followed, as a matter of law, a division of Church-organization. AVith all these facts before me, and setting in the forefront the dicta of Judge Leavitt and Dr. Hamline, The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 183 using the decision of the Supreme Bench only to har¬ monize and confirm their opinions, am I not justified in saying that the last ecumenical General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church adjourned sine die on the night of the 10th of June, 1844? that the Gen¬ eral Conference of 1848 was neither that body, reas¬ sembled in due course, nor its legal successor? that therefore said quadrennial Conference was not a party to the contract embodied in the Plan of-Separation ? that consequently it had no authority to declare said Plan "null and void?" and that, for this and other reasons heretofore given, its action in the premises is itself "null and void?" Thus I have ascertained the legal relations of the two Methodisms. They are the coequal members into which the original Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States disparted itself, by a mutual agreement between irreconcilably conflicting parties in said Church —a partition made for the one purpose of more effect¬ ually promoting Christianity, each in the separate ter¬ ritory assigned it. If it be said that the Delegates in 1844 did not claim •—rather did disclaim—the power to divide the Church, I answer that neither party desired to divide, and only accepted this conclusion of making provision for a di¬ vision, if the Southern Conferences decide on its ne¬ cessity, as a last refuge from incessant strife and greater calamity; hence neither was solicitous to assert and in¬ sist on this power to divide: (1) the Northern Dele¬ gates, very properly—lest a show of zeal in this di¬ rection might be imputed to a readiness to get up a dispute, carry the day, drive the South to the wall, and then make haste to proclaim their authority to say, " Go in peace, and our section of the Church will be rid of an occasion of great disturbance;" (2) the Southern Delegates, very naturally—for, stunned as they had just been by the exercise of this doctrine of " supreme " power, it was not for them to pick up the offensive dogma so early and press it into the service of a total division, which to the last they deprecated; and, be¬ sides, there seemed no necessity, for while all felt well- nigh assured that separation or division would ensue 184 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. from their act, but few of them—either Northern or Southern Delegates—had any doubt that what they were doing' was perfectly constitutional—altogether within their delegated powers—else they would not have done it; but they all disliked the very semblance of division, and (3) they, therefore, conjured up an in¬ nocent phantom of self-deception—they would not divide the-Church—the abhorred word division "had been carefully avoided through the whole document" —this -was to be only a "separation"—as though what was undivided could be separated!—the responsibility of which was cast by that body wholly upon the South¬ ern Conferences. Dear, good men! They did not re¬ member, what Dr. ITamline had told them days before, that "nothing in their own statutes" even, much less, of course, obscure doubts in their own minds, "could deprive them of power conferred on them by the higher authority of the Constitution. We cannot," he said, "by our enactments, divest ourselves of our constitu¬ tional powers, any more than man made in God's im¬ age can shun the law of his being, and divest himself of free agency and immortality." And so, their inherent and inalienable powers gave a potency to their action beyond what they imagined, amid the din and confusion of the conflict. But when the smoke cleared up, so that they could see their whole work, they saw original Methodism divided "into two bands"—in all probability, forevermore. The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 185 CHAPTER XIII. THE PRESENT RELATIONS OF THE TWO METHODISMS. THE Church, South, after 1848, made no more over¬ tures of fraternity to its sister Church; and for several years that Communion gave to the former no token of friendly recognition. Meanwhile, the "seri¬ ous questions and difficulties" that barred fraternity in 1848 had become far more serious and immeasura¬ bly more complicated. A brief statement will show wherein. Immediately after the rejection of Dr. Pierce came that now noted ex parte action which, in effect, de¬ clared the Church, South, the illegitimate offspring of schism—put upon it the brand of a "secession" from the "Mother Church," to use the proselyting cant much in vogue where facts are not known. This nullifica¬ tion of the Plan of Separation remains to this day the nucleus of the grievances the Southern Church has to urge against her congeneric sister. After that transaction followed the lawsuits, and the judgment of the Supreme Court reversing, in effect, the decision of the General Conference of 1848, and dividing with the South the Book Concern property. Since that contest has been settled, the "border" has been obliterated. In 1860-61 the Baltimore Confer¬ ence* took a position respecting the advanced action *Tn 1860 the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church took advanced ground on the .subject of slavery. It changed the old "Section on Slavery" entirely, so as to declare the "buying, selling, and holding" slaves to be " contrary to the laws of God and nature, and inconsistent with the Golden Rule, and with the rule of our Discipline which requires all who desire to continue among us to ' do no harm,' " etc. This was, in effect, making a new 18G The Disruption of the M. E. Ciiurcii. of the General Conference of that year in reference to slavery which resulted, in 1862, in the division of that condition of continued membership, though the general rule was not changed till 1864. It was this action of 1SG0 that, drove the Baltimore Conference from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Being a "border" Conference, it was called upon to decide, in 1846, to which Church it would " adhere," and it adhered— conditionally, however,—to the Methodist Episcopal Church. It explained its action in a Pastoral Address, adopted by the Conference by a vote of 177 to 8, in which it said: "The Conference has learned, indeed, that the dissatisfaction which some express with their present Church-relations is . . that they believe that the Methodist Episcopal Church will be forced . . . into such an altera¬ tion of the Discipline as to make non-slave-holdihg a condition of Church- fellowship. . . . We have no reasonable belief that our sister Conferences entertain any purpose or design to afflict us. . . . But if there were any grounds of suspicion that such an alteration of our Discipline is contemplated, may we not safely wait for its development? Will not the Baltimore Confer¬ ence be as competent to take the necessary measures which such a crisis might require at any future time as it is now?" And to prepare legally for such a contingency, the Conference, after a pream¬ ble reciting the facts of 1844-5 that required tnem to vote to which jurisdiction they would adhere, " 1. Resolved, by, etc., That we still continue to regard ourselves a constitu¬ ent part of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. " 2. Resolved, That this Conference disclaims having any fellowship with Ab¬ olitionism; on the contrary, while it is determined to maintain its well-known and long-established position, by keeping the traveling preachers composing its own body free from slavery, it is also determined not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical body that, shall matie non-slave-holding a condition of membership in the Church, but to stand by and maintain the Discipline as it is." In March, 180(1, the Abolition party growing in the Church excited the appre¬ hensions of the laity, and several memorials on the subject were before the Conference; and the Conference replied to them as follows: "As to a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church, we beg leave to say that this Conference has already declared what, in their opinion, would be a just cause of severance—viz.: ' any violation of our rights as now held under the Discipline.' This we have said time and again. . . . Our whole Church in the bounds of our Conference has our repeated pledge, and our brethren in the North are well acquainted with our oft-repeated declaration." Within three months of this declaration the General Conference of 18G0 took the action on slavery already noted; and the Baltimore Conference now considered its eonditional.adherence to the Methodist Episcopal Church made void thereby, and that its repeated pledges should now be made good. At its next session, 1861, it took position in accordance with its past action. Acting on a " Memorial from a Convention of Laymen (held in Baltimore, December ft, I860), representing a large majority of the laity" of the Church, and on " like papers from other sources," the Conference passed the following reso¬ lution: 1' 1. Be it resolved, by, etc., That we hereby declare that the General Confer¬ ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held at Buffalo, May, 1860, by its un¬ constitutional action, has sundered the ecclesiastical relation which has hitherto bound us together as one Church, so far as any act of theirs could do so; that we will no longer submit to the jurisdiction of said General Confer¬ ence, but hereby declare ourselves separate and. independent of it—still claiming to be, notwithstanding, an integral part of the Methodist Episcopal Church." This procedure looked toward inducing other Conferences to unite in this action, and all which did it—who would go back to the Discipline of 1856—it was expected, would declare themselves " the onlv true and legitimate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 'States;" and if none joined in the action, then the Baltimore Conference would claim the position. The Bishops were also to be addressed, to know if they would " disavow the act of the late General Conference," as otherwise this body could "submit no longer to their oversight." Within a few months the armies separated the preachers of the Baltimore Conference—part being within the Federal, the larger part within the Confed- The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 187 body, and the adhesion of much the larger section, in 1866, to the Church, South. About the same time a body of Illinois Methodists, who had organized an in¬ dependent Conference, applied also to be received. In both these cases the movements toward the South were spontaneous, and not procured by aggression or sustained by an outlay of missionary moneys. The Methodist Episcopal Church, on the contrary, has mapped out the entire Southern territory into Confer¬ ences, with a considerable membership, formerly of the Church, South, but mostly blacks. It was made no secret among high officials that the purpose in view was to "disintegrate and absorb" Southern Method¬ ism; and the assertion has been made by the author* of this "slogan" that the policy may be considered to have measurably succeeded. The attitude assumed toward the Church, South, by the other Communion, during and after the Confeder¬ ate war, farther complicated the difficulties. After the Federal forces had forced the passage of the Missis¬ sippi River, and occupied large sections of South¬ ern territory, Bishop Ames and some of the preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church followed the victo¬ rious army with a circular order issued to its officers, under date of November 30, 1863, from the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, in which he said: "You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Bishop Ames all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, erate, lines. These could not set to the Conference to be held in Baltimore, March, 1862. About fifty members met there, many of whom had voted for all the action above recorded. Bishop Janes met with them, and they became reconciled to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and, by resolution, declared the majority, absent thus compulsorily, withdrawn, by a vote of 22 to 11; and these and tneir successors claim to he the original Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The majority of the Conference, however, met in its Virginia territory regu¬ larly every year, and maintained its organization; and I am informed that " the legality of these sessions has been admitted by the testimony, in Church suits, of some leading men on the other side." After the war this body as¬ sembled again in Baltimore, and there adopted this resolution: "Resolved, by, etc., That, in pursuance of the action of this body in 1861, we do hereby unite with, and adhere to, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and do now, through the President of this Conference, invite Bishop Early to recognize us officially, and preside over us at our present session." Thus one hundred and eight traveling and fifty-seven local preachers, and nearly twelve thousand members, passed over to the Church, South. Dele¬ gates were elected to its General Conference of 1866, and the union was there consummated. * Dr. Daniel Curry, in Christian Advocate and Journal. 188 The Disruption of the M. B. Church. South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by a loyal Bishop of said Church, does not officiate"—the very terms of the order giving the army officers the right of judgment as to who were "loyal" Bishops and ministers. Armed with this order, officials of the Methodist Episcopal Church took possession of several houses of worship in the occupied cities of the South, in spite of the remonstrances of the members owning them, and their pulpits were filled by preachers whom they con¬ sidered their political enemies. Even after the war had closed possession of several of these houses of worship was maintained until, after many obstructions and vexatious delays, they were restored to their right¬ ful owners by order of the Government.* Others of them—notably some in New Orleans—have never been surrendered. Changes of Church-relations have given rise to sun¬ dry other difficulties about houses of worship, parson¬ ages, and other Church-property, some of which have been settled by compromise and some by the courts, while others are still pending with a view, as we have seen, to get the matter, if possible, before the Su¬ preme Court. The justification alleged in many of these cases for the retention of this property is that a large part, or all, of the congregations went over with the houses; though in some cases the houses went one way, and a large part, or all, of the worshipers another. The difficulties are more complicated still, it may be, by the alleged fact that it is mutual—that in *Dr. Matlack, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Presiding Elder of the New Orleans District, in Central (St. Louis) Advocate, of March 15, 1870, writes: " With the humiliation of the South, the flight of her ministers, our Church, by national authority, occupied and held many pulpits of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, South. No other denomination did just as we did in the matter. Temporary occupancy of pulpits occurred, in some instances, with others; but our ministers stood in the attitude of conquerors. They differed little, in appearance, from the relation of invaders. It did not so appear to them. It did so appear to the Church, South. It is so esteemed by them now. . . If our occupancy of the pulpits of the Church, South, had been only for the purpose of offering the preaching of the word to deserted congregations, and, on the return of their pastors and the restoration of peace, had been yielded up gracefully, it would have been better for the peace of the Methodist family. But such was not the case. Claims were set up to the property on questiona¬ ble grounds. Possession was retained until compelled to relinquish it by civil authority. . . . Did we not wrong our brethren in this thing? Is not con¬ fession of wrong far better than defense of wrong? Can we ignore our duty and be guiltless before God and the Church of Christ? Our attitude, as a Church, toward the South, both ecclesiastically and politically, needs to be carefully examined." The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 189 both Churches are to be found congregations which, transferring their membership, still retain possession of the Church-property they previously held. This fact is alleged against the Church, South, respecting property within the bounds of the old Baltimore Con¬ ference.* Meanwhile, the General Conference of the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church was not wholly silent. In 1864 it added to the conditions on which it would receive ministers from "other Christian Churches" one ex¬ pressly for the reception of any who might offer from the Church, South—namely: "Provided they give sat¬ isfactory assurances to an Annual or Quarterly Confer¬ ence of their loyalty to the National Government, and hearty approval of the anti-slavery doctrine of the Church." This political condition of transfer was rescinded in 1868; but not until after the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at their meeting at Erie, June, 1865—when resolving "to occupy, as far as practicable, those fields in the Southern States" which "might be open to them," and which "gave promise of success"—extended "a cordial welcome to all ministers and members of whatever branch of Methodism who will unite with us [them] on the basis of our [their] loyal and anti-slavery Discipline." The only approach toward official intercourse during this time was by a deputation of the Holston Confer¬ ence (South) making complaint, to the General Con¬ ference of 1868, pf the withholding of much of their valuable property since the establishment, in 1865, of another Holston Conference (North), which relied * We have seen that the Baltimore Conference " adhered " North, in 1846, on certain conditions; that the conditions failed by an act of the General Confer¬ ence ; that it then felt free to rescind its adhesion to that iurisdiction; and that, after six years of independent existence, it came, unsolicited, to the Church, South, with all its property. It was not for the General Conference to which it came to inquire about its property rights, which, so far as it could know, were un¬ disputed. It had declared, in 1861, that" weconceive [our action] to be the legit¬ imate one, and will effectually secure our rights, should necessity carry our cause before the civil courts for adjudication." It is certain that if it had adhered South in 1861, it, like the other Conferences which did so, would have brought its property with it, by the terms of the Plan of Separation. It believed that, by adhering North only conditionally, it secured to itself the right to transfer its adherence subsequently if the condition was not met; and it is purely a legal question whether, the conditional adherence becoming void, the rights of property, under the Plan, remained after failure of the condition, just as if the vote of 1846 had been for adherence to the Church, South. 190 The Disruption op tiie 3^. E. Church. largely "for sustaining its claims to the property on its political affinities. The memorialists were referred by the Conference to the body of which they complained for the restoration of their rights. I mention these facts here not to pronounce judg¬ ment for or against either party, but simply to sustain my assertion that whatever may have been "the seri¬ ous questions and difficulties" in 1844, they were much more embarrassing in 1874. As has been seen, the Church, South, could not, con¬ sistently with self-respect and avowed purpose, make farther fraternal overtures to the other Communion; and it would naturally be presumed that the Methodist Episcopal Church, remembering that the "serious ques¬ tions and difficulties" in the way of fraternization in 1848 had constantly grown more serious, would not, except by first seeking to remove them, have made ad¬ vances toward restoring amity. But not so. Tenta¬ tive efforts to open an intercourse of some sort between the two bodies were made prior to 1874, not, indeed, by trying to put wholly out of the way the difficulties, but by going around them. But these were, at best, only semi-official courtesies interchanged, of which I now give account. In 1869 the Southern Bishops met in St. Louis, where they were unexpectedly visited by Bishops Janes and Simpson, commissioned by the Episcopal College of the Methodist Episcopal Church to bear fraternal greet¬ ings. They were self-moved to do this, believing that, as "chief pastors," it became them to suggest a reunion of the two Churches. They were received with the utmost respect, and their communication answered courteously, but candidly. The Southern Bishops did not conceive "reunion" the^rs^ question to be consid¬ ered; it must be preceded by the establishment of fra¬ ternal feelings and relations between the two Churches. They cited the final words of Dr. Pierce in 1848, which, in 1850, had been adopted as the language of the Church, South. "If the offer of fraternal relations is ever made, upon the basis of the Plan of Separation of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially entertain the proposition,"' Dr. P. wrote; and they add: "You can- The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 191 not expect us to say less than this, that the words of our rejected Delegate are our words." And again: "Allow us, in all kindness, brethren, to remind you, and to keep the important fact of history prominent, that we separated from you in no sense in which you did not separate from us. The separation was by compact, and mutual; and nearer approaches to each other can he conducted, with hope of successful issue, only on this basis." They also called at¬ tention "to the conduct of some of the missionaries and agents sent into" the South, and to their "course in taking possession of some of our houses of worship;" and, granting it not impossible "that our own people may not have been in every instance with¬ out blame toward you," they add, "If any offenses against the law of love committed by those under our appointment, any aggressions upon your just privileges and rights, are properly represented to us, we shall stand ready, by all the authority and influence we have, to restrain and correct them." There was no response; hut, in 1870, Bishop Janes and Dr. (now Bishop) Harris visited the Southern Gen¬ eral Conference at Memphis. A commission had been appointed, in 1868, to consider certain overtures for union from African Zion Church; and its powers were enlarged "to treat with a similar commission from any other Methodist Church that may desire union." This commission went somewhat beyond the letter of its "instructions, and .sent these Delegates to suggest the propriety of 'union,'" and of the appointment of a similar commission to confer with that of their Church on said subject. This was acknowledged to be an over¬ ture not emanating directly from the General Con¬ ference, and the Southern body did not esteem the authority of the commission sufficient to warrant its being relied on as an expression of the wish or senti¬ ment of the Church; and the visit, as was probably expected, ended in only the cordial reception and hos¬ pitable entertainment of the distinguished visitors. Among the resolutions which the occasion elicited was this: Resolved, That the action of our Bishops in their last annual meeting, in St. Louis, in response to the message from the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has the full indorsement of this General Conference, and accurately defines our position in ref¬ erence to any overtures which may proceed from that Church hav¬ ing in them an official and proper recognition of that body. Here, then, is the platform on which Southern Meth- 192 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. odism stands—propounded by Dr. Pierce in 1848— confirmed by the General Conference in 1850—reas¬ serted by the Bishops in 1869—and again confirmed unanimously, in 1870, by a full General Conference of lay and clerical Delegates—namely: Her foundation, as a separate ecclesiastical organization, was, by authority, laid in the Plan of Separation, and this fact must be recognized as the basis of a permanent peace and cor¬ dial fraternization. The course of events now carries us to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1872. Sundry resolutions, having reference to the relations of the two Churches, were offered to that body, and sent to the Committee on the State of the Church. The report from that committee was called up toward the close of the Conference. The following comprises most of it: We believe that very generally there has hitherto existed among our people a disposition of good-will and Christian fraternity to¬ ward the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This disposition and purpose we still hold and maintain. Respecting whatever intercourse there has been between us and them since the beginning of the separate existence of the Method¬ ist Episcopal Church, South, we do not propose to say any thing at this time. We are content to let past events go into history, or be forgotten, as the case may be; and, recognizing that Church and its people as a portion of the great Christian and Methodist family, we wish them abundant success in their efforts to promote the cause of Christ and his gospel. Within the parts of the country in which the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, South, has nearly all its membership and institutions . . our Church is as really settled as in any part of the land; and every consideration of good faith to our own people, and of regard to the integrity of our Church, and especially of the un¬ mistakable evidences of the favor of God toward our efforts there, forbids the thought of relaxing our labors in that part of our work. We must, therefore, continue to occupy that part of the country in perpetuity; and we have need to strengthen and reenforce our work in it, as God shall give us the means and the opportunities. But in all this we desire to avoid all unfriendly rivalries with our brethren of the Church, South. . . . To place ourselves in the truly fraternal relations toward our Southern brethren which the sentiments of our people demand, and to prepare the way for the opening of formal fraternity with them, be it hereby Resolved, That this General Conference will appoint a delegation, consisting The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 193 of two ministers and one layman, to convey fraternal greetings to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at its next ensuing session. The discussion—if discussion it can be called—was brief. j P. G. Hibbard thought that "this propose^ action would not satisfy the Church, South. There are certain facts in connection with this matter that we may as well realize first as last. The Church, South, it is well known, demands of us that we meet cer¬ tain specified questions, and settle them; and until that is done, in his opinion, there is no use in taking action in this direction. Let us meet these points fairly and settle them, and then he doubted not that coalescence would be a comparatively easy matter." This promised well. Surely Dr. H. remembers, or has seen, Dr. Pierce's parting letter to the Conference of 1848—although not published in its Journal—and has some idea of the Southern "platform." But our hopes are presently dashed. He explains that the ac¬ tion of 1848, necessary to be rescinded "before these approaches will prove availing," is the action by which "we [Methodist Episcopal Church] declined to receive their fraternal Delegate." And again: "If we shake hands with the Church, South, as he heartily wished we might do, we must meet and obviate their objection to our action of 1848 on the same subject." But there were other speakers. The Rev. W. H. Black (of Kentucky) had been many years alongside the Church, South, and he felt that the report recom¬ mends a step in the right direction. Hon. R. O. Bonner (of Missouri) thought the time had fully come when our Church can afford to approach the brethren of the South, and hold out to them the olive-branch of peace. There are some obstacles in the way of their approaching us. They did this in 1848, and we did not receive them, because circumstances sur¬ rounded us then that prevented it; but those circumstances are changed, and it is easy now to approach them. The Rev. J. Braden (of Tennessee) had spent some years in the South; felt strong desire for union; the Southern brethren thought the rejection of Dr. Pierce, in 1848, an indignity; circumstances have changed; we can approach them. He had talked with many, Bishop Paine among others, who said, "with tears," that he re¬ gretted the condition of affairs between the two Churches, and greatly desired a change for the better. Dr. Akers had lately been in the South, and the general feeling there is one of friendship. Judge Caldwell thought old issues past, and he did not propose 194 The Disruption of the M. B. Ciiurcii. to fight over those o]d battles; their members from the South very generally agree in this proposition, and they arc the parties most generally interested. He was for adopting the report. Dr. Stevenson (of Kentucky) believed the hearts of many Meth¬ odists in the South are yearning for fraternity. Dr. Slicer thought it always safe to love people; and as "we had met everybody else with fraternal greetings," ought not the South to be included? The Kev. E. O. Fuller (of Georgia) had been some years in the South, and believed there is a great and growing tendency toward fraternization. Dr. Matlack thought there was not the slightest occasion for the retraction suggested by Dr. Hibbard. There has never been in the South any demand that that action should be rescinded. Their position was, they had made their last overture, and "we now must be the approaching party." Dr. Curry, chairman of the committee, thought that the report meets the case as fully as it can be met, and makes just the provis¬ ion which should be adopted. We are not prepared to take back our action. We did rigbt in 1848, as we were then situated; but the situation had changed since that time, and we now ought to be willing to commit ourselves to the changed circumstances. There were things then that made it impossible for us reasonably to act otherwise than we did; and we do not repent of that action, for we are not under conviction that it was wrong. Let the history remain as it is. We are now speaking for 1872. We will make no confessions, and we ask them to make none; but we are ready to forget differences and shake hands. Could one, bearing these opinions, have imagined that the South had ever uttered a word respecting the conditions of fraternization? had ever intimated, even remotely, that to have it to become mutual and perma¬ nent it must he based upon an acknowledgment of the Plan repudiated in 1848? that there was any more to he done by the Methodist Ejnscopal Church, now that it "could afford to approach us," than to send its Dele¬ gates on, and we would fly into their arms? Yet there was a vague notion afloat, I must believe, that the South had made some condition; yet none could get be¬ yond the idea that the rescinding of the action declin¬ ing to receive our Delegate was the important demand. Dr. Matlack wisely said that this was not demanded. The South has sense enough to see that the sending of messengers by the General Conference opens the door to fraternity which that action closed—most effectually rescinds it—and there can be no other rescission of The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 195 that action, unless it be to reverse the declaration that there are "serious questions and difficulties" between the two Churches, which would not be true, or to rescind the proviso which kindly offered to hear any Southern representative empowered to negotiate respecting ex¬ isting difficulties, which rescission would not help on fraternity. The report was adopted by a rising vote—Bishops and all—with but two negatives. And now the mes¬ sengers are ordered, surely the Conference will avoid the mistake of the South in 1846, and will, besides sending fraternal messages, take some step toward set¬ tling the "serious questions and difficulties" acknowl¬ edged to exist. The prospect is hopeful. There is a part of the report yet to come. Here it is: Tour committee have also investigated the subject of Church- property in dispute between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; and believing that no general rule can he prescribed in advance that will apply with justice in all cases, we therefore recommend the following action by the General Conference: 1. Resolved, That where conflicting claims exist to the same Church-property, we advise that they be adjusted, as speedily as possible, by negotiation, com¬ promise, or arbitration, by the parties more immediately interested, upon the principles of equity and Christian charity. 2. Resolved, Tnat the General Conference appoint a Board of three Commis¬ sioners to meet a similar Board to be appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, who shall agree upon some uniform principles or plan of adjustment. Of course this will pass—perhaps many who voted for the first part of the report would have thought it an offense to send offers of fraternity, without append¬ ing this practical peace-offering; and but for the expec¬ tation of taking this, as the second step toward pacifi¬ cation, would have felt it disingenuous to take the first —some men do reason that way. But, lo! see the end: The remainder of the report respecting Church-property was withdrawn, after which the report, as a whole, was adopted. Before passing away from this action, let us notice that it involves three points, all of which must necessarily be considered by the Church, South, before it can shape its action honorably, as well as fraternally, to meet this proposed overture. 1. "The past events" this Conference is "content to 196 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. let go into history, or he forgotten." These words must be considered in the light thrown upon them by the chairman of the committee. He said: "We are nQt. prepared to take back our action; we did right in 1848; . . . we do not repent of that action." These words were uttered by one who—whatever the Con¬ ference, generally, knew—must have known that the Church, South (to which, indeed, they were uttered),* had said over and again, "If ever the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church should at any time make the offer of fra¬ ternal relations to the Church, South, on the basis of the Plan of Separation of 1844, that Church will cordially entertain the proposition." Yet this proffer is now made, with the distinct avowal that the repudiation of this Plan in 1848 was "right." What we have seen was the real—the invariable—demand of the South, as the condition precedent to fraternity, was ignored in all the speeches on the occasion, and many, doubtless, who voted for the resolutions had never heard of it. I cannot avoid the conviction that had the Conference been informed on this point it would have paused, in self-respect, before committing itself to the earnest so¬ licitations of these "members from the South," to make some proffer of fraternity, however empty, that they might return home rejoicing in the magnanimity of their Church. Had the whole truth been told, would that ■ General Conference have sent messengers to the Church, South? Be that as it may, those who engineered this matter were skillful, and resolved that the Conference should not be misunderstood. The Church, South, was not to suppose that there was to be any pause in the work of occupancy. They seemed to have forgotten the history of a previous partition of territory with the British Conference,! and the Christian large-heartedness and catholic non-intrusiveness that was then set as an ex¬ ample to them. The Conference assures the South that its purpose is "to continue to occupy that part of the country in perpetuity." It is, in effect, a plain avowal * Dr. Hibbard's speech shows that it was expected that the South would con¬ sider the entire action of the Conference. fSee page 157. "The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 197 to it beforehand: "You need say no more, as hereto¬ fore, about the Plan of Separation; we offer you our hand; that is all. If you have any complaints against us, 'let them go into history, or be forgotten.' " 2. "The Church-property in dispute" between the two Churches—this subject "had been investigated;" and, as we have seen, it was considered so insig¬ nificant a "question and difficulty" that it could be left, without the slightest action, to take care of it¬ self. 3. The proffer of fraternity was that part of this ac¬ tion of the Conference addressed directly to the South¬ ern Church for its consideration; but it is manifest that it could not be considered except in the light of the avowal of opinion and purpose and of the treatment of the property difficulties by the Conference—unless the Church, South, was prepared for a total surrender of its long-cherished and oft-declared convictions of right. It is certain that if this proffer was not at first instigated altogether by "their members from the South," it was at least strenuously advocated by them —and by them almost wholly—and by others, because they were "the parties most generally interested," and were "generally agreed in the proposition." It is hard to see how these "members from the South," knowing all they knew of their past relations to Southern Meth¬ odists, and aware of all the "serious questions and dif¬ ficulties" rife in their territory, and of the repeated utterances of the Southern Church, could have expected any thing but a rejection of-this proffer, as not made on the terms the Church, South, had set. Had they sought this result for policy's sake, they could scarce have better shaped their action to secure it. For, as if the analogy in circumstances was not sufficiently parallel to that of 1848, by reason of the accumulated "serious questions and difficulties" to warrant such re¬ sult, they made it complete by so managing that the Conference, after coming to the very verge of provid¬ ing a commission "for the settlement of existing diffi¬ culties," was led to abandon this seeming purpose, nemine contradicente; and thus that Church left its fra¬ ternal Delegates without that power for lack of which, 198 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. in 1848, our representative was turned away from its portals.* It could hardly have been considered other than equity if the Church, South, had borrowed a chapter out of his¬ tory and, following high precedent, had met the mes¬ sengers of fraternity with some such utterance as this": Whereas, "There are serious questions and difficulties between the two bodies," said in 1848 to be of such a nature that "it was not supposed the Church, South, would attempt to settle them," as a settlement would require that its editors should "retract their course"—its Bishops "confess their offenses and promise amend- *It is impossible, and would be unjust, to implicate the entire General Con¬ ference in maneuvering here. The most of that body knew, as the speeches show, too little of the condition and feelings of the South. The reason for the strange course its action took seems to have been known to but few. Nearly two years afterward, the chairman felt called on to explain the sudden repression of the second resolution. He says that, in the interval between the preparation of the report and the action upon it, its principal supporters represented the property cases "as exceedingly complicated and difficult of adjustment by any uniform rule, and most of them were approximating final settlement, by compromises and friendly arrangements," so that General Con¬ ference action " might do harm." So the second resolution was withdrawn, at the " request of the best men of the Conference—lay and clerical -Delegates, rep¬ resenting Southern Conferences." The explanation relieves of the charge of disingenuousness the body of the General Conference—of whom it would be indeed painful to imagine it—but attaches it to these "best men " of the South¬ ern Conferences. It is a little remarkable that the astute chairman of the com¬ mittee permitted himself to be used by.these " best men" in a way to cast a shadow of suspicion over the Conference. Dr. Matlack, whom I cannot sup¬ pose to have joined in this request, since he introduced a resolution similar to this, tells us, as stated above, that there were facts that needed investiga¬ tion; and these " best men" were those whose conduct at the South would be the subject of examination. It was not to their interest that there should be a commission—but it was to the interest of the entire Church that such a com¬ mission be appointed to make a searching investigation—yet their urgent re¬ quest prevailed with the pliant chairman, and he withdrew the only practical part of his report. And the reason! The cases would soon be settled! I am ignorant here; but has one in ten been settled by negotiation and compromise? Thus these "best men" were permitted to carry a measure which left their conduct uninvestigated, while yet they could come South and parade the mag¬ nanimity of their Church—forgetting that such magnanimity looks somewhat like malignity, when a rich, powerful, victorious Church, having the ear of the Government, presses fraternity, upon its own conditions, on a Church in a con¬ quered province, not recovered from the disasters of war, and which has over and again declared it could not accept fraternity but upon certain speci¬ fied terms. Nor did these "best men" consider the chairman's reputation more than that of their Church, as they managed to get him into suspicious circumstances, who least could afford it; for, if any one needed to shun the appearance of pursuing a Machiavelian policy to secure-credit as a hearty " fraternizer " it was he, who, it is believed, had first conveyed the knowledge to the Northern leaders that Bishop Andrew was " connected with slavery," who had been active in promoting the repudiation of the Plan, who had been con¬ stantly at war with the Southland Southern white men, who had been the great advocate of " disintegration and absorption," and who might now be suspected by his enemies of having contrived a scheme admirably suited to promote that policy—offering a fraternity which would probably be rejected, yet giving op¬ portunity to impute an unchristian attitude to the Southern Church among those ignorant of all the facts. It is a relief, however, to see that neither he nor the General Conference is to blame for a crooked policy—it was only the " best men" of the Southern Delegates. The Disruption of the M. B. Church. 199 ment"—and its General C. nference "retract its decisions," to ask all which, the historian of the Great Secession, so called, has said, "would be received as an insult by the South;" and whereas, these "questions and difficulties" are not only yet unsettled, but have grown much more "serious" in the intervening time—by the nul¬ lification of the Plan of Separation; by the entire obliteration of the "border" line; by the occupancy, under military authority,, and in other ways, of houses of worship, still held; by the avowal and prosecution of the policy of disintegration and absorption; and by such semi-official denial of the obligation of acquiescence in the decision of the Supreme Court—which gives us legal title to prop¬ erty, our moral right to which was denied in repudiating the Plan —that we can never feel secure against attempts to deprive us of it, unless that purpose is officially disavowed; and, it may be, by property questions, in which members of the Church, South, are considered the aggressors; and whereas, as in 1848, so now, "if the fraternization were once recognized, it would preclude all farther adjustment, and virtually acknowledge" that the Church, South, "was at fault," and would be "giving a pledge to submit to any and all aggressions" in future; therefore, Resolved, "That we do not consider it proper, at present, to en¬ ter into fraternal relations" with the Methodist Episcopal Church: "Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be so con¬ strued as to operate as a bar to any propositions from " the fraternal messengers, "or any other representatives" of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, "toward the settlement of existing difficulties between that body and this;" although "it is not supposed" that they can "assure" this body that any thing will be retracted by the said Church. A preamble and resolution of this sort could have been made up, almost wholly, of utterances of the General Conference of 1848, and of those of official expositors of its action; and would the judgment of the world have condemned the Church, South, had it met the overtures prepared by the "members from the South" with some such declaration—one drawn from such high sources? It would, perhaps, have been thought rude—too severe a retaliation for Christian people to make—not generous—cruel—but never un¬ just. The proffer, however, was not thus met. The fraternal Delegates came and handsomely fulfilled their mission ; and they were received cordially, as represent¬ ing—not particularly the "members from the South," but—that large section of Northern Methodists who, as ignorant of the difficulties between the Churches, as one of the Delegates professed to be, believe South¬ ern Methodism to be something other than a "secession 200 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. from the Mother Church," and so are honestly desirous of cultivating fraternity. To the history of this "greet¬ ing" we now turn. The General Conference of 1874, convened in Louis¬ ville, Ky., was informed on May 7 that the Revs. Albert S. Hunt, D.D., and Charles H. Fowler, D.D., and General Clinton B. F.isk, were in the city, waiting to convey the fraternal greetings which they had been delegated to bear to that body. A resolution was passed, express¬ ing the readiness of the Conference to receive them— an hour on the next day was set for their reception— and a committee was instructed to notify them of the facts. In short, courtesies were shown such as had marked the advent of Bishop Janes and Dr. Harris to the Conference of 1870. At the time appointed, the committee escorted the fraternal messengers to the platform, on which sat the Bishops and the venerable Dr. L. Pierce;* and, after mutual introductions, their credentials were read. The presiding Bishop then in¬ troduced them to the Conference; and then they sev¬ erally delivered addresses, of which the Journal says, They "were characterized by excellent taste, great abil¬ ity, and warm fraternal sentiments, which were well received by the Conference and the immense audience in attendance." All possible courtesy was afterward shown the messengers, they being invited to "be at home anywhere within the bar or on the platform," and "to share the hospitalities of the people, and to preach in our pulpits." A committee was appointed, to which was "referred the subject of the communica¬ tion." Before this committee had reported, the mes¬ sengers found it necessary to leave, and, on the eve of their departure, the following was passed: Whereas, The message of love and brotherly kindness from the Methodist Episcopal Church has been cordially received, and has been referred to a committee of nine, who, in due time, will cordi¬ ally and fraternally reply thereto: Resolved, That We regret that the distinguished messengers sent by that Church cannot remain to await the presentation and recep¬ tion of that report; but, understanding that they lPave us to-day, we are unwilling that they should return home without carrying *This was not for effect. Dr. P. occupied the platform by request, on a mo¬ tion made early in the session. The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 201 with them the knowledge of our appreciation of their courteous and fraternal hearing among us, and our wishes and prayers for their future happiness and prosperity. This resolution elicited remarks from several mem¬ bers, they responding to the sentiments of the messen¬ gers heartily and in their own spirit, and exhibiting the wish of the Conference for a solid peace. After a few remarks in response, the messengers took their leave. The addresses of these messengers were all they are said above to have been, and they made a profound impression upon the Conference in favor of both the speakers and their cause. In their tenor they were but general expressions of opinion and sentiment upon matters quite out of the field of controversy. The speakers could but carefully avoid all explicit refer¬ ence to existing difficulties; for their Conference, by the disposition it made of the resolution on the prop¬ erty question, had virtually silenced them upon that subject. To have brought it up would have been to go beyond their commission, and they could only have expressed their own opinions. In effect, they were there to say: "We offer you fraternal greetings to¬ day; with the past and future we have nothing to do; nor are we authorized to state the attitude of our Church in respect to any difficulties existing between us; what that is you must learn from the Journals of our General Conference." Gen. Fisk said that when a friend proposed, recently, to "post" him "about the great events of 1844," he "declined the information;" and he proceeded to make an address marked by a poetic pathos that brought tears enough to remind the older members of the Yalley of Bochim of 1844. Ilis eloquence made the hearers almost as oblivious of 1844 as he himself was; and a few of them seem to have found it so lethean a draught that they temporarily forgot 1848, 1850, 1869, and 1870. But with all the restrictions which the action of their Conference had imposed upon them, the messengers could not wholly repress the under-current of thought. It would rise1 to the surface. Dr. Hunt said: Nearly thirtv years have passed since the separate organization 9* 202 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. of your Church. . . . Most of the prominent actors of that period are gathered to the home above. ... To us who come to you, to hundreds of thousands whom we represent, and we sup¬ pose also to a large majority of the members of your honorable body, the transactions of the former days, when we were one, are known only as matters of history. "We are not unmindful of the fact that perplexing questions have arisen, during the last quarter of a century, concerning which there have been, and still are, hon¬ est diversities of opinion. There are some points in which we are at variance; but there are many more in which we are agreed. . . . We have been moved to come to you seeking fraternal intercourse. We give you the assurance that we desire no basis for this inter¬ course but one which both Churches will esteem altogether honor¬ able. And Dr. Fowler made an address of wonderful elo¬ quence, in which he pictured, with great felicity, the glorious achievements of Methodism, and so wrought upon the imagination and hearts of his hearers that they forgot both Plan and repudiation—forgot that they were being addressed by a representative of the so-called "Mother Church," from which they were considered but a "secession "—forgot their "schism " in the presence of the painted glories of the original Methodism—and they listened with eager ears until he pronounced his final word: Leaving organic union as a question of the future, let us make the union of our hearts the question of to-day; and make one holy covenant that from this hour, one in sympathy and one in purpose, we will toil on, shoulder to shoulder, waiting patiently for that near to-morrow, when there shall be but one Methodism for mankind. The fraternal expressions of these speeches were responded to, in the courtesies of the occasion, the resolutions already quoted, the remarks accompanying them, and the resolve to send messengers in return, who should finish, in the General Conference of 1876, the work here inaugurated. But the allusions so deli¬ cately made to the "perplexing questions" and "di¬ versities of opinion"—to "organic union"—and to the mutual "desire that the basis of intercourse" should be one esteemed "by both Churches altogether honor¬ able"—and, more particularly, the public action of the General Conference, accompanying the inception of this fraternizing movement, in which it declared its "basis" of intercourse—these could not properly be The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 203 answered in mellifluous resolutions respecting frater¬ nity, or in courteous addresses to these honored breth¬ ren. Manifestly, the answer to these items, necessarily before the Conference, could be made only in the way that the General Conference of 1872, in noticing them (though in very general terms), had treated them— namely, by a report embodying the opinions and de¬ cisions of the body on these points. The intercourse so pleasantly begun could be maintained hereafter only on a "basis" esteemed "altogether honorable by both Churches;" and as one of these Churches had, in a "report on a fraternal delegation," set forth the "basis " it "esteemed honorable," so it was certainly proper that the respondent should declare its "basis" in the same way. This manifest propriety gave shape to the report the committee offered, and had it been so un¬ derstood by all the Conference, it would probably have elicited no opposition. It would, doubtless, be more agreeable to very many in the Methodist Episcopal Church had the Church, South, been more pliant than itself, and, washing away its principles with its tears, yielded, without either a sigh or a sign of conscious¬ ness, the purposes and sentiments of thirty years—had it quietly ignored the sentence of outlawry of 1848, while the other Church pronounced it "right;" and looking only to the last paragraph of its report (copied into the credentials of the Delegates) and the resolu¬ tion accompanying it, had answered them only. So a respectable minority of the Southern Conference thought; but it was evidently without looking so closely into the nature of this transaction, as did the judicious committee to which the subject was referred. They did not take so narrow a view of the bearings of the question, and they maintained their position suc¬ cessfully before the Conference, which proved itself not disposed to be so governed by a gush of feeling as to sacrifice all consistency to a sentiment—however admirable in itself considered—or to abandon in an hour the underlying truths by which the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, claimed a right to be at all, and to which it had cleaved, in darker days, and now, for a generation, amid obloquy, and oppression, and 204 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. exclusion from the sympathies of the Christian world. The committee reported on May 22. An effort was made to substitute a resolution which, perhaps, every member of the Conference could have voted for—so general was the fraternal sentiment—but that it ig¬ nored all reference to often-avowed principles, and did not recognize the nature of this entire transaction. Mo vote was taken on it, and it disappeared, by being referred to the original committee, with some of the dissentients added, to see if harmony of action could be secured. The committee returned precisely the former report, with only a change in arrangement of topics. A minority report was offered, consisting of several of the first and last paragraphs of the other— all historical allusions being eliminated. This was not adopted—the vote being 65 to 103; and then the re¬ port of the committee was adopted by a vote of 110 to 61, as follows: Report of the Committee on Fraternal Relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church. The committee to whom was referred the matter of the fraternal greetings, conveyed to this General Conference by Delegates duly commissioned from the General Conference of the Methodist Epis¬ copal Church, respectfully report: We have considered the action of the General Conference of that Church, at its session in Brooklyn, New York, in May, 1872, and which is partially incorporated in the certificate of the Delegates, in the following terms, to wit: To place ourselves in the truly fraternal relations toward our Southern brethren which the sentiments of our people demand, and to prepare the way for the opening of formal fraternity with them, it is hereby Resolved, That this General Conference will appoint a delegation, consisting of two ministers and one layman, to convey our fraternal greetings to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at its next en¬ suing session. On Friday, May 8, this delegation, consisting of the Rev. Dr. Albert S. Hunt, the Rev. Dr. Charles H. Fowler, and Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, having announced their presence, were formally received, and their communications heard by the Conference. It is with pleasure that we bear testimony to the distinguished ability, and to the eloquent and courteous manner in which these Christian brethren discharged their trust. Their utterances warmed our hearts. Their touching allusions to the common heritage of Methodist history, to our oneness of doctrines, polity, and usage, and their calling to mind the great work in which we are both en- The Disruption of the M. E. Ciiurch. 205 gaged for the extension of the kingdom of their Lord and ours, stirred within us precious memories. We are called upon, by the terms of the action of their General Conference, to consider measures necessary "to prepare the way for the opening of formal fraternity." Every transaction and ut¬ terance of our past history pledges us to regard favorably, and to meet promptly, this initial response to our long-expressed desire. It is admissible to review briefly what has been done, or at¬ tempted, by us in this direction. Our General Conference of 1846 "Resolved, by a rising and unanimous vote, That Dr. Lovick Pierce be, and is hereby, delegated to visit the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to be held in Pittsburgh, May 1, 1848, to tender to that body the Christian regards and salutations of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." In pursuance of this action Dr. Pierce, duly commissioned, was present at the seat of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and by a note courteously advised them of his errand. The answer of that body was a unanimous vote declaring that "there are serious questions and difficulties existing between the two bodies;" and they did "not consider it proper, at present, to enter into fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." Had our Delegate been received and allowed a hearing, a more definite understanding might have been obtained of those "serious questions and difficulties," and the result, we think, would have been in the interest of peace. He closed his letter to the General Conference, on receiving a copy of its action, in these words: "You will therefore regard this communication as final on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. She can never renew the otfer of fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in the United States. But the proposition can be renewed at any time, either now or here¬ after, by the Methodist Episcopal Church. And if ever made upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted by the Gen¬ eral Conference of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially enter¬ tain the proposition." He reported the failure of his mission to our General Conference in St. Louis, in 1850, which thereupon adopted the following: Resolved, That we will steadfastly adhere to the ground taken in the last communication of our Delegate to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in Pittsburgh, in May, 1818, to wit: That we cannot, under their act of rejection and refusal, renew our offer of fraternal relations and in¬ tercourse; but will, at all times, entertain any proposition coming from the Methodist Episcopal Church to us, whether it be by written communication or delegation, having for its object friendly relations, and predicated of the rights granted to us by the Plan of Separation adopted in New York, in 1844. Here the matter rested until May, 1869, when the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church opened negotiations with our Bishops at their annual meeting in St. Louis, inviting them to "confer" as to "the propriety, practicability, and methods of reunion." Our Bishops respectfully declined to consider that subject, but invited their attention to one having precedence—the cultivation of fra¬ ternal relations. They suggested the removal of causes of strife; 206 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. and this was done in a manner and spirit that met the hearty ap¬ proval of our Church. They reaffirmed the position in which Dr. Pierce had left the matter, saying: "The words of our rejected Delegate have been ever since, and still are, our words." One passage of this correspondence we quote. The Northern Bishops, in their letter, used these words: "That the great cause which led to the separation from us of both the Wesleyan Meth¬ odists of this country and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has passed away." To which the Southern Bishops replied: "We cannot think you mean to offend us when you speak of our having separated from you, and put us in the same category with a small body of schismatics who were always an acknowledged se¬ cession. Allow us, in all kindness, brethren, to remind you, and to keep the important fact of history prominent, that we separated from you in no sense in which you did not separate from us. The separation was by compact and mutual; and nearer approaches to each other can he conducted, with hope of a successful issue, only on this basis." A deputation visited our General Conference of 1870, at Mem¬ phis, proposing to treat with us, in the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the subject of union. They were received and heard with great respect. But it appeared, upon due inquiry, that they were not commissioned to us by their General Conference —the only body with which we can treat on Connectional interests. Nevertheless, the General Conference referred their communication to a committee, whose report, unanimously adopted, contained these resolutions: Resolved, That the action of our Bishops, in their last annual meeting in St. Louis, in response to the message of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has the full indorsement of this General Conference, and accurately defines our position in reference to any overtures which may proceed from that Church, having in them an official and proper recognition of this body. Resolved, moreover, That if this distinguished Commission wore fully clothed with authority to treat with us for union, it is the judgment of this Conference that the true'interests of the Church of Christ require and demand the main¬ tenance of our separate and distinct organization. Resolved, That vvc tender to the Rev. Bishop E. S. Janes, and the Rev. W. L. Harris, D.D., the members of the Commission now witli us, our high regards as brethren beloved, in the Lord, and express our desire that the day may soon come when proper Christian sentiments and fraternal relations between the two great branches of Northern and Southern Methodism shall be permanently established. Thus stood the case when the distinguished Delegates of the Methodist Episcopal Church, duly authorized by their General Conference of 1872, brought us their fraternal greetings. "We hail them with pleasure, and embrace the opportunity at length afforded us of entering into negotiations to secure tranquillity and fellow¬ ship to our alienated Communions upon a permanent basis, and alike honorable to all. We deem it proper, for the attainment of the object sought, to guard against all misapprehension. Organic union is not involved in fraternity. In our view of the subject, the reasons for the sepa¬ rate existence of these two branches of Methodism are such as to make corporate union undesirable and impracticable. The events and The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 207 experiences of the last thirty years have confirmed us in the con¬ viction that such a consummation is demanded by neither reason nor charity. "We believe that each Church can do its work, and fulfill its mission most effectively, by maintaining an independent organization. The causes which led to the division in 1844, upon a plan of separation mutually agreed upon, have not disappeared. Some of them exist in their original form and force, and others have been modified, but not diminished. The size of the Connection, and the extent of territory covered by it, had produced on some thoughtful minds before the events of 1844 the impression that separation would be convenient, if not otherwise advantageous. The General Conference, upon any proper basis of representation, was becoming too unwieldy for the ends originally designed. If this reason was of force then, it is more conclusive now. The membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, exceeds six hundred thousand; our Northern brethren have more than twice that number. Our General Con¬ ference is now composed of nearly three hundred ministers and laymen; theirs is proportionately larger. It will be remembered that the last formal deliverance of the Southern representatives, in the united General Conference, was a protest against the power claimed for, and exercised by, that high¬ est judicatory of the Church. The Northern members, who were a controlling majority, claimed for it prerogatives which seemed to us both dangerous and unconstitutional. In their view the General Conference is supreme. Although restricted in the exercise of its powers by a Constitution, it is the judge of the restrictions, and is thus practically unlimited. In our view the General Conference is a body of limited powers. It cannot absorb the functions of other and coordinate branches of the Church-government, and there are methods by which all constitutional questions may be brought to a satisfactory issue. Each Church still maintains its own construc¬ tion of these fundamental questions. They are not theoretical merely, but very practical in their bearing. Were the two Meth- odisrns organically united, it would lead to serious collisions, and expose the minority to harassing legislation, if not to op¬ pression. The existence of slavery in the Southern States furnished an oc¬ casion, with its connected questions, fruitful of disturbance; and to this the division has been mainly attributed. The position of South¬ ern Methodism on that subject was scriptural. Our opinions have undergone no change. We held ourselves in readiness to carry the gospel to the bond and to the free. Missions to the slaves consti¬ tuted a large part of our work. Many of our ministers labored in this field, and much of our means was expended on it. These la¬ bors were eminently owned of God. At the beginning of the late war a quarter of a million of negroes were in the communion of our Church, and thousands of their children were receiving cate¬ chetical instruction. The Societies organized in the Southern States during the last ten years by our Northern brethren, and the 208 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. members which swell tlieir statistics, are made up largely of those who, in slavery, had been converted by our instrumentality. The colored preachers, exhorters, and class-leaders, by whom they have principally carried on their Southern work, and some of whom have been counted worthy of seats in their Annual and General Confer¬ ences, were Christianized and trained under our ministry, in other days. Following the indications of Providence, we have, without abandoning this work, adapted our methods to the changed condi¬ tion of the descendants of the African race in the midst of us. Many of them had been drawn away from us by appliances that we were not prepared to counteract; but a remnant remained. At their request we have set otf our colored members into an inde¬ pendent ecclesiastical body, with our own creed and polity. We have turned over to them the titles and possession of the Church- property, formerly held bj' us for their use and benefit, and we propose to continue to them such moral and material aid as we are able to give. This method has met with encouraging success. We believe it to be the bust for both races. They have now fifteen Annual Con¬ ferences, four Bishops, six hundred and seven traveling preachers, five hundred and eighteen local preachers, seventy-four thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine members, five hundred and thirty- five Sunday-schools, one thousand one hundred and two Sunday- school teachers, and forty-nine thousand nine hundred and fifty-five Sunday-school scholars. They dwell in the land side by side with us, and between us and them exist the kindest relations. Our Northern brethren have pursued a different plan, and they seem to be committed to it by honest and conscientious convictions. They have mixed Conferences, mixed congregations, and mixed schools. We do not ask them to adopt our plan. We could not adopt theirs. We refer to these things in order that our position may not bo attributed by any to prejudice, resentment, or other motives un¬ worthy of Christians. But whilst we are clear and final ih our declarations against the union of the two Methodisms, we welcome measures looking to the removal of obstacles in the way of amity and peace. The existence of these obstacles is generally known, and they are frankly recog¬ nized in the addresses of the Delegates sent to us. Our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church will, we trust, appreciate our uniform and frequent reference to the Plan of Sep¬ aration. No adjustment can be considered by us that ignores it. By that Plan we hold all our church-houses, cemeteries, school-build¬ ings, and other property, acquired before the division. Under it we claimed and recovered our portion of the common fund in the Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati. When its validity was denied by our Northern brethren, and the share of the common property inuring to us under it was withheld by them, the Plan of Separation was taken for ultimate adjudica¬ tion to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that highest The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 209 civil tribunal, without a dissenting voice, affirmed its validity, and our rights under it. When the representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church asserted before that tribunal that they were the original Church, and that we were a secession, the court said: It can no more be affirmed, either in point of fact or of law, that they are traveling preachers in connection with the Methodist Church as originally constituted, since the division, than of those in connection with the Church, South. Their organization covers but about half of the territory embraced within that of the former Church, and includes within it but a little over two- thirds of the traveling preachers. Their General Conference is not the Gen¬ eral Conference of the old Church, nor does it represent the interest or possess territorially the authority of the same; nor are they the body under whose care this fund was placed by its founders. It may be admitted that, within the restricted limits, the organization and authority are the same as the former Church; but the same is equally true in respect to the organization of the Church, South. When the same parties attempted to set aside the Plan of Separa¬ tion on the ground that it was made without proper authority, the court said: But we do not agree that this division was made without the proper author¬ ity. On the contrary, we entertain no doubt but that the General Conference of 1844 was competent to make it; and that each division of the Church, under the separate organization, is just as legitimate, and can claim as high a sanc¬ tion, ecclesiastical and temporal, as the Methodist Episcopal Church first founded in the United States. The same authority which founded that Church in 1784 has divided it, and established two separate and independent organi¬ zations, occupying the place of the old one. However others may regard that instrument, the Plan of Sepa¬ ration is too important in its application to our status and security to he lightly esteemed by us. If it should be said that its provis¬ ions touching territorial limits have been violated by both parties, we have this to say: We are ready to confer with our Northern brethren on that point. A joint commission having this feature of the compact under revision might reach a solution mutually satisfactory. Measures preparatory to formal fraternity would be defective that leave out of view questions in dispute between the Methodist Episcopal Church and ourselves. These questions relate to the course pursued by some of their accredited agents whilst prosecu¬ ting their work in the South, and to property which has been taken and held by them to this day against our protest and remonstrance. Although feeling ourselves sorely aggrieved in these things, we stand ready to meet our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the spirit of Christian candor, and to compose all dilfer- ences upon the principles of justice and equity. It is to be regretted that the honored representatives who bore fraternal greetings to us were not empowered also to enter upon a settlement of these vexed questions We are prepared to take ad¬ vanced steps in this direction, and, waiving any considerations which might justify a greater reserve, we will not only appoint a delegation to return the greetings so gracefully conveyed to us from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but we will also provide for 210 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. u commission to meet a similar commission from that Church for the purpose of settling disturbing questions. Open and righteous treatment of all cases of complaint will fur¬ nish the only solid ground upon which we can meet. Kelations of amity are, with special emphasis, demanded between bodies so near akin. "VYe be brethren. To the realization of this the families of Methodism are called by the movements of the times. The at¬ tractive power of the cross is working mightily. The Christian elements in the world are all astir in their search for each other. Christian hearts are crying to each other across vast spaces, and longing for fellowship. The heart of Southern Methodism being in full accord with these sentiments, your committee submit the following resolutions for adoption: Resolved, That this General Conference has received with pleasure the fra¬ ternal greetings of the Methodist Episcopal Church, conveyed to us by their Jlelegates, and that our College of Bishops be, and are hereby, authorized to appoint a delegation, consisting of two ministers and one layman, to bear our Christian salutations to their next ensuing General Conference. Rcsolval, That, in order to remove all obstacles to formal fraternity between the two Churches, our College of Bishops is authorized to appoint a commis¬ sion, consisting of three ministers and two laymen, to meet a similar com¬ mission authorized by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to adjust all existing difficulties. The differences of opinion on this occasion do not indicate division of sentiment as to the principles or disbelief of the facts here embodied. They grew partly out of want of consideration of the entire action of the other General Conference, and partly out of miscon¬ ception of the purpose for which the document was prepared. Some thought that it was to be carried as the credentials of the fraternal messengers to be sent to the Conference of 1876, whereas it was an answer to the declaration of principles set forth in the pream¬ ble of the report in the Conference of 1872. That there was no essential diversity of views as to facts and principles appears from a resolution offered after¬ ward, with the signatures of several members, among which were those of three of the four who had offered the substitute for the original report, and two of the three who had offered the minority report. The reso¬ lution, as passed without a division by the Conference, is as follows: Whereas, The discussions and votes of this Conference on the subject of fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, and its cognate subjects, present the appearance of essential differ¬ ences which do not exist; therefore, 1. Resolved, That upon the subject of fraternal relations with The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 211 the Methodist Episcopal Church, upon a proper basis, this Confer¬ ence is a unit. 2. Resolved, That we are also a unit upon the propriety of ap¬ pointing a commission empowered to meet a like commission from the Methodist Episcopal Church, to Settle all questions of difficulty between us, and that such settlement is essential to complete fra¬ ternity. 3. Resolved, That the only points of difference between us on this whole subject are the best methods of accomplishing this de¬ sired end. An examination of the report adopted by the Gen¬ eral Conference of 1874 will convince one that it really covers only the ground included in the action of the other body in 1872—namely: 1. "The past events"—and here the Church, South, reiterates explicitly that "basis of intercourse" it had so often stated as the only one it would consider "al¬ together honorable" to itself—namely, a recognition of the "solemn league and covenant" of 1844, on which, acting in good faith, it had laid the foundations of a perfectly legitimate Methodism. The Conference gave reasons why it could not, even for fraternity's sake, afford quietly to ignore this important instrument. If the Methodist Episcopal Church, in offering fraternity, might be allowed to say that it held the action of 1848 declaring it "null and void" to be "right," shall the Church, South, overborne by sentimental utterances, blench now, and in accepting that offer fail to utter as explicitly what it had said over and often, that it esteemed that repudiation "wrong," and that "no ad¬ justment can be considered by us which ignores" the Plan? This deliverance is all the more important be¬ cause one of the Delegates treated the occasion as though he felt it to be the dawn of the day of "organic union;" and it was but honest and honorable to dispel all such expectations in advance. The daily press ex¬ hibited a forwardness in its comments on these "greet¬ ings" both misleading and damaging. Whatever effect such hopes may have produced beyond the "border," had the General Conference given ground for enter¬ taining them the effect would have been as disastrous to Methodism throughout the entire South as the pas¬ sage of the Finlcy Resolution would have been, but for 212 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. the prompt and wise recommendations of the Southern Delegates in 18-44, whereby all the Southern Confer¬ ences came to act as a unit. Southern Methodists, by tens of thousands, would have repudiated the action that placed them in the attitude of " secessionists from the Mother Church," or which allowed the truth of that postulate, even by implication. 2. The Church-property difficulties were more than mentioned. Recognized as a bar to permanent frater¬ nal relations, this Conference did wisely what the other unwisely left undone. It provided for a commission to "adjust all existing difficulties." Meed I argue as to which was the wiser course, if there is to be a perma¬ nent peace? 3. And we are now brought face to face with the main point involved in the action of the Conference of 1872—fraternization. It seems to have been begun auspiciously; and, perhaps, no Christian man, Morth or South, regrets what was done on this special occa¬ sion. The addresses, the intercourse, the interchange of Christian courtesies, the expressions of interest and sympathy, the prayers and the tears, were they all wasted on a tentative effort that is to bring forth no permanent good result? The attitude these Churches have held toward each other for thirty years is dis¬ creditable to Christianity; but there can be nothing better than the semblance of peace betwixt them, until their relations are determined upon principles rccog- .nized by both Communions. The intercourse begun ought not to end with mutual courtesies and hollow professions of amity. The Church, South, has griev¬ ances to urge against her sister Church, as this history shows; yet she must recognize the other as of the body of Christ, doing a great and good work under his headship. If right relations can be established, she can never feel disparaged by being considered a coequal, co-working sister Church, united in labors where we can agree, cordial and loving even where we differ. Something, then, should be done to wrest from the occasion more than a hollow truce. This ul¬ timate result now depends upon the Methodist Episco¬ pal Church. The Church, South, has said that it de- The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 213 sires fraternity—"amity and peace." It has declared what "basis" for fraternal intercourse it "esteems al¬ together honorable" to itself. If it seem over-per¬ sistent in insisting that the Plan of Separation be recognized, it is because its legitimacy and its rights of property depend on that Plan. It deems that this persistence no more violates Christian charity, or ex¬ hibits an arrogant spirit, than did the demand of St. Paul, who, when he had been unjustly dealt with by those in authority, would not be satisfied with the bare message of the Roman magistrates to the Philippian jailer, "Let these men go," but, remembering his rep¬ resentative character as an apostle of Christ, and as¬ serting his dignity and rights as a Roman citizen, he answered, "Nay, verilyp they have beaten us uncon- demned; let them come and fetch us out."/The ChurcfTjs South, remembering that it, too, is one of the represent¬ ative Christian bodies, set for the defense of truth and j justice, and that it is bound to maintain the inviolability, of solemn ecclesiastical compacts, as an exemplification! to the world of the morals of Christianity, which allows i no laxity in respect to covenants, may with equal pro-| priety say, frankly, to the body proffering fraternity) that there are serious misunderstandings between the two bodies which demand adjustment; that the mostf serious of all is that the relative status of the Church, South, to the original Methodist Episcopal Church has been determined ex parte—its acts condemned without a hearing—itself placed in a false attitude be¬ fore the Christian world; that, on every proper occa¬ sion, it has maintained this position, and it ought not now to be esteemed unchristian or arrogant still to maintain it; that it desires to make an end of all cause , of denominational hostility and disagreement, always/ damaging to religion, especially when existing betwixt' Churches, like ours, in natural alliance because once a, unit, and only separated into two jurisdictions by mu¬ tual consent, the better to promote the interests of , religion. And while the Church, South, thus seeks to uphold its own legitimacy, and to maintain the honor of "the fathers" and the honorableness of its origin, and to 214 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. transmit an unsullied name to those who come after, secured in all their rights, it desires no humiliating confessions or apologies from its sister Church. It be¬ lieves that the General Conference of 1848, overborne by the excitements of the day, hastily pronounced sentence of outlawry against it when it had no oppor¬ tunity to confront its accusers. It now appeals to the calmer judgment of the present generation of Method¬ ists against that precipitate action. This volume offers the principal facts that make up the history pertinent to the subject. It cannot but be believed that all can¬ did and unprejudiced students of a history so au¬ thenticated by evidence will be driven, by their own sense of justice, to revolt against the sentence that as¬ signed to the Church, South, as has been done by the authorized history of the "Great Secession," a dishon¬ orable place among schismatic Communions; and if this be a result of reinvestigation of the matters in controversy, then will it be no degradation, but highly honorable—an exhibition of lofty principle, of real Christian high-mindedness — in 4 this generation of Methodists to confess that their fathers erred, and to do what they can to bring out of the present tentative efforts for fraternization a peace at once permanent and honorable to both Communions. If the Methodists thus addressed will hear what the Church, South, can offer for its justification, and, rein¬ vestigating the case, decide that the relations of the two Methodisms maybe considered to have been finally and properly settled by the decision of the Supreme Court—notwithstanding any thing to the contrary de¬ clared by its General Conference prior to that decision— then, the fundamental fact of the validity of the Plan of Separation being thus agreed upon, all other de¬ pendent questions become proper subjects of renewed negotiation; for such review and readjustment of the details of the Plan are suggested by the General Con¬ ference, when it says: "If it should be said that its provisions have been violated by both parties, we have this to say: We are ready to confer with our Northern brethren on that point. A joint commission having this feature of the compact under revision might reach The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 215 a solution mutually satisfactory." Starting with the premises above indicated, and considering every part of the Plan which may have been infracted as before the commissioners of both parties for revision, a new treaty of peace may be made more in accord with the present political and ecclesiastical condition of affairs. Border or no border, occupied or restored Churches—■ whatever has made difficulty—can be easily adjusted when once it is settled that the relation between these two Communions is not like that between two Churches totally distinct from the beginning, but that there is between them a quasi-organic connection, transmitted from their common mother—a transfusion from their original identity in the one, undivided Methodist Epis¬ copal Church in the United States. Whether or not our co-religionists will concede so much, the fact remains as stated in the Report of 1874: "However others may regard that instrument, the Plan of Separation is too important in its application to our status and security to be lightly esteemed " by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. To its status, be¬ cause, as we have seen, those who deny the validity of the Plan fix upon this Church the odium of schism; to its security, because the other Church having denied the legitimate transfer to it of the original trusteeship over the houses of worship, etc., that came to the South on the division of jurisdiction; and, besides, having never conceded that the decision of the Supreme Court dividing the Book Concern property is equitable—in¬ deed, denying its equity in official documents and or¬ gans, and in Church-suits — that action places the Church, South, in the attitude (1) of holding such property without having any moral rights of trustee¬ ship over it; (2) of.holding possession of it, though legally, yet only by an unrighteous judicial decision. In such case there can be no compromise of difficulties; for there is no room for compromise when there is no shadow of rights; and coming to any terms that leave the Southern trespassers in possession would be but compounding felony. Hence it is the manifest duty of the Methodist Episcopal Church to reclaim posses¬ sion of all such property whenever it can bring judicial 216 The Disruption op the "M. E. Ciiurch. decrees to coincide with its -opinion, that its moral claim to the property is indefeasible. Thus are the members of the Church, South, degraded, by this per¬ sistence in repudiation of the Plan, to the position of legalized robbers, whom it will be equitable to oust from their immorally acquired possessions if ever justice prevails in the land. Can it be surprising that they cannot feel a cordial fraternity toward those who, if they have studied all the facts of this history, yet per¬ sist in justifying that action—claiming it to be "right" —which thus stigmatizes their fathers and themselves? In again stating, therefore, the conditions so often propounded as a preliminary to permanent fraterniza¬ tion, that Church has but obeyed the spirit, at least, of the Master's injunction: "If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault." If the Church, South, is not heard, its next appeal must be to the Christian world—"tell it to the Church;" and, plead¬ ing before it the well-established facts here offered, it has nothing to fear—the verdict cannot go against it. But it will be .sad, indeed, if, after all the sentimental and sympathetic intercourse at Louisville and subse¬ quently, impartial justice shall require that Southern Christians then obey the Lord's farther injunction: "Let" the "brother"—representing that Church— "which neglects to hear " "be unto thee as att heathen man and a publican." Paul's appeal for justice to the heathen magistrates will have been so much more suc¬ cessful that the Christian justice of the nineteenth century will be put to shame. The End.