sc-^ .\y72 I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/historyofmethodiOOwill HISTORY OF THE METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. HISTORY METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH, BY JAMES R W I L L I A M S . B A L T I M O P. E : PUBLISHED BY THE BOOK COMMITTEE OF THE M. P. CHTTRCH. 1843. BED according to tlie Act of Congress, in the year 184 BY JAMES B. WILUiMS, the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maryland. CONTENTS. Page. Preface, 9 Primitive Wesleyan Methodism, 13 ]Methodism after Mr. Wesley's decease, 30 Plan of Pacification, 41 Commencement of Methodism in North America, . . 48 Establishment of Mr. Wesley's authority by Mr. Rankin, 50 Ordinations under the authority of Mr. Wesley, . . 55 Council Plan, 59 IMethodist Episcopal Church founded, (31 Remarks on the exclusion of the laity, 64 Camp Meetings, the main cause of increase, ... 73 Presiding Elder question 75 General Discussion of Lay Representation, ... 77 Specimens of the views and writings of Reformers, . 79 Essay on the unlimited power of the Itinerant Minis- ti y, by Dr. John French, 88 Defence of Lay Representation, by Rev. E. Cooper, 97 General Conference Circular, 182i 103 Review of the General Conference Circular, by Rev. James Smith, 107 Meeting of Reformers in Baltimore after the rise of the General Conference of 1824, 120 Institution of ihe Mutual Rights 120 Constitution of the Baltimore Union Society, . . . 121 vi CONTENTS. Page. Circular addressed to the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 124 Editorial Address, 126 Expulsions in Tennessee, 130 State Conventions held, 132 Expulsions in North Carolina, 132 Persecution of Reformers in Maryland, .... 136 Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey's account of his persecution - in the Baltimore Annual Conference, 137 Rev. Asa Shinn's Address to the Baltimore Annual Conference, 151 Proceedings of the Baltimore Union Society in rela- tion to Rev. D. B. Dorsey's case, 161 Rev. Cornelius Springer's letter to Rev. D. B. Dorsey, 164 Measures taken to secure the expulsion of the mem- bers of the Baltimore Union Society, 166 Sham trials, 171 Examination of the gag-law, ........ 181 Remarks on the specifications, 185 Grounds of Protests 191 Protest sent to the Presiding Elder, 193 jMemorial to the Baltimore Annual Conference, . . 195 Reply of the Annual Conference, . . ^ . . . 200 Copy of the Instrument under which the expelled ministers and members united, 201 Proceedings of the Female friends of Reform, . . 203 General sympathy of Reformers in behalf of the ex- pelled brethren, 212 General Convention, 1827, 229 Memorial to the General Conference of 1828, . . .230 Resolutions of the General Conference in reply, . 237 Call of a General Convention for November, 1828, . 239 Persecutions, expulsions and secessions at Cincin- nati, Ohio 241 Expulsions and secessions at Lynchburg, Va. . . . 260 CONTENTS. . vii Page. General Convention of 1828, 26-3 Reply, by the Convention, to the General Confe- rence's paper in answer to the petitions and memo- rials, ; .... 265 Articles of Association, 282 Persecutions and secessions at Georgetown, D. C. . 288 Expulsions and secessions in Northumberland Coun- ty, Va - 293 General Convention of 1830, 297 Constitution of the Methodist Protestant Church, . 303 General Conference of 1831, 324 Church members in 1831, 327 General Conference of 1838, 338 Plan for the creation of a Book Concern, . . . .341 Boundaries of Annual Conferences, 1838, . . . -343 Number of Church members in 1838, 345 Our cause in the West, .348 General Conference of 1842 352 Plan of Correspondence with the Dissenting Metho- dists in England, 355 Statistics of the New Connexion in England, . . 356 Report of the Book Committee, 357 Explanatory Remarks on the Constitution, . . . 364 - Statistics of the Methodist Protestant Church, 1842, 395 Correction — Page 189, seventh line from top, read four for « three ;" and in the eighth Une, read ten for " fourteen." PREFACE. The present appears to be the proper time to pre- sent our fellowship, and the christian public, with a History of the Methodist Protestant Church. The brethren best acquainted with the origin and pro- gress of our denomination are becoming advanced in life, and in a little while will pass off the stage of action. Some have already gone. The materials also, essential to a standard work are disappearing, so that in a few years hence, the historian would find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the necessary data for the preparation and completion of a correct history of our Church. Previously to the sitting of the General Conference of 1 838, the writer urged on die representatives elect, the propriety and necessity of obtaining the appoint- ment of a committee to prepare a history of our Church, but this matter appears to have been over- looked in the press of business. Finding that no step had been taken toward the accomplishment of this de- sirable object, the writer determined to commence the history on his own responsibility, and began by care- X PREFACE. fully reading over all that had been published in our several periodicals and pamphlets on the subject of reform for the past twenty years. In the midst of his labours, however, his progress was arrested by a most painful and protracted attack of inflammatory rheuma- tism, from which he did not recover, so as to be able to write with ease, till the summer of 1841. He then recommenced his labours, and prosecuted the task to its conclusion. The work commences with a view of Methodism as it existed under Mr. John Wesley, the founder of the denomination styled Methodists. It then passes to Methodism as it existed after Mr. Wesley's decease, and points out the dissimilarity between the two sys- tems. The former, having been framed and adminis- tered by the will and authority of an individual, who claimed the sole right to will and do ail things for his Societies, in accordance with his own views of pro- priety, as the father of a family claims the right to govern his children. The latter, being an aristocracy composed of a limited number of preachers, who aimed to make their government quadrate with that of Mr. Wesley's, but who were forced by the urgent demands of the people, to make great and important changes in favour of christian liberty. From an examination of those two systems of Methodism, the work passes on to the commencement of Methodism in this country, and to the establishment of Episcopal Methodism, with its early assumptions and exclusion of the laity. PREFACE. si This course in the commencement of the History, was deemed necessary to prepare the reader for a clear perception of the following facts : 1. That the Methodist ecclesiastical economy origi- nated in a patriarchal form of government. 2. That as it progressed, it received the disapprobation of many thinking men in its fellowship, both in England and in this country. 3. That a series of decided efforts were made to soften and change its iron features, and to bring it more in accordance with primitive Gospel usage and Scripture warrant. 4. That the claim for representation, originated wjth the Methodists in England; and was revived in this country, on account of the unjustifiable assumptions of the episcopal itinerant ministry. The body of the work shews, that the discussions on what is called the Presiding Elder question, produced a general examination of the entire system, which brought on a persecution against all those who laboured to pro- duce certain salutary changes and improvements in Episcopal Methodism — that the persecutions hastened a crisis, and produced numerous secessions, in different parts of the United States — that the several secedent bodies organized under a representative form of Church government, with the distinctive appellation of the Me- thodist Protestant Church, comprising the Associated Methodist Churches. The progress of this Association is traced in its prin- cipal operations up to the present year. The history is submitted to the community as a plain record of facts xii PREFACE. by one wlio was intimately acquainted with the events which transpired during the whole period of our pro- tracted struggle for representation, while ministers and members in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and with the origin and advancement of our own Church to the present time. With a view to avoid the semblance of partiality or error, and to furnish posterity with an authentic history of facts as they occurred, we have, in that part of our performance which narrates the perse- cutions, expulsions and secessions of Reformers in Bal- timore, Cincinnati, Lynchburg, Georgetown and other places, confined ourselves to documents alone, which were published at the time when those things transpired. In the conclusion some appropriate remarks are made on the Constitution of the Church, and a general statisti- cal table is subjoined, shewing the number of Conference Districts, Stations, Circuits, Missions, Stationed and Unstationed Ministers and Preachers, Church Members, the number of Houses of Worship and their value. Baltimore, ^pril, 1S43. HISTORY OF THE METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. PRIMITIVE OR A>XIENT METHODISM. Every person who examines the Constitution and Discipline of tlie Methodist Protestant Church will per- ceive, that the government is Representative, dividing equally between the ministers and laymen, the entire authority to make such rules and regulations for the whole fellowship, as may be deemed necessary to carry into effect the laws of Christ, the great Head of the Church. A government of this character, in its main features, had been in contemplation by the more enlight- ened part of the great Methodist family long before the decease of Mr. Wesley. This is called by some Modern Methodism. A variety of circumstances which have transpired, in Europe and in this country, have contributed to lead Methodists to contemplate the state of absolute degrada- tion to which they were reduced by those who claimed to be their spiritual guides in all tilings pertaining to 2 14 HISTORY OF THE godliness. These will be noticed as we progress. That the reader may be put in possession of a compre- hensive and correct view of the whole subject, we deem it necessary to bring into view, at the commencement of our work, a somewhat detailed account of Methodism as it existed during Mr. Wesley's life; the changes that ob- tained after his decease ; and also the origin and charac- ter of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This sketch, while it records the peculiarities of Methodism, will, at the same time, exhibit the numerous efforts made by preachers and people to introduce a modification of the government which would bring it more in accordance with Protestant principles, and the primitive usages of Christianity. And, furthermore, it will shew that the struggle for representation, had its commencement with the Wesleyan Methodists in England. We here avail ourselves of a paper we prepared and published nearly twenty years ago, which will, in part, • furnish the very matter we now need for this part of our history. Our attention will be directed, fii"6t, to " ancient Methodism." This is a term made use of by the Eng- lish Methodists to designate Methodism as it stood dur- ing Mr. Wesley's life. Sometimes it is called "primi- tive Methodism," and at other times, tlie " old plan," in contradistinction to the new order of things, which ob- tained upon the adoption of the " articles of pacification," after the decease of Mr. Wesley. The following prominent features of that economy, which we will exhibit in Mi-. Wesley's words, will ena- ble the reader to form a correct notion of ancient Metho- dism. First, the origin and extent of Mr. Wesley's power. Secondly, the power delegated by him to the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 15 officers of his societies ; their relation, one to the other ; and the relation in which the societies stood to tiie Church of England. First. The origin and extent of Mr. Wesley's power. This we will give in Mr. Wesley's own words. Ques. 27. What Power is this which you exercise over both the Preachers and Societies } Jlns. Count Zinzendorf loved to keep all things close. I love to do all things openly. I will therefore tell you all I kno\v of the matter, taking it from the very begin- ning. 1. In November, 1738, two or three persons who desired to flee from the \vrath to come, and then a few more came to me in London, and desired me to advise and pray with them. I said, " If you will meet me on Thursday night, I will help you as well as I can." More and more then desired to meet with them, till they were increased to many hundreds. The case was afterwards tlie same at Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle, and many other parts of England, Scotland and Ireland. It may be observed, the desire was on their part, not mine. My desire was, to live and die in retirement. But I did not see that I could refuse them my help, and be guiltless before God. Here commenced my Power; namely, a power to appoint when, and where., and horo they should meet; and to remove those whose lives shewed that they had not a desire to flee from the wrath to come. And this power remained the same, whetlicr the people meeting together were twelve, or twelve hundred, or twelve thousand. 2. In a few days some of them said, Sir, we will not sit under you for nothing: we will subscribe quarterly. I said, "I will have nothing; for I want nothing. My 16 HISTORY OF THE Fellowship supplies me with all I want." One replied, "Nay, but you want an hundred and fifteen pounds to pay for the lease of the foundery : and likewise a large sum of money to put it into repair." On this consid- eration I suffered them to subscribe, and when the society met, I asked, " Who will take the trouble of receiving the money, and paying it where it is needful?" One said, I Avill do it, and keep the account for you. So here was the first sleioard. Afterwards I desired one or two more to help me as stewards, and in process of time a greater number. Let it be remarked, it was I myself^ not the "people, who chose these stewards, and appointed to each the distinct work, wherein he was to help me as long as I desired. And herein I began to exercise another sort of Poiver, namely, that of appointing and removing stewards. 3. After a time a young man named Thomas Max- field, came and desired to help me as a son in the Gos- pel. Soon after came a second, Thomas Richards, and then a third, Thomas Westall. These severally desired to serve me as sons, and to labour inhen and where I should direct. Observe. These likewise desired me, not I them. But I durst not refuse their assistance. And here commenced my Power, to appoint each of these when, where, and /io?o to labour: that is, while he chose to continue with me. For each had a power to go away when he pleased : as I had also to go away from them, or any of them, if I saw sufficient cause. The case continued the same, when the number of preachers in- creased. I had just the same power still, to appoint when, where and how each should help me : and to tell any (if I saw cause) "I do not desire your help any longer." On these terms, and no other, we joined at METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 17 first: on these we continue joined. But tliey do me no favour in beini^ directed by me. It is true, my reward is with the Lord. — But at present I have notliing from it but trouble and care ; and often a burden I scarce know how to bear. 4. In 1744, I wrote to several clergymen, and to all who then served me as sons in the Gospel; desiring tliem to meet me in London, and to give me their advice, concerning the best method of carrying on the work of God. And when their number increased, so that it Avas not convenient to invite tliem all, for several years I wrote to those with whom I desired to confer, and they 07ily met me at London, or elsewhere, till, at length I gave a general permission, which I now see cause to retract. Observe. I myself sent for tliese of my own free choice. And I sent for them to advise, not to govern me. Neither did I at any time divest myself of any part of the power above described, which the provi- dence of God had cast upon me, without any design or choice of mine. 5. What is that power? It is a power of admitting into, and excluding from the societies under my care : of choosing and removing stewards: of receiving or not receiving lielpers: of appointing them when, where, and how to help me, and of desiring any of them to con- fer with me when I see good. And as it was merely in obedience to the providence of God, and for the good of the people, that I at first accepted of this power, which I never sought: so it is on the same consideration, not for profit, honour, or pleasure, tiiat I use it at this day. 6. But "several gentlemen are offended at your hav- ing so much power." I .did not seek any part of it. 2* 18 HISTORY OF THE But when it came unawares, not daring to bury that tal- ent, I used it to the best of my judgment. Yet I never was fond of it. I always did, and do now, bear it as my burden, the burden which God lays upon me, and therefore I dare not lay it down. But if you can tell me any one, or any five men, to whom I may transfer this burden, who can and will do just what I do now, I will heartily thank both them and you. 7. But some of our helpers say, " This is shackling freeborn Englishmen," and demand a free conference, that is, a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be determined by most votes. I answer, it is pos- sible after my death something of this kind may take place. But not while I live. To 7ne the preachers have engaged themselves to submit, to "serve me as sons in the Gospel." But they are not thus engaged to any man, or number of men besides. To me the people submit : but they will not thus submit to any other." Minutes of Con. vol. /, p. 58. From the above extract it appears, tjiat Mr. Wesley claimed and exercised an unlimited, unamenable, and absolute authority over all the preachers, stewards, lead- ers, and people belonging to his societies throughout the three kingdoms, as Methodists. And that he considered himself accountable to God alone for the exercise of the immense power he held in his own hands. Methodism, then, in this particular, difl'ered from all other Protestant religious associations, as it placed in the hands of a sin- gle individual, the legislative, judicial and executive authorities. Happy for the people and preachers, that this individual used his great power with a single eye to the glory of God, and the salvation of men. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 19 Second. The power delegated by Mr. Wesley to the officers of his societies, and their relation one to the other. Tlie following extract from Mr. Wesley's Jour- nal, has been recently published in England, under the title of " Outline of the Primitive Churcli government of our Societies." And was sent to this country in August of the year 1820, by a distinguished member of the British Conference. " On Wednesday evening I read over to the leaders the following paper: 1 . Tliat it may be more easily discerned whether the members of our societies are working out their own salvation, they are divided into little companies called classes; one person in each of these is styled a leader* It is his business •The following is Mr. Wesley's account of the origin of this class of otficers : — " I was talking with several of the Society in Bristol, concerning the means of paying the debts there ; when one stood up and said, ' let every member of the Society give a penny a weelc, till all are paid.' Another answered, 'but many of them are poor, and cannot afford to do it.' ' Then,' said he, ' put eleven of the poorest with me, and if they can give any thing, well. I will call on them weekly, and if they can give nothing, I will give for them as well as for myself And each of you call on eleven of your neighbours weekly ; and receive what they give, and make up what is wanting.' It was done. In a while some of these informed me, they found such an such an one did not live as he ought. It struck me imme- diately. This is the thing; the very thing we wanted so long. I called together all the leaders of the classes, (so we used to term them and their companies,) and desired that each would make a particular inquiry into the behaviour of those whom he saw weekly. They did so. Many disorderly walkers were detected. Some turned from the evil of their ways. Some were put away from us. Many saw it with fear, and rejoiced unto God with reverence. " As soon as possible the same method was used in London, and all other places. Evil men were detected, and reproved. They were 20 HISTORY OF THE 1. To see each person in his class once a week. To enquire how their souls prosper? To advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort them. II. To receive what they are willing to give towards the expenses of the society ; and III. To meet the assistant and the stewards once a week. 2. This is the lohole and sole business of a leader, or any numher of leaders. But it is common for the assis- tant, in any place, when several leaders are met to- gether, to ask their advice, as to any thing that concerns either the temporal or spiritual Avelfare of the society. This he may, or he may not do, as he sees best. I fre- quently do it in the larger societies ; and on many occa- sions I have found, that in a multitude of counsellors there is safety. 3. From this short view of the original design of leaders, it is easy to answer the following questions: Q. 1. What authority has a single leader? He lias authority to meet his class; to receive their contribu- tions; and to visit the sick in his cla«s. Q. 2. What authority have all the leaders of a society met together ? They have authority to shew their class- papers to the assistant; to deliver the money they have received to the sten'ards; and to bring in tlie names of tlie sick. Q. 3. But have they not authority to restrain the as- sistant, if they think he acts improperly? No more than any member of the society lias. After mildly borne with for a season. If they forsook their sins, we received tliem gladly; if they obstinately persisted therein, it was openly declared, that they were not of us. The rest mourned and prayed for them, and yet rejoiced, that, as far as in us lay, the scandal wiis rolled away from the Society." METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 21 speaking to him, they are to refer the thing to Mr. W. (Wesley.) Q. 4. Have they not autliority to hinder a person from preaching.' None but the assistant has this au- thority. Q. 5. Have they not authority to displace a particular leader.' No more than the door-keeper has. To place and to displace leaders belongs to the assistant alone. Q. 6. Have they not authority to expel a particular member of the society ? No ; the assistant only can do this. Q. 7. But have they not authority to regulate the tem- poral and spiritual affairs of the society Neither the one nor the other. Temporal affairs belong to the stewards ; spiritual to the assistant. Q. 8. Have they authority to make any collection of a public nature.' No; the assistant only can do this. Q. 9. Have they authority to receive the yearly sub- scription? No; this also belongs to the assistant. Considering these things, can we wonder at the con- fusion which has been here for some years? If one wheel in a machine gets out of its place, what disorder must ensue! In the Methodist discipline, the wheels regularly stand thus: — the assistant,* the preacher, the stewards, the leaders, the people. But here, the leaders, who are the lowest wheel but one, were got quite out of their place. They were got at the top of all, above the stewards, the preachers, yea, and above the assistant himself. •The "Assistant" was the preacher appointed by Mr. Wesley to take charge of the circuit or station, and was constantly accountable to him for the discharge of every part of his duty, and to no one else. 22 HISTORY OF THE 4. To this cliiefly I impute the gradual decay of the work of God in Dublin. There has been a jar throughout the whole machine. Most of the wheels were hindered in tlipir motion. The stewards, the preachers, the assistant, all moved heavily. They felt all was not right. But if they saw ^vhere the fault lay, they had not strength to remedy it. But it may be etfectually remedied now. Without re- hearsing former grievances (which may all die and be forgotten) for the time to come, let each wheel keep its own place. Let the assistant, the preachers, the stew- ards, the leaders, know and execute their several offices ; let none encroach upon another, but all move together in harmony and love. So shall the work of God flourish among you, perhaps as it never did before; while you all hold the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace." Dublin, March 29, 1771. The relation Avhich the Methodist societies sustained to the Church of England, during Mr. Wesley's admin- istration. Mr. Wesley himself, and perhaps a« majority of the members of his societies were Church of England men, and viewed as individuals, they constituted integral parts of the Church ; but the Presbyterians, Baptists, &c. who joined the Methodist society, and still retained their membership in their res])ective congregations, certainly were not Church of England men. Nor could the cir- cumstance of their joining the Methodist society give tliem membership in that Church. Again, if a church- man were exjjelled by Mr. Wesley from his society, that act of expulsion did not affect his membership in the Church, which would have been the case if the Metho- dist society had constituted a part of the establishment. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 23 Furtliermore, Mr. Wesley never did subject his society, as a religious community, to the control of any parochial clergyman in the three kingdoms ; nor would he on any account suffer the ecclesiastical authorities of the na- tional Church, to interfere with the internal management of his societies. From these facts, it would seem to the disinterested observer, that the Methodist societies, during Mr. Wesley's life, were neither more nor less than associations of christians of every denomination, a majority of whom, perhaps, were churchmen, united together, under the entire control of Mr. Wesley, for the purpose of assisting each other to work out their salva- tion; and, that they no more constituted a part of the establishment than the Bible society, which admitted members from every denomination, constituted a part of the Church of England. Mr. Wesley himself denomi- nated them " the united societies." And yet, he appears to have contemplated them as parts of the Church of England, which is obvious, both from his writings and proceedings ; and it appears to have been his determina- tion that this view should be perpetuated. Mr. Wesley has told us what he meant by a separation from the Church, in the following words: "The question pro- perly refers, when I speak of a separation from the Church, to a total and immediate separation, such as that of Mr. Ingham's people first, and afterwards that of Lady Huntingdon's, who all agreed to form themselves into a separate body without delay, to go to Church no more, and to have no more connexion with the Church of England than with the Church of Rome." Mag. for 1789. In relation to an actual separation, Mr. Wesley says: " Whether it be lawful or no, (which itself may be dis- 24 HISTORY OF THE puted, being not so clear a point as some imagine) it is by no means expedient for us to separate from the estab- lished Church. Because it would be a contradiction to the solemn and repeated declaration, which we have made in all manner of ways, in preaching, in print, and in private conversation." " Because to form the plan of a new Church, would require infinite time and care, with much more wisdom and greater depth and extensiveness of thought, than any of us are masters of" "Because by such a separation we should not only throw away the peculiar glorying which God has given us, that we do and will suffer all things for our brethren's sake, though tlie more we love them, the less we are beloved : but should act in direct contradiction to that very end, for which we believe God hath raised us up. The chief design of his providence in sending us out, is undoubt- edly, to quicken our brethren — and the first message of all our preachers is, to the lost sheep of the Church of England. Now would it not be a flat contradiction to this design, to separate from the Church.? These things being considered, we cannot apprehend, whether it be lawful in itself or no, that it is lawful for us: were it only on this ground, that it is by no means expedient." See Wesley's twelve reasons against separating from the Church. In the magazine for 1790, just one year before his death, Mr. Wesley says: "I never had any design of separating from the Church — I have no such design now. I do not believe the Methodists in general de- sign it when I am no more seen. I do, and will do all that is in my power to prevent such an effect. Never- tlieless, in spite of all that 1 can do, many of them will separate from it, (although I am apt to think, not one- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 25 half, perhaps not a third of them.) These will be so bold and injudicious, as to form a separate party, which, consequently, will dwindle away into a dry, dull, sepa- rate sect. In flat opposition to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England: and that none who regard my judgment or advice, will ever separate from it." In accordance Avith these views of Chui-ch relation- ship, every thing was done in conformity with Church order, so far as it was possible, without subjecting the society to the control of the Church bishops. Clergy- men were employed to celebrate divine worship in seve- ral of the chapels, particularly those in London, in their canonical attire. The service of the Church was adopted, and the Church Prayer Book or Mr. Wesley's Abridgment was used, &c. And Mr. Bradburn tells us, tliat " there was a design formed to place a clergyman in each of the large places, (principal stations,) to offi- ciate as in London." From these instances, it Avould seem that Mr. Wesley considered the " united societies " as connected with the Church of England, and that it was his intention they should remain so for ever. His brother Charles was so attached to the Church, that he said he should be afraid to meet his father's spirit in Paradise if he left it. It must be remarked, however, that Mr. John Wes- ley's attachment to the Church, did not prevent him from deviating from the Church order, when imperious circumstances demanded a change of conduct, as is ex- emplified in the case of his ordaining ministers for Scot- land and America. He had applied to the Church autliorities to ordain certain preachers for this service, but could not obtain their consent, unless he subjected 3 26 HISTORY OF THE those preachers to the authority of the bishops, which he was determined never to do. Upon their refusal, he immediately entered upon the ordination himself; and, according to his account, with a good conscience. For he says, " Lord King's account of the primitive Church, convinced me many years ago, that bishops and presby- ters, (elders,) are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace sake; but because I was determined, as little as possible to violate the established order of the national Church, to which I belonged." Minutes, 1785. Multitudes of the people, and many of the preachers, were decidedly of the opinion, that the Methodist socie- ties were in connexion with the established Church; and so tenacious were they of this " union," that after the decease of Mr. Wesley, they opposed with the greatest degree of warmth, every attempt to have preaching in Church hours, and the administration of the Sacrament by the Mclhodist preachers, as "ruinous to the providential cause of God," and " subversive of pri- mitive Wesleyan Methodism." To be united to the Church, and to receive the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper at the hands of the clergy, was then called " the old plan," " the good old way," " primitive Wesleyan Methodism." Others, however, were of a different opinion, and viewed the Methodists as a body in the light of dissenters, and were clamorous for the administration of the Lord's Supper by the Methodist preachers. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 27 In 1784, six years before his death, Mr. Wesley exe- cuted a " deed of declaration," constituting one hundred of the travelling preachers, therein named, and their successors forever, " the Conference of the people called Methodists," with power to fill up all vacancies occur- ing in their body. The design of this act, we are told by Mr. Miles, in his History of the Methodists, " was, to give a legal specification to the phrase, the ' Confe- rence of the people called Methodists,' which is insert- ed in all the deeds of the chapels." By virtue of this deed of declaration, the British Conference, at their first session after the decease of Mr. Wesley, claimed, on legal premises^ the entire control of all the societies and chapels, in as full a manner as this prerogative was exercised by Mr. Wesley. By the deed of declaration, however, Mr. Wesley could not in justice convey to the hundred preachers his authority to govern the societies on patriarchal princi- ples. To have done so, would have been unjust. The father of a family can have no right to confer on some of his sons the same power over their brethren which he himself exercised as a parent. And the sons, if they think and feel as free men are wont to think and feel, would not submit to such dominion of men who are only their equals. Upon a careful review of Mr. Wesley's own account of the origin and extent of his power, over the preachers and societies, there is not the slightest evidence that he modelled his government on Gospel or primitive usages, or any ecclesiastical precedent whatever. Nor did he in any instance refer his authority to Apostolic succes- sion, for he viewed this miserable pretext, as " a fable which no man did or can prove." The entire system, 28 HISTORY OF THE from first to last, was the creature of circumstances, which he constantly viewed as the openings of Provi- dence. The societies were considered by him as pure- ly religious companies, within the pale of the English Church, united together for the purpose of helping each other to work out their salvation, and himself as their head, and stipreme governor under Christ. His will being law for both preachers and people, and reserving to himself the sole right to inflict such penalties for the infractions of his rules, as he deemed suitable to the offence, and from his decision there was no appeal. It is difficult to conceive of a more complete system of clerical despotism. This system was Methodism during the life of Mr. Wesley. Dr. Whitehead, in his life of Wesley, says, that strictly speaking he governed the societies with "a power that was absolute.'''' "Hitherto I have spoken, says he, of Mr. Wesley's power only in relation to his personal character. But I readily acknowledge, that his absolute, unlimited power has, in its consequences, since his death, been a great injury to tlie societies. It has been the parent of a system of government, highly op- pressive to many individuals, and much more injurious to the rights of the people than his own. He constantly acted as a middle person, between the preachers and people; and was always ready to protect the people, the poor as well as the rich, against any insult or oppres- sion they might receive. At present the preachers claim unlimited powers, both to make laws and execute them, by themselves or their deputies, without any interme- diate authority existing, to act as a check in favour of the people. But what is still much worse than all the rest, is, that the present system of government among METHODIST PROTESTANT CHUKCH. 29 tlie Methodists, requires such acts of human poHcy and chicanery to carry it on, as, in my opinion, are totally inconsistent with the openness of Gospel simplicity." Dr. Whitehead's Life of Wesley, vol. ii. p. 474. Dub- lin Edition. Anotlier reflection which will present itself to the reader is, that, notwithstanding Mr. Wesley was ac- knowledged to be the father of the whole family, and higlily venerated on account of his age and great useful- ness, yet, there existed much dissatisfaction on account of his unlimited and unamenable power. " Several gen- tlemen are offended at your having so much power." — And "some of our lielpers (preachers) say this is shack- ling free-born Englishmen, and demand a free confe- rence, that is, a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things sliall be determined by most votes." This state of uneasiness increased as Mr. Wesley drew nigher to his dissolution; and, the time of his decease was looked to, by all parties with great solicitude. On March 2d, 1791, Mr. Wesley departed in the full assu- rance of a blessed immortality and eternal life, in the 88th year of his age. 3^ 30 HISTORY OF THE CHAPTER II. ENGLISH METHODISM AFTER THE DEATH OF MR. WESLEY. To put the reader in possession of a concise view of the nature and bearings of the controversy wliich ob- tained, after the decease of Mr. Wesley, and which led to the adoption of the "plan of pacification," we will present him with two extracts taken from pamphlets published in England. By which it "will be seen, that not only the question of Church relationship was warmly agitated but also the question relative to the right of the preachers in Conferences, to legislate for, and govern the people without their consent, in the absence of all representation on the part of the people. The following extract is taken from a pamplilet writ- ten in 1793, by a Methodist Layman: — As Mr. Wesley was now dead, who had been the head and centre of union amongst the preachers, and as disagreeable innovations might probably be introduced, the London and many other large societies, thought pro- per to send letters to the conference, expressing, in gen- eral and respectful terms, the opinion of the people re- specting tlie plan which might be pursued. Being assem- bled in conference, the preachers appear to have con- sidered themselves as sole masters of the whole, and imagined deliberation with the people to be perfectly unnecessary; and their destroying the addresses they received, without perusing them, to put the best con- struction we can upon their motives, was treating the people with contempt. They saw at the sametimc the alteration Mr. Wesley's death had made in the connexion, METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 31 witli respect to themselves, and forgot that it also af- fected the body. Accustomed, by Mr. Wesley's infiu- euce, to govern a community, who had a most implicit and well grounded confidence in his designs and mea- sures, they unhappily imagined that their influence would be equal to his. On this gi-ound we can only account for most of their proceedings. To rule without per- mitting the body to deliberate, appears to have been a maxim on which the conference rested their first pro- ceedings. Hence, in the first instance, they rejected all interference on the part of the people, and consti- tuted themselves a supreme legislative body ; assuming the absolute power of making laws, Avhich shall be bind- ing on all the preachers, itinerant and local, and on all tlie people through all the Methodist societies ; although many of the preachers, and all the people, are without a voice, and without any representative in the conference. But they did not stop here; for who knows where to stop in fixing the limits of his own authority, where he imagines he only has the power of doing it. They next made themselves a supreme court of judicature, where all differences between the itinerant and local preachers, and between the itinerants and people, shall be finally decided without an appeal. Here then, we see, they are parties in the cause, and judge and jury in the trial. The conference must be " absolute masters,'''' says their first president, in a letter to a preacher. That is, must have the sole disposal of all the chapels in the three king- doms; of collections every where made; of all the of- fices held in the society, and the influence connected with them; and of all the religious rights and privileges of the preachers and people. Wonderful ! and almost incredible, did we not hear tliem with our OAvn ears, assert these 32 HISTORY OF THE claims; and see them with our OAvn eyes, act accord- ingly. This is surely a new thing in the world, which Soloman, with all his wisdom, could not foresee. A company of laymen taken from their trades, and cher- ished and fed by the people, on account of their sup- posed simplicity, piety, and zeal to do good, combine together, invade the riglits of their brethren, and assume a more absolute authority than ever was attempted by the most arbitrary priest in any Protestant Church ! The people knew the goodness of Mr. Wesley's motives; they loved him as a father; had the fullest confidence in his known wisdom and integrity ; and being unwilling to grieve or otfend him, they permitted him to do every thing he thought best. But this gave him no right but what was founded on the will of the people. Indeed Mr. Wesley never claimed any right to the power which he exercised, but what was purely per- sonal; he being the person who, under God, had raised the societies-^formed their plan of discipline — and, from tlie incapacities of the people in tlyjir infant state had gradually grown up into the authority and power which he possessed. These were the grounds on which he founded his claim to power, over the preachers and people. But the notion of transferiing his right to others after his death, never entered into his head. The claims, tlierefore set up by the conference, of inheriting from Mr. Wesley what could not be transferred, is idle, absurd, and founded in a spirit of usurpation. The conference having assumed the uncontroled power of making laws for the whole connexion, and of de- ciding upon all controversies between themselves, the local preachers and people, and having the absolute dis- posal of all money collected for various purposes, and METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 33 the patronage of all places of trust, &c. in the societies, it is manifest that trie government Avas changed. The monarchial form of it was lost, and it was now founded on the principle of an aristocracy. This is the worst form of government that can exist. The people are mere slaves, having no voice in the making of those laws by which they are to be governed, nor in the decision of tliose causes in which their dearest interests are involved. This appears to be the present situation of the members of the Methodist societies. And if any one has courage to complain, he is immediately marked as a disaffected man, an enemy to the preachers — the itinerant plan, and to Methodism itself. The follou'ing extract is from a pamphlet written in 1795, by an English travelling preacher. When the Lord graciously called our venerable Father to his great reward, those things Avhich he maintained purely by his own influence, as the founder of Metho- dism, and which were submitted to, on account of his age and great usefulness in the Church, became subjects of debate. The minds of the people and the preachers were a good deal agitated, before the conference met in 1791. The signal gun was fired from Hull, 'for trustees, stewards, leaders, and private membei's, to resolve in every place, to continue united to the Church of Eng- land. This was seconded by many of our principal societies; but opposed by others. Many letters were circulated before the meeting of the conference. Many things were said in defence of the people's having an unalienable right in any place, to \vorship God, as they considered would be most for his glory : while a general cry was made from every quarter, for us to adhere strictly to the Church and allow no innovations. 34 HISTORY OF THE The eyes of our societies and congregations were lifted up to the conference. Dissenters of every denom- ination Avere anxiously waiting to see what we should determine. — When the preachers assemhled, they found two parties, opposite to each other, both wishing to be heard, and to have their claim granted. A great num- ber of our societies desired us to cleave to the Church with purpose of heart : and many of the old Methodists even wished that the liberty Mr. Wesley had given to different societies, might be wrested from them. The other party earnestly desired to have the privilege of worshiping in church hours, and to have the Lord's Sup- per administered among them. After very long and warm debates on the subject, a majority of the conference de- creed, that the plan should be taken up and pursued, as Mr. Wesley left it. This decree satisfied the minds of many, and brought a degree of tranquility into those places which had been agitated. The part of the con- nexion which wished to preserve the old plan, supposed their end was fully accomplished ; while the other party considered, that Mr. Wesley's plan admitted of such changes as they wished to introduce. As the sacrament was given in several places, and some of the preachers ordained to administer in the course of tlie year, many of the friends, who were warm advocates for the Church, took the alarm, and cried out exceedingly against these steps, and considered the preachers who had engaged in these things, as dread- ful innovators. Several pamphlets were written to prove, that these steps were both lawful and expedient. When the conference met in London, in 1792, the preachers who had been guilty of ordination or the sacrament, were tried by their brethren, and condemned. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 35 After long and fruitless debates on the sacrament, it was put to the lot, whether the Lord's Supper should be administered in England or not, the next year, and the lot came out for no sacrament. Those that were for the Church, and earnestly desirous of preventing liberty of conscience now triumphed, as though God himself had been particularly engaged, in restricting the privileges of our people. Every preacher, ivho should act con- trary to the design of this lot, was threatened with expulsion. We left the conference under a dark cloud, which prevented the sun of liberty from shining upon our connexion that year. Several large societies, how- ever, resolved, if the conference would not allow them to have the Lord's Supper in their own chapels, they would have it somewhere without their consent. When the preachers met in Leeds, 1793, the sub- ject was again brought forward, and new debates com- menced. After much altercation had passed, it was found absolutely necessary, eitlier to allow the sacrament in some places, or lose our societies and congregations. This forced a majority of the preachers to consent, that the influence of the lot should be suspended. A decree passed, 'That the sacrament should not be given but where the society were unanimous, and where they would not be content without it.' We groaned under this act of uniformity till the Bristol conference : when we had it renewed with some little alteration. A vast number of places, however, were put down on the minutes, 1794, where the people were unanimous, ac- cording to tlie spirit of the decree. This greatly affect- ed the minds of those, who wished to biiid us to the Church for ever. 36 HISTORY OF THE A few trustees had met previous to the meeting of the Bristol conference, 1794, and a delegate was ap- pointed from them, to bring an address and proposals to tlie preachers, when they should assemble. After they perceived their plans could not be fully adopted, many of them were exceedingly mortified. The Bristol trustees determined, however, to fire a signal gun of a different nature from that which was fired from Hull, three years before. They threw off the authority of the conference, and rejected one of its members. This was only beginning to let out the wa- ters of strife. It happened in a good time of the year. The preachers, trustees, leaders, stewards, and private people, had eleven months to conflict in a paper war, before the conference could meet again. This was at- tended with many things, both pleasing and painful to the connexion. A vast number of papers, letters, and pamphlets, were written and circulated on the subject The dispute went farther than the cases in hand. Our constitution, laws, discipline, 8fC. were brought into sight, and many things proposed as amendments of our plan. It was supposed by many, that Avhen the conference met in Manchester, 1795, it would be impossible to pre- vent a division among the preachers. A number of respectable trustees from different parts in the kingdom assembled in Mancliester, to see what they called tJieir rights maintained; and to propose to the conference* tlieir determinations. When the British conference met in 1795, the preach- ers found it absolutely necessary to come to some terras of accommodation with the people, or witness the most extensive separations. In the minutes of that conference they say : " When we assembled together, our hearts METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 37 were deeply touched with the awful situation of our affairs. We trembled at the thoughts of a division, and its fearful consequences." " We saw, the necessity of appointing a committee, to prepare a plan of general pa- cification; and that the committee might be men of our own choice, in the fullest sense of the word, we resolved that they should be chosen by ballot. Every preacher, therefore, in full connexion, gave in nine papers, with nine names upon each, (nine being the predetermined number of the committee.) The ballots were received, and Messrs. Mather and Pawson, were desired to retire and count the votes. When they returned, they gave in the following names, as the first upon the list: viz. Joseph Bradford, who was president, (of the confer- ence,) John Pawson, Alexander Mather, Thomas Coke, William Thompson, Samuel Bradburn, Joseph Benson, Henry Moore, and Adam Clark. The committee met six evenings, successively, and sat each evening for about three hours and a half Their plan was at last completed, and laid before the conference; who, with the alteration of a single article, passed it unanimously." Minutes of British Conference 1795. The conference passed the plan and published it under the full expectation that it Avould satisfy many and inti- midate the rest. This plan of pacification, however, did not satisfy the people. Nor could the weighty penalty (namely, the expulsion of any one who should speak for or against the plan) contained in the eighth article, prevent them from speaking their minds fully, "concerning the old system and the new plan," and publishing their sentiments on the right of Methodists to participate in the governmental regulations of the societies ; for, so soon as the plan was 4 38 HISTORY OF THE made public, a new paper war was commenced, in which the plan was thoroughly investigated; its deficiencies pointed out ; its violations of rights exposed ; and it was pronounced to be totally inadequate to effect the object contemplated by its framers, namely, " general pacifica- tion." Meetings were held at different places ; resolutions declarative of the views and wishes of the members were adopted ; circular letters and addresses were distributed throughout the connexion ; and the dissatisfaction was evi- dently much increased. Several of the leading preach- ers embarked in the controversy, and strenuously op- posed representation from the people, either in the district meetings, or the conference. And contended, that the preachers were the proper representatives of the people. Our limits will not permit us to give a detailed ac- count of this controversy, which lasted for two years; we will, therefore, only put down the demands of the reformers, that the reader may know, to what extent they wished reformation. The following is an extract from a circular published in England, November, 1796. CIRCULAR. It has been frequently asked. What are the things you wish to have established for our future prosperity } Are not the following particulars expressive of every thing we want ? I. Let positive laws be enacted by the conference, that no person shall be received to, or excluded, from, the connexion, but by the concurrence of a meeting of the leaders, &c. called for that purpose. II. That no leadei-s nor stewards, shall be appointed to, or removed from their office, but by the concurrence of the major part of a full leaders' meeting. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 39 III. That no person shall be allowed to exercise as a local preacher, without the approbation of a major part of a full leaders' meeting — and that no person receive a plan as a local preacher, until he is mentioned and ap- proved of in a quarterly meeting. IV. That no person shall go out to travel, under any pretence whatever, until he is both mentioned and approved, by the leaders' and the quarterly meeting. V. That no preacher received on trial, shall be admit- ted into full connexion, without being recommended by tlie two last circuits where he has travelled, expressed in writing, from their quarterly meetings, to the district meeting, and the conference. VI. That no circuit stewards shall be appointed to, or removed from their office, without the concurrence of tlie quarterly meeting ; and that no steward abide longer than two years in that office, unless in particular cases, mutually agreed upon by the brethren that are present on the occasion. VII. That two or more delegates, chosen by tlie people, without the least interference, directly or indirectly from tlie preacliers, be appointed by each circuit ; to attend the district meetings, possessed of equal powers with the preachers, and required to assist in transacting all the affairs which are brought into those meetings. VIII. That these delegates, when assembled together at a district meeting, shall elect two or more from their body to attend the conference. These delegates shall possess equal poAvers with the preachers in every respect. They shall carry in all the public collections, and assist in disbursing them. No new laws or rules shall be made without their concurrence. And all the laws and rules respecting discipline, that already exist, shall only 40 HISTORY OF THE be binding, by being revised with their special sanction; particularly those laws and rules made since the death of Mr. Wesley. About 200 trustees, delegated from all parts of the kingdom, assembled at Leeds during the sitting of the conference in July, 1797, fully prepared, and resolutely determined to press the claims of the societies on the at- tention of the conference. The conference, of course, did not much relish those determined assemblies, but" the preachers found it absolutely necessary to adopt a new " plan of pacification," in the place of that which had been passed at the conference of 1795. In the new plan most of the demands made in the preceding circular, and others made in dilferent addresses, was granted, with the ex- ceptions of delegates to sit in conference., chosen by the people. This claim was resisted by the conference at all hazards, and a separation of about five thousand members took place immediately.* Mr. Crowther says^ * An English writer furnishes the following history of this se- cession. Many societies, in various parts of the kingdom, sent delegates to the conference at Leeds in 1797 : they were instructed to request, that the people might have a voice in the formation of their own laws, the choice of their own officers, and the distribution of their own pro- perty. The preachers proceeded to discuss two motions. First: Shall delegates from the societies be admitted into the conference ? Secondly : Shall circuit stewards be admitted into the district meet- ings ? Both motions were negatived, and consequently, all hopes of accommodation between the parties were given up. Several friends of religious liberty proposed a plan for a new itinerancy. A meet- ing was called for the purpose of preparing a plan, which, when matured, was printed and sent throughout the societies for their examination. At a subsequent conference of preachers and dele- gates the plan was amended and adopted. The leading features are as follows : The preachers and people are incorporated in all meet- ings for business. The classes choose their own leaders. The METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 41 in his Portraiture of Methodism, p. 77. "Ahout five thousand became a separate party. For fear of a larger division, the conference agreed to make conside- rable sacrifices: the preachers resigning considerable portions of power, respecting temporal matters; division of circuits ; receiving and excluding members ; the ap- pointment and removal of leaders, stewards and local preachers." The conference say, in their address to tlie societies : " We trust, that on a serious considera- tion of the regulations we have agreed to at this confe- rence, you will see that the sacrifices in respect to au- thority, which we have made on the part of the whole body of travelling preachers, evidences our willingness to meet our brethren in every thing, which is consistent with the existence of the Methodist discipline, and a readiness to be their servants for Jesus' sake. PLAN OF PACIFICATION. 1797. I. In respect to Finances or Money matters.' 1. We have determined to publish annually a very mi- nute account of the disbursement, or application of the yearly collection : and, 2. A full account of the affairs of Kingswood school. 3. That all the bills for the support of travelling preach- ers and their families, in respect to deficiencies, house- rent, fire, candles, sickness, travelling expenses, and all other matters of a temporal kind, for their support, for which the circuits cannot provide, shall first meet with the leaders' meeting nominates the stewards; and the society confirms or rejects the nomination. The quarterly meetings are composed of the general stewards and representatives chosen by the different societies of the circuits, and the fourth quarterly meeting of the year appoints the preacher and delegate of every circuit that shall attend the Annual Conference. 4* 42 HISTORY OF THE approbation of the quarterly meeting, and be signed by the general steward of the circuit before they can be brought to the district committee. II. In respect to all other Temporal matters. 1. It has been determined, that no circuits shall be divided till such division has been approved of by their respective quarterly meetings, and signed by the general stewards. 2. That no other temporal matter shall be transacted by the district committees, till the approbation of the respec- tive quarterly meetings be first given, signed by the cir- cuit stewards. III. In respect to the receiving and excluding Private Members of the society. 1. The leaders' meeting shall have a right to declare any person, on trial, improper to be received into the society; and after such declaration, the superintendent shall not admit such person into society. 2. No person shall be expelled from the society for immorality, till such immorality be proved at a leaders' meeting. IV. In respect to the ajjpointment and removal of Lea- ders, Stewards, and Local Preachers, and concerning Meetings. 1. No person shall be appointed a leader or steward, or be removed from his office, but in conjunction with the leaders' meeting ; the nomination to be in the superinten- dent, and the approbation or disapprobation in the leaders' meeting. 2. The former rule concerning local preachers is con- firmed, viz. that no person shall receive a plan as a local preacher, without the approbation of a local preachers' meeting. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 43 •3. In compliance with a request made by the commit- tee of persons from various parts, namely, " that the con- ference be requested to re-consider and revise those rules which relate to the calling of meetings, and appointing local preachers, made last year, we say : no local preacher shall be permitted to preach in any other circuit than his own, without producing a recommendation from the super- intendent of the circuit in which he lives ; nor suffer any invitation to be admitted as a plea, but from men in office, who act in conjunction with the superintendent of that circuit which he visits. The design of this rule is to pre- vent any, under the character of local preachers, from bur- dening the people, either by collecting money, or by living upon them ; and to prevent improper persons, who bear no part of the expense, from inviting local preachers thus to visit them. But it never was intended to reflect the least disrespect on any of our worthy brethren, the local preachers, whom, considered as a body, we greatly respect. And it should not be lost sight of, that several of the most respectable local preachers in the kingdom, who were in the committee which met the committee of preachers appointed the conference, declared their high appro- bation of the rule, and desired that it might be strength- ened as much as possible, as none could justly complain of it. 4. As the committee above-mentioned requested also, that the minutes of the last conference concerning the calling of meetings to consider of the affairs of the society or connexion, be explained; and as we are exceedingly desirous of preserving the peace and union of the whole body, we have agreed upon the following explanation : viz. (1.) As the leaders' meeting is the proper meeting for the society, and the quarterly meeting for the circuit, we think that other formal meetings, in general, would be 44 HISTORY OF THE contrary to the Methodist economy, and very prejudicial in their consequences. But, (2.) In order to be as tender as possible, consistently with what we believe to be essential to the welfare of our societies, we allow that other formal meetings may be held, if they first receive the approbation of the superintendent, and the leaders' or quarterly meeting ; provided also, that the superintendent, if he please, be present at every such meeting. 5. We have selected all our ancient rules, which were made before the death of our late venerable father in the gospel, the Rev. Mr. Wesley, which are essential rules, or prudential at this present time ; and have solemnly signed them, declaring our approbation of them, and determina- tion to comply with them ; one single preacher excepted, who in consequence, withdrew from us. G. We have determined that all the rules which relate to the societies, leaders, stewards, local preachers, trustees, and quarterly meetings, shall be published with the rules of the society, for the benefit and convenience of all the members. V. In respect to all new rules, which shall be made by the Conference. It is determined, that if at any time the conference see it necessary to make any new rule for the societies at large, and such rule shall be objected to, at the first quar- terly meeting in any given circuit ; and if the major part of that meeting, in conjunction with the preachers, be of opinion, that the enforcing of such rule in that circuit, will be injurious to the prosperity of that circuit, it shall not be enforced in opposition to the judgment of such quarterly meeting, before the second conference. But, if the rule be confirmed by the second conference, it shall be binding to the whole connexion. Nevertheless, the quarterly meet- ings, rejecting a new rule, shall not by publications, public METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 45 meetings, or otherwise, make that rule a cause of contea- tion, but shall strive, by every means, to preserve the peace of the connexion. Thus, brethren, we have given up the greatest part of our executive government into your hands, as represented in your different public meetings. Minutes of the British Conference, Vol. 1, page 374, 1797. In relation to the demands made by the reformers in their memorials, &:c. for " Delegates chosen by the peo- ple, to attend the district meetings and the conference, possessed of equal poAvers with tlie preachers, in every respect," the conference replied, " that they cannot ad- mit any but regular travelling preachers into their body, either in conference, or at district meetings." This dec- laration, and the subsequent practice of the English con- ference, is attempted to be justified in the British Metho- dist Magazine for August 1825, on the score of the legal character of the conference. It is officially said, that; "It is not in fact possible, (to admit lay-represen- tation,) because the conference has a fixed legal char- acter, in which the settlement of the chapels is involved ; and, therefore, the body has been necessarily com- pelled to seek the real advantages of check, and control in another way." By the above plan of pacification it will be seen, that Methodism after the decease of Mr. Wesley, was no longer Wesleyan Methodism * tlie plan having intro- duced highly important changes in favour of Christian liberty, and presented the government of the Methodist *The reader will perceive that when we speak of Methodism, we allude to the system by which Methodists have been governed, and not to the doctrines or modes of worship, these have been pretty much the same under all changes of the government. 46 HISTORY OF THE societies in a new and improved aspect. Yet the plan was not satisfactory at the time of its establishment, nor will it ever meet the entire approval of English Metho- dists until a lay representation is introduced into the con- ference on the part of the societies, possessed of equal powers with the preachers. Mr. Robinson, in his letter to the superintendent of Hull circuit, dated, Beverly, 23d March, 1824, twenty-seven years after the adop- tion of the plan, says, " I trust that you will distinctly understand, that representation in the conference, is the only immediate measure for which I contend ; believing that it would eventually remove all, or most, of what I conceive to be objectionable in our connexion; and my being knoAvn to be attached to tlie principles of Mr. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, will not, I trust, be a matter of objection against me. I am advocating what I con- ceive to be the just rights of the people; and I cannot overlook the fact, that tens of thousands in these king- doms, who hold the religious doctrines of the Metho- dists, think, in this respect, as I do ; and what increases the probability that we are right, is, that the whole of the dissenters in England, Ireland, and Scotland, as well as the ^vhole body of the clergy, with great numbers of our most respectable members and hearers, entertain the same opinions." It will appear by the above extract from Mr. Robin- son's letter, that the question on lay representation was still the exciting theme among the English Methodists as late as 1824, twenty-seven years after the conference ])lan of pacification was published. During the whole of that period, eflbrts were made to induce the conference to admit lay representatives, and secession followed secession. The most recent accounts from England METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 47 prove, that tliis claim is still pressed, and secessions con- tinue. It is asserted by a late Avriter, that there is in England, at the present time, not less than one hundred thousand dissenters from the old Wesleyan stock ; yet, notwitlistanding, the dissatisfaction tliat prevails, and the several secessions which have taken place, the preachers hold on to their claim of unlimited power, even in tJie face of the plan of pacification adopted in 1797. We have a pamphlet before us, printed in Lon- don, 1829, and signed by a committee of twelve per- sons, which charges the leading preachers with the ex- ercise of absolute poicer independently of the circuit or local authorities. We will only extract a single page from this work ; and we do this principally, because allu- sion is made to a claim set up by the American General Conference held in Pittsburg, May, 1828. And adopted by the British Conference in that same year. The writer says, "We contrast this warning voice (Mr. Pawson's) with the echo by the last conference (1828) of another voice from America, sounding forth the old popish jus divinum; claiming for the ministry, exclu- sively, as of divine right, and without any authoritative control from the Church itself, not merely the adminis- tration, but the sole right of expounding and maintaining. 1 . Gospel Doctrines ; that is, a right to preach and teach whatever they may please to admit into their creed as Gospel Doctrines. 2. Ordinances; that is, to set up whatever worship, sacraments, and services, they may deem conformable to the Gospel; and 3. Moral Dis- cipline; that is, to admit and expel, censure and suspend, to set up and put down, whomsoever they please in the Church of God, and for whatever causes to them shall seem meet. Now, here we think Oiere is not only some- 48 HISTORY OF THE thing, but a great deal that is not only neic in Metho- dism, but directly contrary to tlie Plan of Pacification. When we contrast this [plan] with your new claim, to be considered as the divinely authorized expounders of gospel doctrines, ordinances, and discipline; and hear you make it a matter of conscience, not to admit any authoritative interference of the Church, we cannot but exclaim, like Mr. Pawson, ' Remember, O ye Metho- dists ! tliat it was after the clergy had established those claims over the primitive Church, that they introduced the doctrine of transubstantiation and saint worship; the ordinances of the Mass, and the discipline of the Inqui- sition ! In the name, thei'efore, of Him, who bought you with his blood, maintain your rights and privileges." Signed by the Commillee of Twelve. CHAPTER III. COMMENCEMENT OF METHODISM IN NORTH AMERICA. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MR. WESLEY's AUTHORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, 1773. THE ORDINATION.S, 1784. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 1792. A considerable number of persons who had been members of Mr. Wesley's societies in England and Ire- land, emigrated to this country at different periods, and settled in several of the provinces. Those in Maryland, residing near Pipe Creek, in Frederick county, were united in a society, in 1765, by Robert Strawbridge, a METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH 49 local preacher from Ireland, a zealous and useful man. In a short time, these people put up what is called the Log Meeting House, near Pipe Creek. Mr. Asbury used to call it "i/ie old /liw." About the same time, Philip Embury, a local preach- er, also from Ireland, formed a society of his own coun- trymen, in New York; and, in 1768, by the assistance and influence of Captain Webb, the society purchased a lot of ground on John street, for the purpose of building a house for public ^vorship, which was soon erected, and opened for divine service. Mr. Embury preached the dedication sermon. Captain W ebb, though a Brit- ish officer, was a zealous and useful preacher among the Methodists. He occasionally preached in New York, and Philadelphia with great effect. Induced by his suc- cess and an ardent desire to save souls, he wrote to Mi'. Wesley, earnestly pressing him to send over mission- aries to aid in carrying on the work of God. Ac- cordingly Mr. Wesley appointed Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmore missionaries for America. These , preachers landed at Philadelphia in the fall of 1769. Mr. Pilmore visited and preached in Maryland, Virginia and North Cai'olina. Two years after the arrival of these first missionaries, Mr. Wesley sent over Francis Asbury and Richard Wright to their assistance. Ro- bert Williams, a local preacher from England, had pre- viously arrived, and associated himself with Robert Strawbridge, and commenced his labours in Maryland, and afterwards extended them, as a travelling preacher to Virginia. Soon after this, John King, a young man from London, arrived, and commenced preaching, though not licensed, in Potters Field, near Philadelphia. After- wards, he obtained license to go down to Wilmington, 5 50 HISTORY OF THE in Delaware, and exhort among a few people who were seeking religion, and soon became a travelling preacher. During this incipient stage of Methodism, the busi- ness of the societies appears to have been done at the circuit quarterly meetings. One of which was begun on Tuesday, December 23, on the Western Shore of Ma- ryland. The following piece of history of that quar- terly meeting is furnished by Jesse Lee, in his history of the Methodists, page 41. "How are the preachers stationed.' Three on the Eastern Shore, two in Fre- derick, and Mr. Asbury in Baltimore. Then they asked, Will the people be contented without our adminis- tering the sacraments.'' John King was neuter; Mr. Strawbridge plead for the ordinances, and so did the people, who appeared to have been much biased by him. But Mr. Asbury would not agree to it at that time." It appears that there were only three preachers present. Mr. Strawbridge, Mr. Asbury and John King — and that the people participated in the consultations. Mr. Lee says, the business was mostly done in this way at the quarterly meetings, there being no regular conferences. In the spring of 1773, Mr. Wesley sent two addi- tional preachers to America. Thomas Rankin and George Shadford. Immediately on Mr. Rankin's ar- rival in Philadelphia he called the travelling preachers together on the 14th of July, 1773, he having been ap- pointed by Mr. Wesley, general Assistant, with special instructions, which is evident from his manner of pro- ceeding. I. He assembled in this first regular conference, none but those who were considered to be travelling preach- ers ; neither local preachers nor any of the people were present. Mr. Lee says, " there were six or seven tra- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 51 veiling preachers present, most of whom were Euro- peans." Thomas Ranlcin, George Shadford, John King, Francis Asbury, Richard Wright, Robert Williams and Richard Boardman, constituted tlie conference. II. He propounded the three following questions, all of which were answered in the affirmative. 1. Ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley and the English Conference, to extend to the preachers and peo- ple in America, as well as in Great Britain and Ireland.? 2. Ought not the doctrines and discipline of the Me- thodists, as contained in the English minutes to be the rule of our conduct, who labour in connexion with Mr. Wesley.? 3. If so, does it not follow, that if preachers deviate from the minutes, we can have no fellowship with them till they change their conduct.? These queries were doubtless prepared by Mr. Wes- ley himself, previously to Mr. Rankin's leaving England, and were designed to be the basis on which he would govern the societies in this country by means of his general assistant or superintendent. A rule was passed at the same conference strictly for- bidding all the preachers from administering the Lord's Supper and baptism. And the people were required to attend the Church and receive the ordinances there. Here then, we have the origin and establishment of Mr. Wesley's exclusive system of absolute itinerancy planted by the hands of Mr. Rankin, his general assis- tant, aided by six European preachers. The local preachers and all the lay-members being left out; and a system of government fastened upon their necks, without their consent, and doubtless without their knowledge. Methodism, therefore, in America, by this decisive act 52 HISTORY OF THE of Mr. Rankin, under the instructions of Mr. Wesley, became "Wesleyan Methodism" in government, doc- trine and discipline. Mr. Rankin held a regular conference every year, in the month of May, for four successive years, but iri September, 1777, he left the country on account of the war, and returned to England. And by 1778, all the English travelling preachers had followed him except Mr. Asbury, and he was obliged to lie by at Thomas White's in Dela^vare. The regular annual conference for May, 1778, however, was held at Leesburg, Vir- ginia, without the presence of the general assistant, who had returned to England. Four of the Northern cir- cuits. New York, Philadelphia, Chester, Frederick, and also Norfolk, were left out of the list on account of the difficulties occasioned by the war, and there were only twenty-nine preachers to supply the remaining seventeen circuits. At this conference the subject of ordination Avas freely agitated among the preachers; and, at the following conference, which met in Fluvania county, '79, at the Broken Back Church, the preachers introduced ordination among themselves on presbyterial principles, as the people, in general, were clamourous for the or- dinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. "The preachers thus ordained," says Jesse Lee, "went forth preaching the gospel in their circuits as formerly, and administering the sacraments wherever they went. Most of our preachers in the South fell in with this new plan; and as the leaders of the party were very zealous, and the greater part of them very pious men, the private members were influenced by them, and pretty generally fell in with their measures. However, some of the old Methodists would not commune with them, but steadily METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 63 adhered to their former customs. The preachers North of Virginia, were opposed to this step, so hastily taken by their brethren in the South, and made a stand against it, beheving that unless a stop could be put to tliis new mode of proceeding, a separation would take place among the preacliers and the people. The preachers in the South were very successful in their ministerial labours, and many souls were brought to God in the latter part of that year, and the christians were very lively in religion. These things all united to confirm the preachers in the belief, that the step they had taken was owned and honoured of God. And at that time there was very little room to hope, that they would ever recede from their new plan, in which they were so well established. But after all, they consented for the sake of peace, and the union of the body of Methodists, to drop the ordinances for a season, till Mr. Wesley could be consulted." Lee's His. p. 70. As the manner in which this final determination of the conference was brought about is interesting to the general reader, we will detail it briefly. About a month before the regular meeting of the conference for 1780, Mr. Asbury, who now began to venture out from his retreat, assembled the Northern preachers who were opposed to the ordination business, in Baltimore; and passed a sentence of disapprobation on the conduct of the Southern brethren, and concluded that they could not look upon the Virginia preachers as Methodists in connection with Mr. Wesley, nor would they ackno^v- ledge them as such, unless they should renounce their ordinations. Mr. Asbury, Freeborn Garrettson and Wil- liam Waters then proceeded to the conference in Vir- ginia, to use their influence to induce the conference to 5* 54 HISTORY OF THE retrace its steps. "The most influential preachers in the conference favourable to the ordinances were Philip Gatch, John Dickens and James O'Kelly, men much respected for their usefulness in the ministry." Lee's His. p. 73. After much "contention and distress," Mr. Asbury proposed the followning plan to the conference. 1 . That the ordinances should not be administered for twelve months. 2. That the next conference should be held in Baltimore. And 3. That in the course of the year they would write to Mr. Wesley, and lay their situation before him, and obtain his advice. The plan was accepted by the southern preachers and adopted, and the conference adjourned to meet in Baltimore on the 24th of April, 1781 Here again, however, as before the conference of 1780, Mr. Asbury and a few northern preachers, about a month before the confe- rence, according to Mr. Lee's history, "held a Utile conference in Delaware State, near Choptank, to make some arrangements for ' those preachers who could not go with them, and then adjourned, as they called it, to Baltimore." There can be no question, but that the real design of this '■'■little conference'''' was to prepare and mature a plan for the complete discomfiture of the southern preachers at the approaching conference in Baltimore. But the southern preachers did not attend; tlie leading preachers from the south were all absent. There must have been some good reason for this; but Mr. Lee and the minutes are quite silent on the cause of their absence. The following year, 1782, there were two conferences held, one in Virginia in April, and one in Baltimore in May, and this practice was continued. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 55 for several years. No further information is given in relation to the administration of the ordinances. In tlie fall of 1784, Mr. Wesley, with the assistance of Dr. Coke and Mr. Creighton, ordained Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, elders for America, and in a formal manner, resemhling an episcopal ordination, set apart Dr. Coke as a "superintendent" over the societies in these United States, and gave him a letter of recommendation to the American brethren, and in- structions, to set apart Francis Asbury " a joint superin- tendent" with himself The Doctor and his colleagues, Whatcoat and Vasey, sailed from Bristol, September 18th, 1784, and landed at New York the 3d of Novem- ber following. Dr. Coke, leaving his two companions in New York, hurried on to Delaware, and on the 14th met with Mr. Asbury and about fifteen preachers hold- ing a quarterly meeeting at Barrett's Chapel, Kent county, Delaware. It was there determined by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to assemble as many of the preachers as could be collected to an extra conference in Baltimore, and carry out the ordination scheme. " Freeborn Garrettson undertook to travel to the south, in order to give notice to all the travelling preacliers of tliis intended meeting, but being fond of preaching by the way, and thinking he could do the business by ^vriting, he did not give timely notice to the preachers, who were in the extremes of the work; and, of course, several of them were not at the conference." Lee's History, p. 94. The conference assembled about Christmas, and the preachers were made acquainted with what Mr. Wesley had done in view of furnishing the people with the ordinances, and such other matters as Dr. Coke had to 56 HISTORY OF THE communicate. Mr. Asbury was ordained Deacon on tlie 25th, Elder on the 26th, and SujDeriutendent on the 27th of December. Freeborn Garrettson, John Hager- ty, Nelson Reed, James O'Kelly, Henry Willis, and a few other were ordained Elders: and John Dietrius, Ignatius Pigman, and Caleb Boyer, were ordained Dea- cons. Mr. Asbury declined ordination as Superinten- dent^ unless he were voted in by the conference, which was immediately done. Mr. Otterbine, a German Min- ister, assisted in his ordination. The following declaration was then made by the con- ference : " During the life of the Reverend Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel, ready in matters belonging to Church government, to obey his commands. And we do engage after his death, to do every thing that we judge consistent with the cause of religion in America, and the political interests of these States, to preserve and promote our union with the Methodists in Europe." By the minutes it would seem, that the preachers present, were under the impression, that they had form- ed themselves into a Methodist Episcopal Church under the authority of Mr. Wesley and his superintendents, but we shall subsequently, shew that their Church organization did not take place until the first General Conference, after the ordinations, which was held in 1792. A diversity of opinion prevails in regard to Mr. Wes- ley's design in setting apart Dr. Coke " as a superin- tendent by the imposition of hands and prayer." Some assert that he intended to raise the Doctor from the order of presbyter in the Church of England, to the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 57 order of bishop. Mr. Charles Wesley was of this opinion and ridiculed the act ; and blamed his brother seriously for assuming, as he conceived, episcopal authority. Dr. Whitehead, Mr. Wesley's biographer, was of the same opinion ; and has taken great pains to prove what no one doubts, that Mr. Wesley had no legal nor clerical right to ordain episcopcdly ; and, view- ing things in this light, he declares the transaction illegal and invalid. Others are of the opinion, that Mr. Wesley did not design to raise Dr. Coke to the order of bishop, but simply, in a formal manner, to designate him as his ^^superintendent'''' to take charge of his societies, in these United States. In proof of this they adduce Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. Asbury dated London, Sept. 20, 1788, four years after the ordination, in which he says: "How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop ! I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoun- drel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my con- sent, call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this."* And, further- more, they say, that when Dr. Coke returned to England, after ordaining Mr. Asbury a "joint superintendent," in obedience to Mr. Wesley's directions, he was not recog- nized as a bishop nor acknowledged by Mr. Wesley himself, nor any of the English Methodist preachers, as clothed with episcopal authority, or as sustaining a more elevated grade than any other presbyter of the Church of England. And, furthermore, that Mr. Wesley's de- sign was either misunderstood, or perverted by those to •See Coke and Moor's life of Wesley. 58 HISTORY OF THE whom lie liad entrusted the highly important work of furnishing the societies in these United States with the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, at the hands of their own ministers. On a careful examination of the whole question, we have adopted the latter opinion — that Mr. Wesley did not intend to constitute Dr. Coke a bishop, nor to authorize him to set apart Mr. Asbury to the office of bishop. We cannot bring our mind to believe Mr. Wesley capable of so much duplicity in a case of such vital importance to all concerned. It is of small moment what course Mr. Wesley thought proper to adopt in his designation of Dr. Coke to the office of "superin- tendent," whether judicious or injudicious — legal or illegal — scriptural or unscriptural, his letter to Mr. As- bury, as above quoted, proves most conclusively, that he did 7iot design to constitute Dr. Coke a bishop, nor to authorize him to set apart Mr. Asbury for the office of bishop. Let the misunderstanding or perversion of design rest where they may, Mr. Wesley's own most solemn declaration, written four years after the appoint- ment of Dr. Coke to the office of " superintendent," must be received as the most conclusive testimony in the case. This being admitted, it follows, that Methodist ordi- nation from Mr. Wesley down to the present day, is presbyterial, or an ordination by the imposition of the hands of presbyters or elders. It can be nothing else, nor is it williin the power of human ingenuity by sophistical reasonings, or bold declamation, to make it any thing else. If it be not this, it is nothing valid. There is one other fact, in relation to this matter which very conclusively proves, that the preachers who composed the General METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 59 Conference of 1784, viewed the ordination of Mr. As- bury as presbyterial. In the minutes of that conference it is asked, " If by death, expulsion or otherwise tliere be no superintendent remaining in our Church what shall we do.'" Answer. "The conference shall elect a superintendent, and the elders, or any three of them, shall ordain him." This would be, unquestionably, a presby- terial ordination, that is, an ordination by elders ; and, the conference must have viewed this mode of ordaining a superintendent as equivalent to ^Mr. Wesley's ordina- tion of Dr. Coke. The year following the ordinations, Mr. Asbury se- lected several elders, and gave each the oversight of several circuits, with power to direct all the preachers in their respective districts, during his absence. This was the origin of the presiding elder office, although not known by that name at the, time. About three years after, (1789,) Mr. Asbury aided by his presiding elders formed the council plan. The council was composed of the superintendent, who had now styled liimself bishop, and the presiding elders. The authority of the council extended to all matters and things which the bishop and presiding elders, in council assembled, might judge expedient to be done for the good of the societies, and preachers. " The coun- cil shall have autliority to mature every thing they shall judge expedient. 1. To preserve the general union. 2. To render and preserve the external form of wor- ship similar in all our societies throughout the continent. 3. To presei-ve the essentials of the Methodist doctrines and discipline pure and uncorrupted. 4. To correct all abuses and disorders ; • and lastly, they are autliorised to mature every thing they may see necessary for the good 60 HISTORY OF THE of the Church, and for promoting and improving our college and plan of education." Min. of Council. This assumption of plenary power, came fully up to all that Mr. Wesley ever laid claim to. The only dilference between this system and his, was, that his was a mon- archy, and this was an aristocracy. But the seeds of its own dissolution was sown in it by a provision which re- quired the assent of a majority of the preachers in an annual conference, before any law of the council could be carried into force within the said conference district. This provision blew up the council in less than two years. Nothing could be done satisfactorily ; and, more- over, the preachers viewed the council as a dangerous aristocracy, calculated, if not designed to enslave them forever. They, therefore, opposed it with great deci- sion, and Mr. Asbury was compelled to dissolve it after its first session, which was held in Baltimore. Here we are in conscience compelled to say, in justice to Mr. Asbury, that he alone is not to be blamed as the sole author of the council plan. It is credibly asserted by those who were conversant with the presiding elders of the time, that a majority of those good men, were decidedly in favour of a strong aristocracy, and loved to exercise authority as much as Mr. Asbury ; and were, consequently, entitled to a share of the obloquy cast on Mr. Asbury for this high handed measure. The council being dissolved, the preachers were much elated with their victory over Mr. Asbury and his pre- siding elders; but they soon discovered that a very ex- ceptional part of the council plan was retained. The presiding elders, who were all appointed by the bishop, were retained as his privy council, and assisted in sta- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 61 tioning the preachers. Upon this power, the preachers determined to have some safe check. This question, and the necessity of having some reg- ular organization, produced Avhat Jesse Lee properly calls the '■'■first regular General Conference.'''' "On tlie first day of November, 1792, the first reg- ular General Conference began in Baltimore, and the preachers who had been received into full connexion, came together from all parts of the United States, Avhere we had any circuits formed, with an expectation that something of great importance would take place in the connexion in consequence of that conference." Lee"'s His. p. 177. That during the previous eight years, namely, from the time of the first ordinations, he says, " Our form of discipline had been changed and altered in so many par- ticulars ; and the business of the council had thrown the connexion into such confusion, that we thought proper at this conference to take under consideration the greater part of our form of discipline, and either abolish, estab- lish, or change the rules." Page 193. From this first regular General Conference we date the establishment of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Previously to the death of Mr. Wesley, the Methodists in this country were societies under his direction, and the conference of 1784, fully acknowledged his authority. It is, therefore, difficult to conceive how those societies could be viewed as constituting an independent episcopal Church, while they remained under the authority of Mr. Wesley, a presbyter in the Church of England. But in 1792, the year after Mr. Wesley's decease, all connexion with Mr. Wesley and the Methodists in Europe, had ceased — the council plan had been overturned, and the 6 G2 HISTORY OF THE preachers assembled at that General Conference for the purpose of forming something stable, which would harmonise the connexion. At this conference the epis- copacy was fully recognized, with its appendage of pre- siding elders. The old rules of discipline were revised, and several new rules passed. Here then, with great propriety, we may date the commencement of the Methodist Episcopal Church. At this conference the following resolution was brought forward by Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. McKendree : " Resolved, that after the bishop appoints the preachers at conference to their several circuits, if any one think himself injured by the appointment, he shall have liberty to appeal to the conference, and state his objections ; and if the conference approve his objections, the bisliop shall appoint him to another circuit." This motion ])roduced a protracted debate, and the question, for a long time appeared of doubtful issue, though at first, Mr. Lee says, a large majority of the preachers appeared to be in fa- vour of the motion. On the last day of the debate, in the evening at a late hour, the question was taken and tlie appeal lost. The next morning, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. McKendree and several other preachers, sent into the the conference a letter of resignation and withdrawal, and in a few days retired to their homes. The preachers in favour of curtailing the j)Ower of tlie bishop, did not, liovvever, rest satisfied under this defeat, but opened a new attack on the episcopacy. As they could obtain no appeal from the bishop's appointments, they con- tended for some share in the appointment of the presi- ding eldeis, who, as the bishop's counsellors and assist- ants, exercised great influence over their destinies. This question was maturing and gaining friends for several METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 63 years, but was not brought fairly out until the General Conference of 1800, and was continued with different degrees of excitement during the remainder of Mr. As- bury's life. And after his decease in 1816, it increased in interest and became more decided, which will be noticed in its proper place. After the rise of the General Conference of 1792, and the publication of what had been done, there was great dissatisfaction among the local preachers and the people. They viewed the government as settled on the principles of an absolute hierarchy, and the whole body of the membership and local ministry shut out from all participation in the government of the new Church. Mr. Lee says ; " Some of them contended that the local preachers ought to have a seat and a vote in all our conferences ; and others said, there ought to be a dele- gation of lay members." Page 213. This said question of a lay representation was, at this time, agitating the Methodist societies in England, and finally resulted in the plan of pacification as we have shewn in a preceding chapter. As the question of lay representation is of vital interest to every Christian Church, and the act of withholding or denying the right has been productive of much dissatisfaction and serious divisions and separations from the Methodists in Eng- land and in this country, we will devote the succeeding chapter to an investigation of the subject. 64 HISTORY OF THE CHAPTER IV. IIEMARKS ON THE EXCLUSION OF THE LAITY FROM THE COUNCILS OF THE M. E. CHURCH. It was a great and inexcusable error, and a palpable violation of right, to exclude the laity or people from all pailicipation in the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the government. It was neither safe nor proper for tlie preachers to assume a character and responsibility not accorded to them as ministers of the Gospel, by the great Head of the Church, nor warrant- ed by apostolic example. No position is susceptible of clearer proof than that the laity in the primitive, apos- tolic Church, exercised in common with the ministry, the legislative and executive authority. All ecclesiasti- cal writers concur in the declaration, tliat, during the three first centuries, the people had a personal, or a representative concurrence in all the official transactions of the Churches. Mosheim, who is admitted on all hands to be the very best authority, says: " The people were undoubtedly the first in authority ; for the Apos- tles shewed, by their own example^ that nothing of mo- ment was to be carried on or determined without the consent of the assembly," and in proof he cites Acts 1 , 15._G, 3.— 15, 4.— 23. The first passage cited. Acts, chap. 1, verse 15, re- lates to the election of an Apostle, to take the place of Judas. In this most important transaction, the , people had a personal voice and free suffrage. The number of believers at the time was "about an hundred and twen- ty." Peter stood up in the midst of these, and related METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 65 the defection, fall and fate of Judas; and pointed out the necessity of selecting one from among their number, who had been an eye-witness of all the actions of Christ, from his baptism by John till his ascension. And they appointed two, Justus and Matthias; and they prayed for Divine direction, "and gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles." The second passage cited by JNIosheim, Acts, chap. 6, verse 3, relates to the choice of the seven deacons. The entire passage reads; "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily minis- trations." " Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples, and said. It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give our- selves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch. Whom they set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them." Here then, the people, at the instance of the Apostles, chose seven Church officers, and designated them to office by prayer and the imposition of hands. The third passage cited by Mosheim, Acts, chap. 15, 4 — 23, relates to the settlement of the question on cir- cumcision. Whoever reads this account, will perceive, 6* 66 HISTORY OF THE that the assembly at Jerusalem was com])osed of tlie apostles and elders and people^ — that tliey were mutually engaged in the discussion of the subject under considera- tion — that the acts of selecting and sending the messen- gers were the common acts of the ichole assembly — and that the address of the letters recognizes three distinct classes of persons as their writers, " apostles,'''' " elders " and brethren,'''' constituting "the whole Church," or as we say, all die male members. Now, what gives greater weight to this transaction is, the question under discus- sion was not one pertaining to mere human regulations, for the government of the brethren interested; but, it was a question that had fo)' its object the settlement of a doctrinal principle, which involved consequences of vast importance to the gentile converts. The question was, whether a gentile believer could be saved simply by faith in Christ, without attending to the ceremonies of the law ; or, whether it was necessary for all such converts to add to their faith a strict observance of the Jewish ritual. This question, with all its consequences, was submitted to the consideration and decision of the whole Church at Jerusalem, which proves most conclusively, that the people were allowed by the Apostles themselves to take part, not only in the election of Church officers, but also in the settlement of doctrinal questions. The fourth passage adduced, Acts, chap. 21, verse 22, relates to the investigation of Paul's doctrine, by the whole Church at Jerusalem. " What is it, therefore," said the Apostle James, and all the elders who were ])resent at the interview with Paul, when he had returned on a visit to Jerusalem ; " What is it, therefore .'' the multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come." METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 67 After citing- the above passages, our historian pro- ceeds. "It was, therefore, the assembly of the people which chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative consent, when recom- mended by others. The same jjeople rejected or con- firmed by their suffrage, the laws that were proposed by their rulers to the assembly ; excommunicated profli- gate and unworthy members of the Church ; * restored the penitents to their forfeited privileges; passed judg- ments upon the different subjects of controversy and dis- sention that arose in their community; examined and decided the disputes Avhich happened between the elders and deacons; and in a word, exercised all diat authority which belongs to such as are invested with the sove- reign power." Mosheim. The same writer adds, that when councils were intro- duced, in the second century, according to the analogy of civil governments, especially the confederacies of Greece, the laity had a proportionate representation in the Church legislature ; and it was not, according to ec- clesiastical historians, until the third century, when the form of Church government was corrupted and changed into a clerical monarchy by the encroachments of the ministry, that the rights of the people were neglected and abused. Moslieim. At the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, 1785, the admission of lay- representatives was not even made a question, but ac- corded as a matter of obvious, Scripture right. Lay- delegates were, therefore, appointed in conjunction with the ministers to frame a constitution, and enact canons • See Paul's directions to the Corinthian Church concerning the incestious person. 1 Cor. chap. 5, verses 4, 7, 13. 68 HISTORY OF THE or rules for the government of the Church ; and by these the laity are fully secured in their right of participation in all acts of future legislation. It is much to be regret- ted, that Mr. Asbury and his associates did not imitate this correct example set them by tlie Protestant Episco- palians. We should, in all probability, have escaped those subsequent commotions which have lead to the division and separation of the great Methodist family in this country. What makes the error on the part of Mr. Asbury and his associates the more inexcusable, is, that at the time, nearly all tlie preachers were Americans, and many of them well versed in ecclesiastical history. They must liave known that the laity had a right to representation; and, that "no religious man or body of men, can, with a good conscience, withhold Avhat is the right of another to possess." In 1784, Mr. Asbury and all the preachers were under Mr. Wesley's government, and Mr. Wesley could have recalled Mr. Asbury had he attempted any considerable innovations; but Mr. Wesley was now dead and his authority had ceased, and the preachers were at full liberty to frame a liberal system of Church government, if they had been €0 disposed. It has been urged, however, in justification of this anomalous organization, that all rights are originally in the travelling ministry — that the preachers existed before the people, and called them to repentance and faith, and then placed them into societies under their own control ; and, that when it was thought expedient to introduce certain changes, the same hands that framed the gov- ernment had a right to introduce changes or even to re- moddle the whole system, if they saw proper, without consulting the people or of assigning to them any part in the new administration. The ground here taken is METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 69 utterly untenable, and in direct opposition to the Scrip- tures, and at variance with the well known facts in the case. The Apostles were before the believers at Jerusalem, for they had called them to repentance and faith, and formed them into a Church. But the Apostles claimed no right on this ground to exclusive government. They identified the people with themselves in all important Church acts, as we have shewn from Mosheim and the Scriptures. So that Apostolic example, is in opposition to the claims set forth in the above plea. Moreover, it is 7iot true that the itinerant preachers were before the people. The people were actually before the preachers. Strawbridge and Embury found the be- lievers here, and collected them into societies ; nor does it appear that the people solicited Mr. Wesley to take them under his care. Coke and Moor, in their life of Wesley, say, " Mr Webb, a Lieutenant in the army, preached in New York and Philadelphia with great success, and with the assistance of his friends, erected a chapel in New York." — "Induced by the success he met with, and by an earnest desire of saving souls, he wrote to Mr. Wesley, earnestly importuning him to send Missionaries to that contenant. Accordingly Mr. Wes- ley nominated Mr. Richard Boardman and Mr. Joseph Pilmoor as Missionaries for America." By the above quotation it was Captain Webb, as he has been usually called, and not the American societies, that solicited foreign aid. When Mr. Rankin arrived in this country, he immediately assumed the authority to govern the soci- eties as Mr. Wesley might direct. And this assumption has been plead as a ground of right with which the peo- ple are never afterwards to intermeddle ! 70 HISTORY OF THE But it is further asserted, tliat by submitting to the sys- tem introduced by Mr. Rankin, the people forever sur- rendered their rights as believers in Christ; and that the only one they retained is that of withdrmving from under the preachers' government and authority. It is difficult to tell how those who make this silly assertion came by tlieir information. Did the believers when they joined the society stipulate, that, while they surrendered the right of private opinion, the freedom of speech and of the press, and all participation in the formation of such regulations as are necessary to carry the laws of Christ into effect, this one, namely, the right to leithdrmv, was reserved to themselves to be used when they might think proper to exercise it.? The truth is, there was no such stipulations entered into in relation to cmy of those rights ; they are all inalienable and cannot be surrendered. The preachers had no right to demand their surrender, nor could the people alienate them from themselves by tacit or any other consent ; much less for future generations. We will here incorporate the views of an aged Methodist minister, communicated nearly twenty years ago. He remarks ; It may be said, that ever since the formation and organization of the Church, things have been as they are at present; and that by a tacit agree- ment at least, the laity have allowed tlie ministry to make laws for them without their consent. To this, Jie says; I shall answer for myself in a few words; and the same things will apply, perhaps, to thousands besides. 1st. When I became a meml^er of the Church, my mind was not occupied with any thoughts of Church govern- ment. I was very recently converted, and wished to declare my gratitude to my Saviour, as well by making a public profession of his religion by joining some de- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 71 nomination of christians, as with a view to enable me to work out my salvation for the future ; and the Metho- dists, on account of their doctrines and piety, were the people of my choice. Government then was entirely out of the question. 2d. As I began to reflect on the discipline of the Church, there were many things which I did not like, but as I had full confidence in my brethren I submitted; believing that time would disclose the ne- cessity of a change in those exceptionable points. 3d. There was not, until a few years past, any public inves- tigation of those subjects ; many may have thought as I thought, and felt as I felt, still there was no medium by which brethren at a distance from one another could communicate their thoughts, nor any vehicle by which a knowledge of the views and feelings of others could be obtained. Many like the prophet, may have individually supposed themselves standing alone, and were, therefore, unwilling to express their opinion, even to a friend, lest diey should be thought singular. But now, like the pro- phet's ser\'artt, their eyes being opened, they see there is a host on the same side. When a man became a member of the Church, there was no public declaration on the one part, nor explicit understanding on the other, that he had no rights in Church matters, nor was to liave any ; that the travel- ing ministry were to judge for him ; that it appertained to them of right to decide on what would be most suit- able to his condition, and prescribe for him accordingly; that they alone were to make laws for liim, without his consent, and even contrary to his consent, and that, in fact, all he had to do, was to submit to the ruling pow- ers, as a peaceable son of the Church. O ! no, this was neither understood nor avowed. Will any man say, that 72 HISTORY OF THE the pretensions of the travelling ministry, or the state of the Church, are now what they were twenty or thirty years ago ; and that all who joined the Church then, are by contract, engagement, or understanding, under obli- gation to submit quietly, and without an expression of remonstrance, to such demands? — For as much, then, as there was no such understanding at the time, or such a statement made as a condition of membership — and as I have not since consented, or agreed directly or indirect- ly, to yield these rights to my travelling brethren, I hold it as a palpable truth, that I retain them still. Mutual Rights, vol. 1. Unquestionably, this aged brother was right. And even if such stipulation had been entered into, in a formal and explicit manner, it could not be binding, because neither party had a right to enter into any such contract. The entire claim on the part of the Methodist Itine- rant Ministers to legislate and administer the government of the Church, without the presence and concurrence of representatives from the people, is an assumed right, which never was, nor ever can be proved by Scrip- ture, or any analogy whatever, except it be that found in the papal system. And even in that system, it was not until the twelfth century, that the people were shut out; for a single Pope never sat on St. Peter's Chair at Rome, for 1,160 years, without the elective voice of the people, as may be seen by reference to Mosheim's and Gregory's Church History. It has been, and is repeatedly asserted, by the oppo- nents of lay-representation, that the great success of Methodism is to be mainly attributed to the peculiarity of the Methodist Episcopal Church government, which METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 73 confides to the hands of the Itinerant Ministry, exclu- sively, the direction of Church affairs, and, therefore, a representation should not be admitted, nor any changes made. This is utterly futile. The unparalleled success of Methodism from the year 1800, up to the present period, is, fairly to be attributed, to the introduction of Camp Meetings, which first began in the State of Ten- nessee, and then were introduced into Kentucky, the Carolinas, and Georgia; and then into Maryland, New York, &c. These woods meetings furnished the great desideratum, room, and 'public attention. Thousands began to hear Methodist preaching, who, until then, had only heard tliat a people called Methodists existed in ditferent parts of tlie United States. The conse- quence was, that instead of some ten or twenty convert- ed in the course of a year in a vicinity, hundreds were brought to the saving knowledge of the truth, and added to the Church. In support of our opinion, let us look at the facts of the case. From the commencement of Methodism, up to 1796, a period of thirty years, there were in Church fellowship in the United States only 45,000 white mem- bers. From 1790 to 1796 there was a decrease of 565 white, and 1 ,604 coloured members. Total decrease in six years, 2,169. From 1791 to 1800, a period of nine years, the minutes only shew an increase of 862 white, and 568 coloured members. For ten years next pre- ceding 1800, the Methodists were barely able to hold their own in point of numbers. After 1800, the period of the introduction of Camp Meetings, the membership increased annually by thousands. In fact, we have known a single Camp Meeting, especially on the Eas- 7 74 HISTORY OP THE tern Shore of Maryland, to report the conversion of many hundreds of persons, in the course of a week. The average increase of the membership for the sub- sequent ten years, say, from 1800 to 1810, was about eleven thousand a year. Thus much for the true cause of the unparalleled success of Methodism. It is not because a lay repre- sentation is rejected, and the Churches controlled and governed exclusively by Itinerant Ministers. It is fairly to be attributed, under the Divine influence, to the intro- duction and continuation of Camp Meetings, where the pure Gospel of Christ is preached to listening thousands. We will close this chapter by a brief notice of another great error committed by the General Confe- rence of 1792. It was, the continuing to Mr. Asbury all the immense power possessed by him, while acting as Mr. Wesley's Superintendent. Nor was any part of it subtracted even in 1808, when the delegated General Conference Avas authorized, but the whole amount was continued, and guarded by a restrictive article, which forbids the delegated General Conference to trench in the slightest degree on the power and prerogatives of the bishops. To these officers belong the authority to ap- point and remove all the presiding elders, without the least interference on the part of the Annual Conferences — to station and change all the preachers in the entire connexion, without any one of them having a right to appeal from his appointment — to preside in all the Con- ferences, General and Annual — and to oversee and over- rule the spiritual and temporal concerns of the whole Church. This immense power gives to the superinten- dents an irresistible, controlling influence over every de- partment of the Church, legislative, judicial and execu- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 75 tive ; and enables them to govern the Church in accord- ance with tlieir own notions of right and wrong. It may be said, without fear of successful contradiction, that what is called " the episcopacy," concentrates in itself all the power, patronage, and possessions of the Metho- dist Episcopal Churcli. CHAPTER V. PRESIDING ELDER aUESTIOX. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE REFORM ftUESTION. SPECIMENS OF THE VIEWS AND WRITINGS OF REFORMERS. We remarked at page 63, that the presiding elder question liad gready agitated the travelling connexion, fx"om the year 1800, until the decease of Mr. Asbury in 1816; and, that after that event, the discussion became more serious, and exciting. At the General Conference, held in Baltimore, 1820, the question assumed so serious an aspect as to induce the belief, that a separation would be the inevitable result. At this conference, the matter was referred to a committee of six, three of whom were chosen by the party in favour of the change, and three from the party opposed to it. The committee came to a compromise, and reported in favour of the bishop nom- inating three preachers for every vacancy, out of which number the Annual Conference should elect one. The report was adopted by a large majority. Yet, the senior bishop, Mr. McKendree, and the bishop elect, Mr. Soule, declared tlie plan to be unconstitutional ; and the 76 HISTORY OF THE former threatened to appeal in the last resort to the Annual Conferences, &c. At a late period of the session, when several members of the General Conference were absent, a vote to suspend the action on the resolution was taken, and the measure was suspended till the next General Conference. These warm contests among the itinerant preachers for a division of power, had again waked up the local preachers and laity to an investigation of their rights to a representation in the legislative department of the Church.* The local preachers perceived, that while they were clothed with authority to preach the gospel and to administer the ordinances, in common with their itinerant brethren, they were sliut out from all pastoral and executive duties, and fully excluded from rendering any assistance in framing those rules and regulations by which they were governed. Petitions had been sent up to the General Conference, from time to time, praying for redress of grievances, but without effect, until 1 820, when the conference condescended to listen to the peti- tions and enacted the rule authorizing "District Con- ferences." This regulation, while it fell vastly short of what many of the local preachers desired, secured to them a very important advantage, namely, that of assembling annually in District Conferences, where they might ex- change views, and officially communicate to the Church and to the General Conference such suggestions as they •Jesse Lee says, in his History of Methodism, that as early as 1794, there was much disquietude in the Church among the local preachers and people, " Some of them contended, that the local preachers ought to have a seat and vote in all our conferences; and others said, there ought to be a delegatioD of lay members ." P. 213. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 77 might, from time to time, deem proper and profitable. Prior to the passage of the rule, the local preachers had no legitunate fraternity, no organized affinities to one another or to the travelling preachers ; and remained in an isolated state, dispersed and shut out from all regular connexion with any body of ministers. The rule gave them an organized existence, and certain privileges, but was exceedingly defective, in as much as it did not spe- cify any kind of service, which the local preachers, as pastors in the Church of Christ, ought to perform — nor did it provide for any associate duties nor plan of co- operation between the itinerant and local ministry of the Church by which a good understanding and mutual efforts might be secured. Those defects gave rise to additional discussions, and became the subjects of memorials to the General Con- ference for certain amendments to the rule. By this time, the people began to look more closely at their condition, and to present their claims to lay represen- tation. Knowing that they constituted the great body of the Church, and, consequently, should have a check upon clerical power by a representation in the rule making department, many of them determined to employ such means as, in their judgment, were calculated to ex- hibit the defects and ruinous tendencies of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church government; and, to introduce such salutary changes as would make it equitable and permanent. The people with few exceptions, had been kept in profound ignorance of the nature of the govern- ment. It became necessary, therefore, to institute means for the general illumination of the people's minds. A periodical, entitled " The Wesleyan Repository," edited by Wm. S. Stockton, being started about this time, 7* 78 HISTORY OF THE opened its columns for the reception of pieces on Church government. This paper, though limited in its circulation, furnished a medium for communication and a field for dis- cussion. Reformers availed themselves of this vehicle, and entered into a free and full examination of all ques- tions relating to Methodism. The work, however, its editor and writers, were soon proscribed by the friends of absolute authority. The editor was viewed as a dis- turber of the peace — the writers as backsliders — and the work itself as a malevolent engine designed to destroy Methodism in this country. Decided efforts were made to prevent its circulation, and pains were taken to cur- tail the influence of those who contributed to its columns. One of its writers, in a Review of the work, when it had progressed to the third volume, says : " Hitherto a few solitary writers, unknown to each other, have fur- nished all the original essays upon the great principles of Church rights and privileges: in which all have one infinite interest; and yet the editor was left with his scanty subscription list to struggle against prejudice and all opposition, on his own responsibility. At one time he was brought so low as to be compelled to ad- vertise that the work must stop; but by the timely aid of a few generous patrons, and the efforts of one man, he was not only enabled to proceed, but to obtain original matter more than sufficient for each succeeding number. In the annals of printing in this country, there is not perhaps an instance of a periodical work, which from so small beginning and under so many discourage- ments, has risen by its own merits to so great a degree of independence on borrowed matter. — Love for a good cause, fbr the best of causes, and sympathy for the edi- tor, and these alone, could have overcome the inconve- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 79 niencies under which many a line in the Repository has been written. But those John Baptists in the cause of religious liberty, have lived to see, those come after tliem, who were by official station preferred before them. They have wrestled till the break of day, and they hail its beams and exult in them." We will here furnish two or three articles from the above named work, in view of shelving the opinions and sentiments of writers on the side of reform during our early struggle for Church representation. The two following letters are a part of a series ad- dressed to the friends and patrons of the right of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church to repre- sent themselves in the General Conference of 1 824, by the Rev. Nicholas Snethen. Letter I. Friends and Brethren, — I am induced to address you on the momentous subject of legislative rights, in conse- quence of a notice I have received, that it has become a question, whether it will be proper to send delegates to the next General Conference with our claims, &c. Such a measure, in my humble judgment, would be prema- ture. But before I proceed to offer my reasons, in order to obviate suspicion of my motives, I will avow my own sentiments. I do believe, that it is the inherent and unalienable right of every Church or body of chris- tians, either personally or by their representatives, to have a voice in the making, forming, and altering the rules and regulations, by which they are to be governed. I will also define the meaning, Avliich I affix to the term Church, in these letters. For the sake of brevity, and from certain relative considerations, I include the local 80 HISTORY OF THE preachers with the private and official members, and contradistinguish them collectively from the travelling preachers, under the term Church. Now it is well known, that the great and essential principle of Church liberty, representation, has never been recognized either by the Annual or General Conferences, though all our rules and regulations have emanated from them. And moreover, that the very rules and regulations which may not be altered or repealed by the delegates of the An- nual Conferences, were made without the knowledge or consent of the Church. The assumption of right on the part of the travelling preachers, must, I hold, be formally and publicly dis- avowed by them. Is it not evident, that if the friends and patrons of the legislative rights of the Church, are resolved to maintain them, (and how can they do other- wise,) and the travelling preachers refuse to surrender them, there must be a division Let no one say, if so, the sooner the better; but rather let the Church give tlie travelling preachers a reasonable time and a fair opportunity, to make the surrender with as much wil- lingness as possible. For myself, I must bear my testimony against all compromise or barter in this matter. The right of the Church to representation, must be entire, or not at all. Half rights in legislation, are whole wrongs. All that ought to be asked or that can be granted, is, that the majority may govern. I can never consent to hold my right of suH'rage, as a favour or grant. The right of representation, is like personal identity. We cannot consent to part with it, without becoming accessory to our own destruction. Sooner or later, either, directly or indirectly it must come to this crisis. Either we METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 81 must publicly admit and declare that the travelling preachers have the right to make rules and regulations for us, or they must publicly disavow the right ; or we must lose all confidence in them and consider them as usurpers. When I lose all hope, that the travelling preachers will in due time refuse to legislate for the Church, I shall lose my affections for them also. At present, I am disposed to consider their pertinacity as the effect of ignorance, or want of reflection, or error in judgment, either of which it will require time and judicious management to overcome. But I place the greatest reliance upon time. The subject is only just begun to be fairly discussed among us. Heretofore, some of the best men considered, that the benefits of itinerancy would sanctify all consequences. Is there a preacher who claims or covets the power to legislate for the Church, for its OAvn sake.-' It is true, and we are sorry to say it, that there are certain travelling preachers who use great swelling Avords— But this kind of language, though deserving of rebuke, does not seem to me, to amount to proof positive that they are incura- bly ambitious. I do not mean to say, that there is no ambition in the midst' of this monopoly of power; but that it may be concealed from the subjects of it, under the plausible disguise of ^eal for itinerancy. At all events, time will soon introduce a new body of men into the travelling connexion, who will have grown up under different circumstances, and with different views of christian rights. Are there not some among the young preachers, who within the tliree years last past, have reflected more upon the subject of Church rights, than some of the older ones did, in their whole lives.' It was, perhaps, commendable in the former state of 82 HISTORY OF THE things, for tliose preachex's who were in favour of the rights of the Church, to express tliemselves sparingly and with caution in the presence of the members of the Church. But now, that the subject is fully before the public, may they not communicate their opinions freely, without violating the rules of prudence. Indeed, from tlie spirit of inquiry which has gone forth, they will be scarcely able to conceal their views without trespassing upon their sincerity as much as tlieir uiclination. I take it for granted, that our friends will be at little pains to conceal themselves. The more publicly they are known, the faster their number will inci'ease. I submit it therefore for consideration, whether it is not at this conjuncture, a dictate of prudence to avoid every measure which may have a tendency to increase tlie jealousy, or excite the resentment of those, who are hostile to the agitation of questions involving our rights ; and to weaken the confidence of our friends in our dis- cretion. But will not the presence of any delegates from us at the time and place of the meeting of the General Conference of 1824, induce its members to take the attitude of resistance, and tend to repress full debate and inquiry.'' Will it not be proclaimed, that tlie enemy is at the gates That the standard of revolt is raised — and that the only security of travelling preach- ers is in holding the title to Cliurch property by exclu- sively occupying the seats of the General Conference.'^ In the meantime, the members of the Church who are ignorant of our motives and aims, and have not made themselves acquainted with the merits of the subject of representative legislation, may be alarmed and rallied round the travelling preachers, to prevent a supposed revolution. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 83 My plan, therefore, is, that we continue to encourage our friends to write, and by their writings to dissemi- nate principles, and leave tlie next General Conference, as free from any cause of fear or restraint as may be, and thus give them a fair opportunity to make a volun- tary surrender of a power, the right of which they ought to disclaim. But if they remain inflexible, that we then proceed to organize ourselves into a kind of patriotic societies, for the purpose of obtaining and securing to ourselves, the right of ecclesiastical suffrage, and acquiring a knowledge of our numbers, views and proceedings ; and that as soon as we become sufficiently numerous and united, we signify to travelling preachers our free and sovereign will, and let them know, that the time is come for them to yield to necessity, as they would not to justice and reason ; we may add, that if they persist, all the blame, and all the evil of dividing themselves from the majority of the Church, must be upon their own heads. Letter II. Friends and Brethren, — Those travelling preachers who are in favour of the continuation of the present powers and prerogatives of the General Conference, to make rules and regulations for us without our consent, or to secure them, are not backward to aver, that the majority of the Church are in favour of them also. If the question were put to vote it might so turn out ; for, as tlie General Conference would have the regulating of the business, they might do it pretty much in their own way. The question in their hands will hardly be per- mitted to assume the form of " to be or not to be" — to be free-men or bond-men. Were the vote actually 84 HISTORY OF THE taken, should it not be in a form sontiewliat like the fol- lowing; — 1st. Do you believe that a Church or body of faithful men have any legislative rights ? — the vote to be taken in the form of ayes and noes ; and the noes to be numbered •, then let the ayes, or those in the affirmative, give a 2d vote ; thus — Are you willing to give up, re- nounce, and surrender, without reserve, for ever, all your legislative right, title and claim by your represen- tatives, or otherwise to make, form, or alter the rules and regulations by which you are to be governed, as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to the delegates of the Annual Conference, in General Confe- rence assembled ? Then let the two columns be added together — that is, those who believe they have no legis- lative or representative rights, and those who, though they do, are nevertheless Avilling to give them all up to the General Conference. Now, it is plain that if the majority of the votes of the whole number of members, taken in this way, or some other equally well calculated to prevent deception or error, should be against us, then, upon our own principles, as peaceable christians, we must submit, until, on some future and proper occa- sion, the vote should be again taken. I conceive, Brethren, that even in cases where the right and the truth of principle is manifestly on the side of tlie minority, it is not safe to trust the power to govern the majority, in their hands. Neither truth nor right is omnipotent in this world. The doctrine of irre- sistible grace, and once in grace always in grace, is not in our creed. But admitting that the majority of the Church is in favour of all the legislative power being in the travel- ing preacliers, may it not come to pass, that the travel- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 85 ing preachers themselves may become so enlightened as to refuse to legislate for the Church, or any body else, without their representatives? Sacred and profane, ecclesiastical and civil history, furnish examples of men refusing to accept of supreme power, when offered to them by the people, and of others surrendering it, and even their own lives, as a sacrifice to liberty. What a redeeming and glorious day for travelling preachers would it be, if, when solicited by the majority of the Church to make laws for them, or rather to hold the power to make them, they should answer as the olive- tree, and the fig-tree, and the vine, and not as the bramble answered the trees in the pSrable, — "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, reign tliou over us; but the olive-tree said unto them, should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said unto the fig-tree, come thou and rule over us ; but the fig-tree said unto them, should I forsake my sweet- ness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, come thou and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, should I leave my wine, which cherisheth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees ?" This parable is, in its imagery, admirably calculated to cure a propen- sity to ambition in travelling preachers. The olive- tree, the fig-tree, and the vine, conscious of their valua- ble qualities, refuse to exchange them for the phantom of power; but the worthless and barren bramble having none but combustible qualities, calls these forth to de- vour the servile trees, who had renounced their right to an independent government, and had been supplicating 8 86 HISTORY OF THE for a master — for not doing an impossible act, how- could they stoop, and even beneath this low, mean bush. Have travelling preachers no fatness, nor sweetness, nor spirit grateful to heaven and earth, pleasing to God, and beneficial to man, which power cannot give, nor the loss of it take away? We trust they have, and may still have abundantly more. Let it be our first object to rouse them to emulation. The love of power has not been universal among priests, nor even among monks. The man who led the way in the reformation, was a priest and a monk, and several of his contemporaries and successors were priests. Shall Germany, and France, and Britain, only, furnish champions and mar- tyrs for the rights of Churches against priestly suprema- cy ? Let us hope better things of American Methodist travelling preachers. As the ensuing General Conference will be the first to meet after our legislative rights have been fairly brought into discussion, I am anxious that the experi- ment should have a trial, that we may see how they will treat it, as an abstract question of right. Will there be found a mover and seconder to bring forward and sus- tain the motion? How will it be disposed of? Will the question be debated, &c. &c. ? If a division is called for, what number will rise in its favour? Who will have the confidence to vote that the members of the Church have no legislative rights! For these are items on w^hich our future proceedings must be predicated, if they approach to correctness. I trust tliere is not one among us who is not disposed to judge as favourably as facts and circumstances will warrant of travelling preachers, much less to condemn them all indiscrimi- nately, and without proof, as usurpers of our rights. Moreover, if the General Conference should possibly METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 87 adopt severe and rigorous measures, it will be very de- sirable to let all see that we gave them no pretext ; and as for any fears of pains and penalties, I am persuaded that if they ever existed among us they have long since gone by. As conscious of our integrity as of our rights, and resolved by the help of grace, to walk worthy of our calling, no law that can be executed in our Church can have any terrors for us. We shall probably for some time to come be doomed to hear the old logic, or rather eulogy of itinerant power. The duty and purity of the Church cannot continue without discipline, and discipline cannot be maintained without exclusive power in the travelling preachers, to make and execute rules! Take away or qualify, or limit the power of the travelling preachers, and there can be no government, take away government and there can be no religion ! ! If it were not for this means, says a zealous member, we should not be better than other people ; and if it were not for that, says another, we should lose all our religion; but the zealous itinerant don't lay so much stress upon these minor matters ; the inference from his argument is, that neither a Saviour, nor grace, nor sacraments, nor good preaching, nor any thing else can save us from ruin, without itinerant power. The fatness of the olive, the unction of the holy one ; the sweetness and good fruit of the fig-tree, the pre- cious promises and truths of the gospel ; the fruit of the vine, the wine of the kingdom, will be all in vain with- out power ! O ye trees, let us rule over you ! We have indeed wrong headed men who talk, in effect, at this random rate. Though it is afflicting to hear them, yet we must do all we can to teach them that they are not the whole body •, but only members in particular. Nicholas Snethen. 88 HISTORY OF THE The following paper is from the pen of the late Dr. John French, of Norfolk, Virginia ; a man of the most amiable dispositions, and possessed of a strong, compre- hensive and discriminating mind. An essay on the unlimited power of the Itinerant Ministry. After a great deal of reluctant feeling, I have written a few lines on the subject of our Church government. I performed the task reluctantly, not because I did not feel sufficient interest in the subject, but because I have an aversion to controversy, and moreover, because much abler writers have embarked in the cause. Upon reflection, I concluded, that every one ought to bear his part, and contribute his mite for the support of a cause, at once so just and important. Our good, but we think, mistaken brethren of the opposition, cannot deny us the right of thinking, nor of investigating the government of the Church, to which we belong. Had this right never been asserted, what w^ould have been the condition of the world at this time.'' Italy, Spain and Portugal, where inquiry and investi- gation respecting ecclesiastical polity are prohibited, are now furnishing a record of this woful theme, ^vritten with the blood of thousands. Such might now have been our fate, had not the Lord raised up and qualified men to bring about the reformation. Protestants all agree in considering this great work to have been good; and think the reformers acted a most worthy part. Yet these men were condemned by tlie authorities which they opposed, just as the course which we are now pursuing is condemned by the enemies of reform. Raising clamours against Reformers, and calling them by op- probious names, however, is no evidence that they are METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 89 wrong, or that they are bad men. The whole affair rests upon the merits of the case. If the doctrines advanced by the reformers, are not founded on truth and right- eousness, it becomes the anti-reformers to make it appear by fair arguments and sound reasonings. To arraign the motives and integrity of brethren has nothing to do with the question. We may be bad men, acting under the influence of bad motives, and yet our doctrines may be true and our cause good. On the contrary, we may be good men, acting under the influence of good motives, and yet our cause may be bad, and our doctrines false. Our motives, and our good or bad dispositions, have nothing to do with the subject. Either we or our opponents are in the wrong; and a righteous decision of the question must depend on the intrinsic merits of the case. Then let us hear no more about " dark designs," " rebellious dispositions," " backslidings," &c. &c. The public ought to be suspicious of any cause, which for its support, substitutes abuse for argument. That the travelling preachers are in possession of all power and authority in the Church, it is presumed, no person who is at all acquainted with our economy, will pretend for a moment to deny. If, however, this should be called in question by any man, I would ask him, if any one, except travelling preachers, can vote at the election of members for the General Conference, where all the laws of the Church are made. I would ask fur^ ther, if any except travelling preachers, are at all elli- gible to the conference, and whether, this election does not take place in secret, confined exclusivelj'^ to the trav- elling preachers.'' Are not the local preachers and lay members, all carefully and uniformly excluded.? I ask 8* 90 HISTORY OF THE again, if it is not, as it regards the Church generally, a secret transaction, and whether the conferences, are not to all intents and purposes, secret conclaves ? Who was ever permitted to enter tliose secret chambers at the time of elections, except the travelling preachers? I ask again, whether the whole membership can appoint or displace a single class leader? And whether the travelling preacher has not the power to do both at his own good pleasure, asking no questions; just as the lord of a manor would appoint his own steward, or as the owner of a plantation would elevate or depose one of his servants. And when the itinerant preacher has at any time exercised his prerogative, and a class leader has been put up, or put down, have the class any right to say a word in the way of disapprobation? And I would ask yet again, if a steward or trustee be wanted, whether the travelling preacher does not name his man ? and whether the members can appoint any other person except the one so nominated by the preacher? In like manner, if any member be charged with immoral con- duct, whether the travelling preacher has not the power to appoint the committee for the trial of the case? and this too without check or restriction, although it gives an opportunity, if at any time such opportunity might be sought, to pack a jury? Does he not himself sit as a judge of the court on the trial? Has he not the power of summoning persons to the trial, forthwith, without furnishing any specifications of the charges preferred against them? And has any person, when about to be tried, a right to object to those who may be appointed to sit on his case, however certain he may be of their prejudice against him ? METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 91 Can there be a man in this nation of light and liberty, who thinks like a man, whose mind has not been pre- viously drilled, that does not think such power too abso- lute to be sustained ? Shall Christ's freeman, when his christian character is called in question, have no security for a fair and just trial, except so far as the travelling preacher may be pleased to grant it to him? Shall he have no right to demand justice nor power to obtain it? Tell it not in China, publish it not in the streets of Con- stantinople ! But to return. If in any particular instance, a society should be dissatisfied with the decision of a committee, have they the right of an appeal ? Does not the travelling preacher alone possess this right? And if he should think fit to disapprove of an appeal, is not the society without redress? Can any person, except a trav- elling preacher, have any thing to do with the book con- cern? Does not the discipline recommend, that all Church property be deeded to the use of the travelling preachers, which of course, in all possible cases, is lodged in the hands of men of their own choosing ? Does not the conference dispose of all monies without rendering any account to the members ? In a word, are not all the temporal concerns of the Church, directly or indirectly, at the disposal of the travelling preachers ? The travelling preachers then must be the fountain from whom all power flows. Without them, there can be no class leaders, no steward, no trustee, no meeting house, no appropriation of money, no trial of members, nor can any member be received into the Church, or taken upon trial. Without them the Church can have no laws; for they elect each other to the legislative councils of the Church. Without them, the government cannot be administered ; for they have the executive power exclu- 92 HISTORY OF THE sively in their own hands. In fact, they have charge of, and do govern and rule the temporal and spiritual con- cerns of the Church. And all this, heaven and earth moves at their nod. The whole membership, with the local preachers, exhorters, stewards and trustees, to help them, cannot make one class leader, or do any thing else without a travelling preacher. He must point his finger or give his nod, or the wheels of our Zion must stand still. Are the local preachers and lay members of the Church, so incompetent to self-government, and so en- tirely unworthy of trust and confidence, that they ought to be thus carefully and entirely proscribed? Why else are they placed at such a distance .'' Why this studied solicitude to keep them under foot? Why all this sensi- bility when their degraded situation is complained of? Why all this jealousy and this fear, lest they should have a check upon the power exercised over them ? Are travelling preachers the only wise men living, and will wisdom die with them? Is all the virtue in the Church treasured up in themselves? Do they alone care for the things of Jesus Christ? And have they alone the necessary wisdom to seek after them and se- cure them? This appears to be the language of our government. The language of the men who hold the reins in their hands. Where is humility in this ? It is certainly too much for humble men to say all this of themselves. It would be enough to hear it from the lips of others. Is there no danger to be apprehended from such great and irresponsible poAver? Is it not known, that a sudden induction into it, generates pride and am- bition? And does it not tend to produce a spirit of re- sistance or debasement in those over whom it is exer- cised ? METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 93 What is the difference between a civil and religious community ? Are they not both composed of men ; — of the same men? And are men entitled to greater liberty and surer protection for their horses, their cattle, their bodies, and their good name in this world, than for their spiritual interest and christian character in the Church of Christ? Is it not considered necessary to the safety of ourselves and our property, that our rulers should be accountable to us ? I say to ms, not to each other, as is the case with the rulers of our Church. And will it be thought strange that men should ask for the same secu- rity, in things that are acknowledged on all hands to be infinitely of greater importance? As men, our rights and privileges obtain in every relation, compact, associ- ation or possible arrangement, which can be made under the sun, and there is but one way to set aside this posi- tion, which is to insist on the infallibility of the rulers. If they can do no wrong, there is no necessity for the people to have any guard. And on this ground the idea of rights is exploded. And it \v\]\ be said that our travelling preachers are infallible ? If not, upon what other ground can we ac- count for the strange doctrine, that our community has no rights? Can it be true that christian men have no rights in the Church to which they belong? That all rights and privileges belong to the travelling preachers alone? That they are men, and that the people and local preachers, are made to bear burdens and be gov- erned? We say that sucii complaints ought to be silenced. — But they ought to be silenced in righteous- ness. I repeat the question, is it true, that the local preachers and lay members, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, are unworthy of confidence, and ought not to 94 HISTORY OF THE be trusted with any of the affairs of the Church? Is it true, that the itinerant preacher, though young, untu- tored, without experience, and perhaps a perfect stran- ger, having arrived at his charge but yesterday, is the only man on the circuit or station, who is capable of judging who are most fit for class leaders, stewards and trustees, and, in a word, for every thing that is Avanting? That without him nothing can be done, and that he can do all things. He names his man, he appoints, removes and judges, &c. «&c. Now most assuredly, there must sometimes be some misjudging and wrong doing in these tilings, or else the Methodist travelling preachers are inspired like the Apostles were. For how can they be supposed to be competent under such circumstances, to judge in all these important matters without inspiration. In addition to a divine right to do every thing, they must have divine inspiration also, to teach them how every tiling ought to be done! It may be said, that the preachers generally inquire of the brethren concerning tliese things. This we know he may do if he pleases. But suppose he chose to take his own way, asking no questions, has he not the power to do so } And has the Church any redress.'' It may be asked if our travelling preachers are not good men, who, of course, will en- deavour to govern well.-' The question should rather be, has not Christ's freeman a just and equitable claim to some better security than this.'' Ought he to be left exposed to the mercy of any man ? Some of the mem- bers and local preachers, are old and grey headed fathers in Israel, who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and have been worn down by preaching the everlasting gospel without charge, giving support to others. Is it seemly for such to be left exposed to the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 95 caprice, inexperience, and possibly the jealousy of a youth, who was not born when they enlisted in the holy Avar, or began to sound the trumpet on the walls of Zion. The heart of man must sicken at the thought, unless previous training, prepossession, prejudice, or something else, has destroyed the sensibility and reason- ing powers of his soul. It is freely acknowledged, and I make the acknowl- edgment with emotions of joy, that our travelling preachers have been, and are now good men, and such as we judge incapable of doing known wrong. But what has this to do with the subject.' The question is not, whether in general they are good men, but whether it is not possible that some might not be so good as they ought to be, and whether many of them be not wanting in experience and discretion, not to say information.'' Whether so much irresponsible power in the hands of any man, is not calculated to injure both himself and others, and whether Christ's freemen are not entitled to better grounds of defence I say irre- sponsible power, because our travelling preachers are not responsible to the people over whom they exercise their authority. It may be said, that their character is examined at every Annual Conference. Is not the ex- amination also performed in secret; no person being allowed to be present except the travelling preachers. Is it supposed that the lay members and local preach- ers, are enemies to righteousness .'' or Avhat is the sup- position, that it should be thought necessary, in order to the building up of the Redeemer's Kingdom, that they should be kept in ignorance of the characters of their ministers, and the transactions of the Church of which tliey are members.? What must be the opinion which 96 HISTORY OF THE the thinking part of mankind will form of the members of our Cliiirch, when they see them so carefully shut out of doors ? Surely, say they, these are very ignorant or very cor- rupt men, or something derogatory to a good character must attach to them ; for they are not permitted to know any thing more about their own ministers, nor the trans- actions of their own Church than we are who do not belong to it. Astonishing that men should suffer them- selves to be kept in such a degraded condition ! It may be said, that any member of the Church can bring charges against a travelling preaclier. But where is this charge to be laid ? Before the conference of travelling preachers, and neither the Church nor any of tlie members, are permitted to know all the proceed- ings, except a travelling preacher. The charge may be made or sent in, but the accuser will be as carefully sent out. He will not be permitted to see the end of the affair; but the preacher accused, remains in court. And who does not know the fearful odds, when one of tlie parties is in the court, and the other out ? We have heard of one way by which charges against travelling preachers, have been disposed of, — upon the authority of two members of an Annual Conference, I will state, that a charge against the presiding elder and one of the circuit preachers, signed by thirty members, was sent to conference, but the conference refused to open and read the paper. How can men be said to be responsible to the people, when not one of them have any thing to do with making laws for the government, nor even permitted to liear an examination or investiga- tion of character, or be present at the trial of any charge which they may bring; nor permitted of themselves, METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 97 and for themselves, to know and inquire, or examine or judge. Is not such a state of things calculated to have a dan- gerous influence over the secret springs of the mind.^ When the travelling preachers are examining in secret, charges brought against themselves, by the private members or local preachers, might they not be induced to think and say, these are proud, ungovernable, or backsliden men, and of course be tempted to dispose of the whole matter in their own way. As the travelling preachers have their cases in their own hands, is there not a temptation to say ; take care, if you are too strict with me, it may be your turn next. Besides, being of tlie same fraternity, is there no danger that feelings of partiality may arise? These tilings might be carried to an extent sufficient to prevent justice, even among good men. For men may be influenced by a thousand things of which they are not conscious. The fault lies not so much in the men, as in the circumstances in which they are placed. It is not possible to occupy such ground long without injury. Of this, all Church history and the well known laws of human nature are in proof. John French. Norfolk, Va. The subjoined remarks on the necessity and propriety of a lay delegation accompanied the outlines of a plan, as the deliberate opinion of the author, Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, published in the third volume of the Wesleyan Repository, 1823. " It does appear, that all parties ought to meet on some such plan; and, it is probable that the local preachers, and the laity, will be reconciled and satisfied with the above proposed one. It is to be hoped that the bishops 9 98 HISTORY OF THE and the travelling ministry will meet them on the con- ciliatory ground, and, at the next General Conference, provide for its going into operation ; and do such other things as will consolidate and perpetuate the union, peace, and prosperity of the Church. The writer of this article is strongly persuaded, that every friend of the itinerant ministry and system for promulgating the gospel, ought to patronise the question of a lay delega- tion, as being calculated to promote, and uphold, and perpetuate the itinerancy, better and longer than it can be by rejecting or refusing to admit a lay delegation. What can the itinerancy do, if the laity, and the local ministry, refuse to support and uphold it? And what can be expected from the laity, and local brethren, if their rights and reasonable privileges are withheld from them? Can it be expected that they will continue long to support those who oppress, or deprive them of their rights, in a voice, or representation, in making laws^ rules, and regulations, by which they are to be govern- ed? If the itinerant ministry expect or wish the laity to support and have confidence in them, they must mani- fest their confidence in, and friendship to the laity. There must be a reciprocity of faith and confidence; odierwise, jealousies will arise, and grow, and the cause be betrayed. Most assuredly, the local ministry and the laity are firm friends to the itinerancy, from which they have derived such benefits; and nothing will, probably, alienate their aflfections from it, provided they can have redress of grievances, and enjoy their rights and privi- leges. But, if they be oppressed, and wronged, and deprived of their indefeasible rights, which they claim and demand, what can be expected from them but alien- ation from the interest and support of those who do METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 99 tliem wrong ? Then what will be the condition and end of the itinerancy ? O, brethren ! let us all cultivate mu- tual confidence and good will toward each other! Let us pursue and inculcate conciliatory dispositions and measures ! Let us not be too tenacious, nor pertina- cious, with respect to any former incorrect opinions, customs or usages! But let us all covenant and agree, to be open to conviction, yielding, and condescending toward each other ; and without suspicion, jealousy, or fear, let us do that which is reasonable and right in tlie fitness and nature of things. The laity and local bre- thren are awake to their rights and privileges ; they can- not be, by any opiates, lulled to sleep again; nor, by any weapons, be driven from the ground of their claim and demand, as an inalienable right. The sooner it be yielded the better; for, be ye well assured, tliat a lay delegation must ultimately be adopted, or the cause of itinerancy, and union and peace, will be greatly endan- gered, if not ruined and destroyed. United we stand, divided we fall." A Methodist. We close tliis chapter with a remark or two on the last paper cited, signed " a Methodist." The writer has been a Methodist and a Methodist itinerant preacher from 1784, up to the present time, 1843, which is fifty- nine years. During the whole of that time, he has had as fair an opportunity to study Methodists and Metho- dism as any other man in the community; and, perhaps, there have been but few, if any, of the preachers pos- sessed of a more liberal and discriminating mind. The judgment of such a man is worthy of all confidence, and ought to have had due weight on the minds and conduct of the itinerant ministry to whom his remarks were ad- 100 HISTORY OF THE dressed. The last two sentences are strikingly correct, and present themselves to the mind with a conviction not to be resisted, except in cases where purblind prejudice is determined to resist the light to the last extremity. Our venerable brother says. "The laity and local brethren are awake to their rights and privileges ; they cannot be by any opiates, lulled to sleep again; nor by any weapons, be driven from the ground of their claim and demand, as an inalienable right. The sooner it be yielded the better; for be ye well assured, that a lay delegation must ultimately be adopted, or the cause of itinerancy, and union, and peace, will be greatly endan- gered, if not ruined and destroyed." "The laity and local brethren are awake to their rights and privileges." That this statement was not a fancy but a fact, is fully sustained by the interest taken in this question by Methodists in several States of the Union. The delegates elected to the Reformers' Con- vention of 1827, amounted to one hundred ministers and members of the Methodist E. Church, from the States of Ohio, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Most of these were aged men of the best standing in their re- spective districts of country. The decided and uncom- promising advocates of lay representation. This cir- cumstance alone, sufficiently prove, that our writer was not deceived when he made the declaration. That the laity and local brethren were awake to their rights and privileges. " They cannot be, by any opiates, lulled to sleep again ; nor by any weapons, be driven from the ground of their claim and demand, as an inalienable right." How fully was this predictign verified, when the Metho- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 101 dist authorities attempted to coerce reformers by pains and penalties. The persecutions and expulsions instead of intimidating increased the courage and added to the number of reformers, and roused up even the luke-warm to action. These persecutions instead of silencing the question on lay delegation, only served to disgrace the itinerant ministry of the Methodist E. Church, and to hasten the formation of a new Church based on better principles. CHAPTER VI. GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1824. CIRCULAR OP THE CONFERENCE. — REVIEW OF THE GENERAL CONFER- ENCE CIRCULAR. The General Conference of 1824 held its session in the City of Baltimore, commencing on May 1st. This conference was contemplated with the deepest solici- tude, as forming an era, in the highest degree interesting to the Methodist community. The bishops, the pre- siding elders, the itinerant and local preachers, and the people, all felt a becoming interest in its acts and de- cisions. Great pains, however, were taken by anti- reformers, to exclude from that conference the friends of reform. In some of the Annual Conferences every re- former was left out, and the whole delegation made up of the decided enemies of representation and friends to exclusive clerical authority. Take the Baltimore An- nual Conference as a specimen. The delegates chosen 9* 102 HISTORY OF THE from this conference were, Joshua Soule, Nelson Reed, Joshua Wells, Stephen G. Roszel, Joseph Frey, Christopher Frey, Daniel Hitt, Henry Smith, James McCann, A. Hemphill, Richard Tidings, Robert Burch, 1. Thomas and John Bear. All admirers and supporters of episcopal prerogative, and opponents of representa- tion; and, vvidi few exceptions, men of very inferior talents. While the best talents of the conference was left out, because they were tainted with the principles of reform. By an extract of a letter from a member of the General Conference, to a friend, the species of management resorted to for the exclusion of all the reformers, and the election of the above named men could be exhibited, but as this may be found by refe- rence to the first volume of Mutual Rights, page 101, we leave the reader to consult it at his leisure. Many memorials were presented to the conference praying for a reform in the Church government, and some for a continuation of the government in its present form. These were referred, after much opposition, to a committee of twelve. Nathan Bangs, Eleazer Wells, Benjamin G. Paddock, G. R. Jones, S. A. Morris, Wil- liam McMahon, William Beauchamp, William Capers, Hezekiah G. Leigh, Joseph Frey, Charles Pittman, and Alexander Sale. The memorials and petitions from the local preachers and the membership were, in general, read in the conference before they were referred to the committee ; and those to which exceptions were taken, were read so far as to ascertain their drift, and then referred. After some days the committee reported and the General Conference finally decided on an answer to the petitions in the following Circular. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 103 Circular of the General Conference. Beloved Brethren, — Several memorials have been brought up to the General Conference, proposing to change the present order of our Church Government. By one or more of these, it is proposed, " to admit into the Annual Conferences, a lay delegate from each Cir- cuit and Station; and into the General Conference, an equal delegation of Ministers and Lay members;" or, " to admit a representation of local preachers and lay members into the General Conference ; to be so appor- tioned with the itinerant ministry as to secure an equilib- rium of influence in that body;" or, "that the General Conference call a Convention, to consist of representa- tives from each Annual Conference, and an equal number of representatives chosen by the members of each Cir- cuit or Station, to form a Constitution which shall be binding upon each member of our Church ;" or, " that a representation of the local preachers and the member- ship be introduced into the General Conference," either by electing delegates separately, or that the membership be represented by the local ministry, they being elected by the united suffrage of the local preachers and lay members. To these memorials, as well as to others praying the continuance of our government in its present form, we have given an attentive hearing in full Conference, and after much reflection, we reply ; — We are glad to be assured that there exists but one opinion among all our brethren, respecting the importance of our itinerant ministry; and that they who desire a change, whether of the form of the General Conference alone, or of the Annual Conferences also, are moved to 104 HISTORY OF THE solicit it, rather by their zeal to support the itinerancy, than from want of attachment to it. They would relieve the preachers of the delicacy of fixing the amount of their own salaries, and in this matter they would act more independently, so they would also provide more liberally. We respectfully acknowledge the candour of breth- ren, who, although they intimate that it is unseemly for the preachers to determine their own salaries, yet do not pretend that their allowance is excessive, nor that they claim a right to demand it. It is true that the deficiency of quarterage is so general, in such large proportions, that the Conference collections, and the dividends from the Book Concern and Chartered fund have never been sufficient to supply it ; and indeed, the Conference stew- ards usually settle with the preachers, at a discount of from thirty to sixty per cent. But we presume that these facts have been generally known ; so that whatever injury may be sustained from the scantiness of our support, is attributable not to the improvidence of the rule which limits the amount, but to some other cause ; and whatever that cause may be, we at least have no information that the people refuse to contribute, because they are not represented. Indeed it would grieve us to know this ; for even though they should refuse to acknowledge us as their representatives in the General Conference, they cannot do less for the love of Christ, than they would oblige themselves to do out of love of authority. We rejoice to know that the proposed change is not contemplated as a remedy for evils which now exist in some infraction of the rights and privileges of the peo- ple, as defined to them by the form of discipline; but METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 105 that it is olfered, either in anticipation of the possible existence of such evils, or else, on a supposition of ab- stract rights, which in the opinion of some, should form tlie basis of our government. The rights and privileges of our brethren, as mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we hold most sacred. We are unconscious of having infringed them in any instance : nor would we do so. The limitations and restrictions which describe the extent of our author- ity in General Conference, and beyond which we have never acted, vindicate our sincerity in this assertion. By those " restrictions," it is put out of the power of the General Conference "to revoke, alter or change our ar- ticles of religion; or to revoke or change the general rules" or " to do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society or by a committee, and of an appeal." The general rules, and the articles of religion, form to every member of our Church distinctively^ a Constitution, by which, as jNIethodists and as Christians, ye do well to be governed ; and we, assembled together to make rules and regulations for the Church, most cheerfully acknowledge that the restrictions above men- tioned, are as solemnly binding upon us, as the general rules are both upon us and you individually. These restrictions are to you the guarantee of your "rights and privileges;" and while we shall be gov- erned by these as such, we will also regard them as the pledge of your confidence in us. But if by " rights and privileges" it is intended to sig- nify something foreign from the institutions of the Church, as we received them from our fathers, pardon us if we know no such rights, if we do not comprehend such privileges. With our brethren every where, we 106 - HISTORY OF THE rejoice tliat the institutions of our happy country, are admirably calculated to secure the best ends of civil government. With their rights as citizens of these United States, the Church disclaims all interference; but, that it should be inferred from these, what are your rights as Methodists, seems to us no less surprising, tlian if your Methodism should be made the criterion of your rights as citizens. We believe the proposed change to be inexpedient ; 1 . Because it would create a distinction of interests be- tween the itinerancy and the membership of the Church. 2. Because it presupposes that, either the authority of the General Conference "to make rules and regula- tions," for the Church, or the manner in which this au- thority has been exercised, is displeasing to the Church; the reverse of which we believe to be true. 3. Because it would involve a tedious procedure, in- convenient in itself, and calculated to agitate the Churcli to her injury. 4. Because it would give to those districts which are conveniently situated, and could therefore secure the attendance of their delegates, an undue influence in the government of the Church. With respect to lesser matters, mentioned in the me- morials, we respectfully refer you to the revised copy of the Discipline forthwith to be published. Signed by order of General Conference. Wm. McKendree, Enoch George, Baltimore, May 25, 1824. Rod't R. Roberts. The above circular of the General Conference was subsequently reviewed by the Rev. James Smith of the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 107 Baltimore Annual Conference, and published in the first volume of the Mutual Rights, as follows. Review of the Circular of the General Conference, of 1824. As a preliminary consideration, we would take leave to remark, that the "Circular" was not passed by the General Conference until the last day of its session, Avhen most of the representatives of the New York, Genessee, New England, and a number of those from Philadelphia, had left Baltimore, and were on their way home. It was carried through the house with little or no opposition, as it was done in the afternoon of the day on Avhich the "Conciliatory Resolutions" were vir- tually suspended for four years longer : with all the at- tendant advantages taken of the minority on account of tlie absence of so many of their coadjutors in the same common cause. One or two other reasons operated to prevent argumentative opposition to the passage of this "Circular," which, for the honour of the General Con- ference, we are not a little anxious to place in its true light. First, it was desired on all hands, we believe, that the session should be closed on that day; and, secondly, because opposition from the quarter whence it was to be expected to come, would on any subject involving a party question, have been under existing circumstances utterly unavailing. After having stated some of the objects of the memo- rialists, the authors and friends of the " Circular " have, we would fain hope, forever put to rest all the popular allegations heretofore urged against the Methodist re- formers, on the plea that their design is to destroy epis- 108 HISTORY OF THE copacy and itinerancy. For they say, " we are glad to be assured that tliere exists but one opinion among all our brethren, respecting the importance of our itinerant ministry, and that those who have solicited a change have been induced to do it, rather by their zeal to sup- port itinerancy, than for want of attachment to it." We hope this concession will not be forgotten, nor for a moment lost sight of, at least until proof positive be fur- nished to demonstrate the hostility of reformers, whether among the laity, or the ministry, to the interests of itinerancy. In this and the following paragraph, the "Circular" brings into view one of the pleas which the reformers have urged in favour of a more liberal and equitable representation in the General Conference, and gives its own views of that plea. We refer to the plea involving financial resources and arrangements. The deficiency of these resources is fully acknowledged, clearly set forth, and presumed to be known. Tlie authors of the "Circular" justly presume that the deficiency is not owing to the rule which limits the salaries, but to some other cause; and, whatever that cause may be, they profess to have no information that the people refuse to contribute, because they are not represented. They declare it would grieve them to learn this ; for even though the laity should refuse to acknowledge the mem- bers of the General Conference, as their representatives, that, " tlicy cannot do less for tlie love of Christ, than they would oblige themselves to do out of the love of authority." In this statement, we think, we discern several errors. Two of which we now propose par- ticularly to notice. First, with respect to the nature of man practically considered. Secondly, with respect to METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 109 the love of Christ, contemplated as an incitement on the Methodist laity, under the existing regulations of our Church polity, to contribute to the comfortable support of the ministry. First, with respect to the nature of man. It is evi- dent to every intelligent observer, that from the nature of the habits and pursuits of the itinerant ministers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, most of them from a very early period in life, abstracted as they are from the practical theatre of pecuniary concerns, in the pro- secution of the objects of their professional avocations, are but poorly qualified for financial disquisitions and arrangements. Indeed, this fact has become notorious to almost all classes of society acquainted with their character. Besides, a well chosen representation from the laity would not only be much more competent to enter efficiently into this subject, by means of the ad- vantages which from their habits they would enjoy over the ministry, but also on account of their relation to the laity generally, as their own proper representatives delegated to act for them : not to mention the greater acquisition of local information which they would ne- cessarily bring along with them. Nor should it be forgotten that a feeling of responsibility would be awakened, which the present order of things never can efficiently call forth. Secondly, with respect to " the love of Christ " and the "love for authority." The authors of the "Circu- lar" seem to take it for granted, that the love for au- thority is that which alone induces the laity to wish to be represented in the General Conference. But suppose this view were reversed, and with equal charity and libe- rality it were assumed that it was tlie love for authority 10 110 HISTORY OF THE alone which induced the ministry at first to monopo- lise, and now induces them to contend for all legislative power in themselves, and what would be thought of the meekness and liberality of the arguists? Why did not the authors of the "Circular" suppose that it was the love of Christ and the best interests of the Church, which induced the memorialists to ask to be represented in the General Conference; especially, as they were virtually told so, over and over again. If they had in- dulged liberality enough to have supposed that these brethren had made honest declaration of their senti- ments, they might then have perceived it possible, that the love of Christ led to the request for authority, and not have been induced so liberally to have placed the two in such direct contrast to each other. Again, they might have been thus enabled to see, possibly, that the love of Christ might not induce men to support so cor- dially, an order of things which they believe not best calculated to support the interest of his Church, as they would an order which they conceived would much more effectually subserve that object. In the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the " Circular," the following propositions are assumed, viz. — 1 . That the proposed change in our Cliurch govern- ment is not contemplated as a remedy for evils which now exist, in an infraction of the rights and privileges of the people, as defined to them by (he form of disci- pline ; but is urged either in anticipation of the possible existence of such evils, or else on a supposition of abstract rights. 2. That " if by rights and privileges," any thing be meant foreign from the institutions of the Church, as we received them from our fathers, the authors of the "Cir- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHUKCH. Ill cular " profess not to know such rights, nor to under- stand such privileges. 3. That the General Rules and the Articles of Reli- gion, form to every memher of our Church, distinctively, a constitution, by which, as Methodists and christians, they would do well to be governed. We propose to examine each of these propositions in turn. 1 . We freely admit that the plea for a change in the form of our Church polity, is not rested chiefly, if at all, upon the ground of the infraction of rights, as marked out by the present book of discipline ; though perhaps, cases aie not \vanting in which abuses even of that sort have taken place, which would not have been likely to have happened, if the genius of the Church polity had been of a more liberal and equitable a character. But the plea of those favourable to a change is predicated upon the ground that the division of ecclesiastical rights by the IMetliodist Church government, is not equitable and fair, nor such as the advocates of reform conceive would most effectually subserve tlie best interests of the Church. And hence it will be perceived, that their plea is not wholly predicated upon what the authors of the "Circular" call abstract rights. We freely concede that the good of the whole community, should be the object at which all legislation, whether civil or ecclesi- astical should aim. But at the same time we conceive it is not competent to the few to judge and act in such matters for the many, except they be delegated icith au- thority by tlie many to act for tliem. Can the General Conference shew tliat they have such power delegated to them ? And if tliey cannot, how came they to exercise that power. 112 HISTORY OP THE 2. It is alleged by the authors of the "Circular," that if any thing be meant by our " rights and privileges" foreign from the institutions of the Church, as we re- ceived them from our fathers, they know not such rights, nor comprehend such privileges. The discipline, then, appears to be the only ground of right which tliese brethren knew^ We think we can trace christian rights to a more primitive ground. Our ground of primitive rights (in general) is the law of nature; incorporated, illustrated, and enforced by the sacred scriptures. Upon principles of natural law, the rights of all men appear to be equal. The foundation of this law is the Will of God, set forth in the nature and fitness of things, together with positive revelation; and reason, guided by the laws of sound criticism, is its expositor. Wherein reve- lation has not decided, reason is our best guide ; wherein revelation has clearly decided, though reason might be- fore, or otherwise have guessed differently, her duty is to bow in submissive conndenee. Bui wlieii men enter into compact, civil or ecclesiastical, reason does not re- quire tlie vastly larger portion of the community to yield up all legislative rights, but allows the retention of them to be excercised through representatives or otherwise. But if revelation in any case should decide differently, reason should bow acquiescence, since she can view the general subject but partially. Besides, the great Legislator may have had reasons to suspend or waive some precepts of natural law, for what reason can certainly see to the contrary. But as the Christian revelation appears to foster and sustain the judgment of reason on this subject, it would not, perhaps, be too much to say, that their lights together hold the united authority of paramount law. Why is one Church gov- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 113 eminent better than another? Because it is more scrip- tural, more rational, and therefore, other circumstances being equal, likely to be of more useful effect. This is the only ground upon which any individuals, in any age or country, could fitly call upon any Cliurch to reform its government. Any plea, therefore, set up in opposition to this ground of right, on the score of tacit consent, or any other sort of consent, given in ignorance, or other- wise, (but in error it must have been given, if it be in opposition to scripture) and reason is of no more weight than the chaff before the wind, w^hen set up in opposi- tion to the united lights of scripture and reason, w^hich God has vouchsafed to his creatures. We suppose Lu- ther and his coadjutors had not merely tacitly consented to, and practised under creeds or articles of ecclesias- tical compact, but some, if not all of them, had actually and formally subscribed them. Were they therefore incorrect in following their increasing light, and upon the ground of primitive and paramount right, becoming brilliant instruments in achieving the Reformation.-' If the principle that compact forms the only ground of ecclesiastical and christian right to call upon the Church in which one holds membership, to reform, were in all cases correct, and tacit consent before given, or even positive co-operation entered into, annihilates all chris- tian rights on this score, and ought forever to stop the mouths of christians, then surely Luther and his coad- jutors should have been silent. Then where had been the Reformation ^ So far as the light of history reflects back upon it, and where had we been It will not re- lieve the subject to say, that that was a more aggravated case: for, if the principle laid down by the authors of the " Circular" be correct, it is universally so. And if 10* 114 HISTORY OF THE it be not true, then men have a right to judge for them- selves, as to the circumstances of any given case, whether they require reform or not, and also to demand reformation in a christian like way. And therefore, if the authors of the " Circular" " know no such rights," it appears to be time they had looked more closely into this question. " The institutions of our Church as we received them from our fathers,^'' is a trite and very con- venient topic. It has been the plea of error in other Churches also. But those who derive their principles from reason and revelation, are not usually in so great need of it. Beside, in the case at issue, even that plea, when urged as a ground of right, is doubtless very tlimsy, for the ecclesiastical polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church has been (in general) a creature of (iliange from the beginning. See the account which Mr. Wesley gives of the origin of his power. See also every history of Methodism ever published to the world. 3. It is urged by the authors of the " Circular," that the General Rules and the Articles of Religion form to every member of our Church distinctively, a constitution, by which, as Methodists, and christians, they would do well to be governed. A fine stroke indeed ! Who ever objected to the Articles of Religion and the General Rules! But what is meant by their forming "to every member of the Church, distinctively, a constitution.''" Do the authors mean that these rules, and articles ought to be to every member, distinctively, a constitution, be- cause they are scriptui'al in their sentiment.' or also, be- (;ause they stand guarded by the instrument called the Constitution, or restrictive articles, from the legislative infringement of the delegated General Conference } If the latter idea was intended to be included, why did METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 115 they not also all say openly, what they have virtually said, namely, that all the other articles of this said instrument also form, to each member of the Clmrch, distinctively, a constitution, or a part of the constitution by Avhich they would do well to be governed. But had they said so, (which by the way is obviously their doctrine,) it might have been asked them, Hoic these things came to be, to the members, distinctively, a constitution : The an- swer, no doubt, would have been, because they tacitly consented to them as such. But of what force is tacit consent, given in ignorance or error? It is silently living under rules and co-operating to carry them into effect, without avowed opposition, or joining the Church when they are known to be in operation. But does this sort of consent foreclose their ever calling for a change in the government, by a recurrence to first principles.' We should think not, for the reasons given in our second proposition. It is stated by the authors of the " Circular," that it is put out of the power of the General Conference, " to revoke, alter, or change our articles of religion;" or, " to revoke or change the general rules ;" or, " to do away the privilege of our members of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal." But it should not be forgotten, when we are appreciating the security which these restrictive articles afford to the rights of the laity, that that very instrument makes provision for its own change, and places the legal means of effecting it wholly at the disposal of the itinerant preachers. It will not be denied, that whenever all the Annual Confer- ences shall recommend a change in it to the delegates of the ensuing General Conference, and two-thirds of the delegates in the General Conference shall determine 116 HISTORY OF THE to alter it, they have, by the provision of the instrument itself, the power so to do. Who has in guardianship, so far as men are concerned, all those securities main- tained by the restrictive articles? Why, the itinerant ministry. How imposing is the " Circular," but how illu- sory the boasted ground of constitutional obligation upon the laity when fairly considered! when fairly exposed! Again, speaking of the argument drawn in favour of a more liberal form of Church government from the genius of our civil institutions, the authors of the " Cir- cular" say, " That you should infer from these (mean- ing the civil institutions of the United States) what are your rights as Methodists, seem to us no less surprising, than if your Methodism should be made the criterion of your rights as citizens." Now, we fancy the form of our civil government was never offered by any one as an exact pattern for any proposed plan of Church polity. The argument is, that as the one is liberal and equitable in its genius and character, and of course will have its influence on the systems of education and habits of thinking and feeling of the people, more or less, in defi- ance of our efforts to the contrary, so should the other be made so, as far as the similarity of the nature of the subjects, and circumstances, and general utility would admit. And it is supposed that these will admit of, and do even call for a more equitable representation in the legislative body of the Church than now exists; and consequently, that it should be introduced. The learned Bishop Stillingfleet observes in his Iren- icum, that " God by his own laws, has given men power and liberty to determine the particular form of Church government among them. Hence it may appear, that though one form of government be agreeable to the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 117 Word, it doth not follow that another is not; or, because one is lawful, another is unlawful. One form may be more agreeable to some parts, places, people, and times, than others are. In which case, that form of govern- ment is to be settled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place, and is most advantageously conducive to the promoting the ends of Church govern- ment in that place or nation." Again, the Bishop says, "the reason of Church gov- ernment is immutable in all times and places, which is the preservation of the peace and unity of tlie Church ; but the particular form of that government, the laAvs of God have left to the prudence of particular Churches to determine ; so, the same reason of Church government may call for an equality in the persons acting as governors of tlie Church in one place, which may call for supe- riority and subordination in another." Thus speaks Bishop Stillingfleet: apply the principles laid down by him to the controversy between the au- thors of the " Circular," and their memorialists, in ref- erence to American character and institutions, and the fallacy of their wit in attempting to reverse the plea, will obviously appear. The authors of the " Circular" profess to believe the proposed change to be inexpedient : — " 1 . Because it would create a distinction of interests between the itinerancy and the membership." And, therefore, it seems, the membership must be kept with- out any representatives at all (chosen by themselves) in the body which makes the laws by which they are to be governed. Comment on this, might perhaps, justly be deemed needless. 118 HISTORY OF THE "2. Because it supposes that the authority of the General Conference to make rules and regulations for the Church, or the manner in which this authority has been exercised, is displeasing to the Church ; the reverse of which we believe to be true." It remains then, it appears, for the laity themselves (generally) to present tliis question of fact, in a less dubious light, if they wish the proposed change to take place. " 3. Because it would involve a tedious procedure, in- convenient in itself, and calculated to agitate the Church to her injury." And since she cannot be trusted to choose lay representatives for herself, lest she should be agitated to her injury, therefore let the few continue to legislate for the many, although not chosen as repre- sentatives by the many, is the inference; unless they meant this sentiment to bear with reference to the pre- sent ti7ne only. And if they meant tliat, why did they not so limit and qualify the sentiment.? " 4. Because it Avould give to those districts which are conveniently situated, and could therefore secure the attendance of their delegates, an undue influence in the government of the Church." But why could not the lay representatives from a distance attend as well as those of the. ministry, provided the present number of the delegates from the ministry were reduced one-half, and their place supplied by laymen? The money which pays the expenses of the ministry, might pay the expenses of lay delegates. And if the laity meet the expenses of the ministry in part gratuitously at present, if the government were so settled, think they then would not also support their own delegates ? What though it should be inconvenient for some laymen to serve as dele- gates, would none make it convenient to serve the Church METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 1 I 9 in the capacity of representatives ? And might not tliis be ascertained before the election ? And let it be recol- lected that the inconveniences of attending the General Conferences vpill, as things now are, occur only once in four years. Before we close tliese remarks, we would just ob- serve that the Scriptures appear to secure to the minis- try, the pastoral charge in watching over the Church for its good, as those who are to give account for the faithful discharge of their duties — to faithfully preach the Word, and administer the ordinances — and those principles of Scripture discipline laid down for dealing with members ; but as to the form of the polity according to which the minutas of rights are to be settled agreeably to existing usages, or rules, as well as the origination of these rules or usages, which is a subject of ecclesiasti- cal legislation, we see not that they have any preroga- tives above what belong also to the laity ; this being a subject of human policy, using the best means for the best ends ; and therefore, reason, moving with a strict regard to scriptural principles, and the fitness of things, would seem to require that the laity should have their equitable share, so far as circumstances will admit, in the legislative councils and decisions of all properly regulated Churches. Honestus. The attitude taken by the General Conference in- duced the advocates of representation to fear, that the itinerant ministers would never yield to the Church any portion of their rights, unless a large majority of the people should demand the surrender. They were fully convinced that a more extensive and efficient course of measures would be necessary. And that immediate steps 120 HISTORY OF THE should be taken to secure the co-operation of reformers throughout the United States, in the preparation of me- morials which should speak the same language, and hold the same object strongly in view, namely, repkesenta- TioN in the rule-making department. CHAPTER VII. MEETING OF REFORMERS IN BALTIMORE AFTER THE RISE OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1824. FOR- MATION OF THE FIRST UNION SOCIETY. PUBLICA- TION OF THE MUTUAL RIGHTS. — EXPULSIONS IN TENNESSEE AND IN NORTH CAROLINA. After the rise of the General Conference, a meeting of reformers was convened in Baltimore, May 21st, 1824, for the purpose of devising and adopting such measures as they might deem necessary in the exigen- cies of the case, and calculated to effect an improve- ment in the government of the Church. Several distin- guished travelling ministers were present, and also local ministers and laymen from different parts of the United States. Dr. S. K. Jennings was called to the chair, and Dr. Francis Waters was appointed secretary. The following extracts from the minutes of proceedings will shew the results of their deliberations and deter- minations. Resolved 1 . To institute a periodical publication to be entitled the Mutual Rights of the Ministers and Mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; to be con- ducted by a committee of ministers and laymen. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 121 Resolved 2. To raise societies in all parts of the Uni- ted States, whose duty it shall be to disseminate the principles of a well balanced Church government, and to correspond with each other. Resolved 3. To appoint a committee out of our oAvn body to draft a circular addressed to the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to forward the same, forthwith, to all parts of the United States. The following brethren were then appointed to per- form this service. Dr. S. K. Jennings, Baltimore; Dr. John French, Norfolk, Virginia; W. Smith, New York; Gideon Davis, Georgetown, D. C; John Wesley Bord- ley, and Philemon Hopper, Eastern Shore, Maryland. After which the following Preamble and Constitution were unanimously adopted. CONSTITUTION Of the Union Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the City of Baltimore. Whereas, in all equitable ecclesiastical governments it is an acknowledged principle, that each member of the community should be secured in his rights as a Christian believer, one of which is a participation in the enactment of such rules and regulations as are necessary to preserve the purity, peace, and prosperity of the body, either per- sonally or by his representative; and, whereas, the gov- ernment of the Methodist Episcopal Church is so organ- ized as to give to the travelling preachers the sole power "to make rules and regulations for our Church," to the entire exclusion of the local preachers, and the whole body of the people ; and whereas, a large number of the itine- rant and local preachers, and of the laity, desire to have the government of our Church so altered, as to extend 11 122 HISTORY OF THE representation to the excluded ministers and to the lay members, it is, therefore, deemed proper, in order to ascer- tain the number of persons in the Methodist Church who are friendly to such alteration, to raise societies in all parts of these United States, to correspond with each other on such subjects as they may believe calculated to improve our Church polity. Therefore, Resolved, that we, the undersigned, members of the Methodist Church in the City of Baltimore, do form ourselves into a society for the above named pur- poses, and do agree to be governed by the following Con- stitution. Article 1. The Society shall be denominated. The Union Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the City of Baltimore. Art. 2. The Officers of this Society shall consist of a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Treasurer, a Secretary, a Corresponding Committee of three members, and an Editorial Committee of four Ministers and four Laymen, all of whom shall be elected annually by ballot. Art. 3. The President, or in his absence, one of the Vice-Presidents, or in the absence of all three, a President pro-tempore shall preside at every meeting of the So- ciety, — and every meeting shall be opened and closed with prayer. Art. 4. It shall be the duty of the Treasurer, to receive and hold the funds of the Society, subject to its directions, and to render annually a statement of receipts and dis- bursements, and faithfully to deliver over to his successor in office, all the funds, books, papers and effects of this So- ciety in his possession. Art. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary, to keep a record of the proceedings of the Society, and perform such other services as the Society may require. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 123 Art. 6, It shall be the duty of the Corresponding Committee, to keep a record of all similar Societies, of which they gain information, their location and numbers ; to correspond with them, from time to time as occasion may require ; and to lay before the Society at its meetings, all information in their possession. Art. 7. It shall be the duty of the Editorial Com- mittee, to inspect all original and selected matter that may be presented for publication in the " Mutual Rights," and to suffer no matter to be published in that work until it shall have received the approbation of a majority of said Com- mittee ; — to employ a person to print the necessary number of copies of forty octavo pages, each, per month ; — to solicit subscribers and patrons for the publication ; and generally, to do all matters and things, which in their opinion, are cal- culated to promote the circulation and usefulness of the work. Art. 8. An annual meeting of the Society shall be held on the first Tuesday in July in each year, and after having transacted such business as may be submitted for their consideration, shall proceed to elect their officers for the ensuing year. On the election of the Editorial Com- mittee, every member of a similar Society, in any other place, and any brother from a distance, known to be friendly to reform, shall, if present, be entitled to a vote, in the same manner as any member residing in Baltimore. Art. 9. A monthly meeting of the Society shall be held on the first Tuesday of each month. Art. 10. Any member of the Methodist Church may become a member of this Society, by a vote of the same, and by signing the Constitution — and it is expected of every person wishing to withdraw from the association, to signify his desire to the Secretary. Art. 11. This Constitution may be altered or amended at any regular meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the 124 HISTORY OF THE members present, provided such alteration shall have been proposed at a previous meeting. The following Circular was prepared by the commit- tee appointed for that service and was forwarded as directed. Circular addressed to the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. An expectation was entertained by the friends of reform, attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the United States, that the General Conference of 1824, would have made some important and salutary improve- ments in the government; — that the congregated wisdom and experience of that body, would liave renounced all pretensions to govern the Chui'ch without her consent, and that, by a well-timed measure, they would have paved the way for an equitable Church representation. But, we are sorry to say, that our hopes have not been realized, and that very little has been done favourable to these views. In consequence of this disappointment, and with an intention to prevent any evils which it may have a ten- dency to produce, it is thought advisable to address a Circular to all the friends of reform in the connexion, exhorting them not to suffer these unpleasant circum- stances to alienate their affections from the Church, nor to induce them to leave her communion, but rather to consider them as admonitions calling the more loudly upon all her friends, to cleave to her to the last ex- tremity, and to unite as one man in a mutual and general effort to obtain, by the voice of a majority of the ministry and membership, a representative form of Church gov- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 126 eminent, which shall extend to the people as well as to the preachers. This enterprize will certainly be ac- celerated by promoting the circulation of such periodi- cal publications, as are of a respectable and redeeming character; — and by raising societies, Avhose duty it shall be to disseminate the principles of religious liber- ty, which need only to be known to ensure their adoption; — each society appointing a corresponding committee, to communicate its operations to such simi- lar institutions as may be formed throughout the United States. There can be no question as to the efficiency and final result of these measures. They must speedily eventu- ate in the accomplishment of the necessary reform, and consequently in the union and stability of our Zion. The effects produced in the last four years, fully justify this expectation; inasmuch as the late General Confe- rence was nearly equally divided, and that too notwith- standing all the opposition to reform; and it is our de- cided opinion, that if the elections held at the Annual Conferences south and west of the Susquehannah, had been conducted in the usual manner, without recourse to management, the majority in the General Conference of 1824, would have been of a very different character; we are sorry to add, moreover, that those ministers, who, by the management referred to, were excluded from seats in the General Conference, are such, as. are generally considered the ablest members of their re- spective Annual Conferences. From these facts we may safely infer, that the fallow ground of the great work of improvement is already broken up, and that at the next General Conference we may expect to realize our hopes. 11* 126 HISTORY OF THE Besides, in almost every section of this vastly extend- ed community, there are enlightened and pious men, who arc ready to put their shoulders to the work, so that the efforts which we are about to make, will be extensive and simultaneous ; and well calculated to effect a reformation without endangering the unity of the body. We shall move forward, hand in hand, whilst hundreds of the most important men, belonging to the itinerancy, bid us God speed, waiting only to hear the voice of the people, and tliey will co-operate with us. Attempts have been made to alarm the ignorant, with fears, lest a reformation should darken the prospect of itinerant ministers, and drive them from the work. Upon this subject the feelings of Methodists are one, and all unite in one common purpose to perpetuate and support the itinerant ministry. Their rights and ours are mutual; and we, the committee, selected by our brethren, for the purpose of sending forth this Circular, call upon every department of our community to unite with us in asserting and defending the mutual rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Sam'l K. Jennings, Chairman of Comm. John French, Secretary. The Editorial Committee being appointed, com- menced the publication of the "Mutual Rights," with the following Editorial Address. Editorial Jlddress. It will be expected of the Editorial Committee, at the commencement of the arduous and responsible duty assigned to them by their brethren, to give some ac« METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 127 count of the motives whicli have influenced tliem to accept the appointment ; and of the principles by which they are to be governed in the publication of the " Mu- tual Rights." With a view, therefore, to gratify this reasonable expectation, the Committee take occasion to assure their readers, that the paramount consideration which has induced them to embark in this service, is a settled conviction, that an acknowledgment of the rights of each department in tlie Church, is essential to the well-being of the whole ; and that the future prosperity of Methodism, in these United States, materially de- pends on such a modification of our Church government, as shall put every Methodist in full possession of his rights and privileges as a christian believer. As indi- viduals they have long deplored the unscriptural and injudicious monopoly of power, that has placed in the hands of the itinerant ministry cilom, the govermiient of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and after a careful investigation of its nature and tendencies, taking into view the enlightened state of society in this country, they are persuaded, that nothing less than an improved government, which will secure representation to the whole Church, and a mutual participation in all her con- cerns, will produce tranquility. It will be obvious then to every reader, that the motives which have influenced the Committee, are neither sordid nor selfish, but liberal and disinterested, and that tlie principles by which they intend to be governed in editing the contemplated work, are the mutual rights of the ministers and members of our Church. The chief object of the publication is to realize to the Church a practical understanding of the title it assumes. This can be done only through the medium of a free press. The Committee are confident. 128 HISTORY OF THE that if the Metliodist people have a suitable opportunity to compare the arguments adduced on both sides of the great question of reform, permanent harmony may be established among them. Without this, they are equally confident, that the difference of sentiment which now so extensively prevails, will accelerate an equally extensive alienation of affection, and ultimately terminate in great and ruinous secessions from the Church. That the Me- tliodist Church is in a state of agitation, is a well known fact. And such a state of things calls loudly upon every friend of religion, to inquire into the causes which pro- duce it, and to labour for the restoration of harmony, and the preservation of brotherly love. To be prepared, however, to perform a becoming part in this important work, it is necessary to enter upon a calm and dispas- sionate consideration of the subjects in dispute. Modest men will feel no difficulty in admitting the truth of this position: for it is impossible for any man wisely to esti- mate his own opinions, Avhen they differ from those of other men, until he shall have first subjected them to a respectful and scrutinous comparison with the opinions of those who think differently. To the doctrines of religion, as taught by Wesley and Fletcher, and as embodied in the discipline of our Cliurch, the Committee fully subscribe. The services of the Church, such as extemporaneous prayer and preaching, sacrament of the Lord's Supper, baptism, love feasts, band meeting, and class meeting, have their entire approbation. Class meeting particularly, in the opinion of the Committee, is the great means, next to the Gospel itself, by which spirituality and order are to be perpetuated among our people. Upon this subject they must be permitted to say, they have been trained METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 129 SO long under these doctrines and services, that they feel for them all those attachments so natural to men in simi- lar circumstances. And in fact, it is hecause of these, and the spirituality of the ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that they adlaere so firmly to her communion. It is not in the power of the Committee at present, to give exact information of every thing which the publica- tion will contain. A periodical miscellany admits of a variety of subjects, and when continued for a length of time, receives many communications unknown to the editors at the commencement of the work. It may be said, however, in general terms, the " Mutual Rights " will contain essays on Church govermnent, biographical sketches of eminent and pious persons, lectures on di- vinity and practical Christianity, interesting narratives, philosophical investigations, and a variety of other mat- ter, both amusing and instructive. Well written com- munications on any of the above subjects will be thank- fully received and the utmost impartiality observed by the Committee. Several anti-reformers availed themselves of this free press, and wrote essays in vindication of the Methodist government, as being of divine origin, and the only legit- imate Church government on earth ; and represented the Reformers as "backsliders," — "under the influence of base motives," — "enemies of Methodism," — "opposers of God," — " instigated by the Devil," &c. &c. Indeed this kind of abusive matter, and mere declamation, from anti-reformers, accumulated to such a degree, that the editorial committee of the second volume were under the necessity of restricting those writers to argument alone. 130 HISTORY OF THE During the year 1824, Union Societies were formed in different parts of tlie United States, having the same objects in view as the Society in BaUimore ; yet, the men in power were mucli offended at tlieir organization, and tlireatened tliose who joined them with excommunication. They argued that the Methodist people had no right to form themselves into societies for the purposes stated; and their forming such societies was an act of " oppo- sition''' to the government of the Church. Finding their tlireats did not deter the memhers from doing what they knew was their right to do, (as neither the discipline nor the Word of God forhade it,) the itinerant preachers " commenced a war of extermination," and began with tlie intended members of a contemplated Union Society of Bedford County, Tennessee. The presiding elder at a quarterly meeting, at the close of liis sermon, on Saturday, publicly read out the names of fourteen offi- cial members (some of whom were preachers,) living in different circuits, and declared, that " these brethren had put themselves out of the Church, and were no longer to be considered Methodists." The offence those brethren had committed, was, that in February, 1825, they had held a meeting for the pur- pose of raising a Union Society. At which meeting, however, nothing decisive was done, except that all who were in favour of any alterations or amendments in the Discii)line, agreed to liave their names put on a paper to that effect. The meeting then adjourned until May following. In April, previously to this second meeting, and " before tlie committee (appointed to prepare a Con- stitution) had agreed upon any plan," the presiding el- der read the fourteen persons out of the Church. In May, the Union Society was organized; after which METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 131 "one local preacher after another was cited to trial, and suspended." — And the quarterly meeting Conferences uniformly expelled them from the Church. And those in power emphatically declared, " that so soon as they should get the trials of all the official members com- pleted, if the private members Avould not abandon tlie Union Society, these also should be turned out." The part of the Constitution of this Union Society, to which the itinerant preachers took the greatest exception, was the following : " and that this amendment should intro- duce an equilibrium in said Church, by admitting a rep- resentation from the local preachers and laymen, equal to that of the itinerant ministers." During this year Reformers were made to feel the displeasure of the advocates of power in many ways, and in almost every part of the country. Some of our brethren whose chief dependence for the support of their families, lay with anti-reformers, were reduced to great difficulties, and were made to suffer many priva- tions. Others were shamefully traduced and represented to the public as utterly unworthy of the confidence and respect of the community. In the spring of the following year, (1826,) the Balti- more Union Society " recommended Conventions to be assembled in the several States of the Union, where brethren were inclined to adopt the measure, for the ex- clusive purpose of making inquiry into the propriety and expediency of asking for a representation; and taking measures preparatory to the formation of a memorial expressly upon that subject." " Each State Convention to elect one or more delegates, to meet in a General Convention at some suitable time and place, for the ex- press purpose of preparing a memorial to tlie next General Conference." 132 HISTORY OF THE This plan was projected for the purpose of concen- trating the views of Reformers generally on the subject of representation, that all might speak the same language in one memorial, and thus prevent the recurrence of the pretext resorted to by the General Conference of 1824. The City of Baltimore was subsequently fixed on as the most suitable place, and November 15, 1827, the period for holding the General Convention. State Conventions were accordingly lield; at all of which delegates were elected. That for Maryland and the District of Columbia, was held in Baltimore, on the 15th and 16th November, 1826. The members of this Convention were aged ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; several of them had been in her service nearly half a century. The official mem- bers of the Baltimore City Station endeavoured, after the rise of the Convention, to brirg it into contempt, by a publication in the newspapers. But they were replied to by a committee of the Union Society, and fairly beaten on their own ground, and made appear ridiculous before the public. About this time a persecution of Reformers was com- menced by the itinerant preachers in North Carolina. A false accusation was brought against certain members of the Granville Union Society, as inveighers against tlie discipline. The preacher on the trial, failing to prove his charge, put the following question to the jury : " You that believe their being members of the Union So- ciety will liave a bad effect, will rise up." A majority of those present were of tliat opinion and rose up, upon which the preacher read tliem out as expelled. The case of the brethren thus shamefully expelled was brought before the Virginia Annual Conference, and that body METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 133 decided, " that it teas not mal-administration,'''' and tlius justified this preacher in his outrageous conduct. The following- is an extract of a letter from Rev. Willis Harris, of Granville, North Carolina, dated Petersburg-, Virginia, February 22, 1827. " The Virginia Annual Conference, which sat in this place, has just risen. The Granville Union Society of North Carolina, presented to it a petition, praying- that seven members, lately expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church for joining the Granville Union So- ciety, be restored to their former standing. The peti- tioners alleged, that although the charge exhibited against tliem was that of inveighing against the discipline, yet, nothing was proved against them on the trial, but their having joined the Granville Union Society. That, when the preacher found he could not substantiate his charge, he put the following question to the Society : ' You that believe their being members of the Union Society will have a bad effect, will rise up.' That a majority of those present were of that opinion and rose up, upon which the preacher read them out as expelled. With the petition, tlie Granville Union Society presented a charge against the preacher for mal-administration: but the Conference decided that it was not mal-administration. Thus the door is closed on our unfortunate brethren, and opened for all the Reformers to be pushed out of the Church." It is here Avorthy of remark, 1 . Those brethren were excommunicated for no act of immorality — for the ne- glect of no christian duty — nor for the dissemination of false doctrines. 2. They ^vere not expelled for the violation of any rule of discipline ; for though cliarged with inveighing against the discipline, the charge was not sustained. 3. They were expelled for becoming 12 134 HISTORY OF THE members of a Union Society, the avowed design of which, according to its constitution, was, "for the pur- pose of corresponding with the hrethren within the United Stales, who are favourable to a reform, on such subjects as will tend to improve the form of our Church government." 4. They were expelled for joining said Union Society, not because this act was a violation of any law, divine or human, but because, in the opinion of the preacher and a majority of those present at the trial, "Their being members of the Union Society, would have a bad effect.'''' 5. Notwithstanding the ob- vious injustice of this act, and the tyranical conduct of the preacher in charge, yet, the Virginia Annual Con- ference, with three bishops present, decided that the act of expulsion '■'■was not mal-administration! P'' We will here subjoin the reflections of a travelling preacher, published in the Mutual Rights at the time, as they accord .exactly with our own views on this out- rageous procedure. " Our Virginia brethren, in expelling those members in such a lordly manner, practically assumed the prin- ciple, that in their administration they need no law at all, save the will of the executive officer. He put the question, ' You who believe that their being members of the Union Society, will have a bad effect, will rise up.' What law can this brother tind, even in the discipline, which says a committee or society have authority to expel members for any thing which they 'believe will have a bad effect ' This would put supreme power in a court of judicature, and would supercede the neces- sity of every other law. Let the legislature pass a law, that the courts may condemn men for any thing, which they may 'believe will have a bad effect,' and this law METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 135 alone will be sufficient to regulate all judicial proceed- ings. Such was the conduct of the preacher in charge. Who might as well have said, ' You who icish the bre- thren expelled will rise up.' " — " By the late act of the Virginia Annual Conference, in sanctioning the adminis- tration of Benton Field and others, it is practically avowed, that the Methodist people are not under the government of laws at all. There must first be a law in existence, by which members can be expelled for doing what the court may believe ' will have a bad effect,' before the preacher in charge can execute such a law; there must first be an act of the legislature, saying, members shall be expelled for joining a Union Society, or signing its constitution, before an executive officer can arrest members under such a law, and before a jury can have authority to judge of their innocence or guilt in the breach of it. This conduct is worse than the passing an ex post facto law, which according to the American Constitution is destructive of civil liberty, and inconsistent with all good government." 136 HISTORY OF THE CHAPTER VIII. PERSECUTION OF REFORMERS IN MARYLAND. REV. DENNIS B. DORSEY's ACCOUNT OF HIS PERSECUTIONS IN THE BALTIMORE ANNUAL CONFERENCE. MR. GIDEON DAVIs' LETTER TO CORRESPONDING COMMITTEE. REV. ASA SHINN's ADDRESS TO THE CONFERENCE. PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNION SOCIETY IN RELATION TO MR. DORSEY's CASE. REV. C. SPRINGER's LETTER TO MR. DORSEY. The persecution of Reformers now became very general. No preacher who was a Reformer could ob- tain deacons' or elders' orders, no matter how well re- commended, or how necessary liis services in the neigh- bourhood where he resided ; nor could a preacher get into the itinerancy who was known to be in favour of reform in the government of the Church. Licensed ])reachers were broken by the Quarterly Conferences refusing to renew their licenses. The Baltimore An- nual Conference, at its session in 1827, arraigned and tried, censured and admonished one of its members, Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, for recommending the Mutual Riglits to the attention of an individual; and he was deprived of an official appointment because he would not yield implicit obedience to the dictation of the Con- ference, which required him to withhold his agency and influence, in future, from the circulation and promotion of any such a work. Reformers throughout the United States, viewed this act of the Baltimore Annual Conference, as unjustifiably oppressive of an individual Reformer, who happened to METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 137 fall immediately under their power, as unwarranted by the Holy Scriptures, or the discipline of the Church; and as evincing a disposition, on the part of the preach- ers, to keep the people in ignorance of the true prin- ciples of Church government. Resolutions were accord- ingly passed by the ditierent Union Societies, and asso- ciated bodies of Reformers, disapproving of the conduct of the Conference, and consoling Mr. Dorsey on account of his afliictions and sufferings in the cause of truth. Several travelling preachers likewise, expressed their utter abhorrence of this act of cruelty, inflicted on a fellow-labourer in the word and doctrine ; and expressed their indignation in much stronger language than was used by any of the Union Societies. As the act of the Baltimore Annual Conference in brother Dorsey's case, was viewed by the reformers, in all parts of the country, as unjustifiably rigorous and oppressive, we will record it somewhat in detail. The best account of the entire transaction is communicated in a letter from brother Dorsey to the Rev. Henry B. Bascom, who had made special inquiry as to the facts of the case. Letter from Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey to Rev. H. B. Bascom. Rev. and Dear Sir, — I have had the pleasure of read- ing your affectionate communication, addressed to me tI)rough the medium of the Mutual Rights, and now en- joy the equal pleasure of returning you, through the same medium, my grateful acknowledgments for the solicitude you evince on my behalf In the meantime I am not unmindful of the great principles, on which this matter is predicated, of which I presume you arc an advocate. And as you put several interrogatories rela- 12* 138 HISTORY OF THE live to the case, for your personal information, I will give you a glance at the Avliole affair. I am the more inclined to tliis than to entire silence, under existing circumstances, for two reasons. The first regards the reputation of our conference, which is as liable to be tarnished as my own; and the second is grounded on the special regard which I must necessarily feel for my own character, as a christian, and a minister of the gos- pel. This brief history shall be given from my best recollections, and the least exceptionable means of infor- mation. If there should be any apparent mis-statement, I hope no brother will attribute it to design; and that if any one be prepared to correct it, he will do so through this public medium, before he undertake to contradict or criminate in a private manmr. Some time last February, I wrote a few lines to a fi iend, Mr. Hugh M. Sharp, in which I gave him infor- mation "of a work on Church Government publishing in Baltimore, by a committee of Methodist preachers and members, exposing to open view, some of the errors in our government and administration." I also informed him that the work " was a very satisfactory one, well worth his attention;" that I had "taken it more than eighteen months, and was well pleased with it ;" that it contained so many pages, and came at so mucli per year; that several in that part took it, and were well pleased with it ; and, finally requested him to let me know immedi- ately, if he desired to have Uie work, and to inquire of a brother, whom I named, whether he would take it also. In conclusion, I remarked to him, " You need not men- tion this to any other person, if you please." But when Mr. Robert Minshall, the preacher in charge of Hunt- ingdon circuit came round, my friend Sharp betrayed METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 139 me, by giving him my letter to read. Mr. Minshall then, according to his own telling in conference, asked him for a copy of the letter; to which he replied that he miglit have the original, as it was of no use to him. About this time there was a letter written by Mr. Minshall, to Mr. David Steele, giving him information, that I was actively engaged in circulating the Mutual Rights, and probably censuring me for such conduct. This information was communicated to Mr. John Davis, w^ho, in liis turn reported it again, until, finally, it was brought before the late Annual Conference, first in the form of an objection, and then as a charge. After the commencement of the conference, I had an interview with Mr. Davis, who gave me an assurance, that as I would give him no satisfaction in his interrog- atives, he could not pass over it on the examination of my character. Accordingly, when my name was called, in the examination of characters, Mr. S. G. Roszel arose and made some ohjeclions, stating, as I was informed by members of conference, (for I was too unwell to be pre- sent,) that I had been away from my circuit during the last year, under the 'pretence of being afflicted, but had been travelling extensively, circulating a work derog- atory to the interests of the Church. ]My case was then postponed until I could be present. The following, or second day after, I was present, when my name was called, and the inquiry instituted, whether there was any thing against my character: cer- tain members of the conference replied that there teas, but the brother who had made the objection \vas absent. Mr. Roszel being sent for, came in and stated his ob- jection, on the ground above mentioned. This led to reference for information, and Messrs. Steele and Min- 140 HISTORY *F THE shall, were referred to as informants. My letter was now produced by Mr. Minshall, who stated how he obtained it ; and intimated that it had now accidentally come in place, as he thought when he obtained it, might some time be the case. The letter was then read, and the President, Mr. Soule, remarked, that if I had any tiling to say in reply, I was now at liberty to speak for myself. As I saw no formal charge^ I had nothing to say, only to acknowledge the letter read to be my own production. I then retired, and after considerable delib- eration on the subject, the case was decided. Some brother, in passing out of the conference, remarked to me that I could now go in, which left me under the im- pression that my character had passed. I then went in and remained until conference adjourned; but heard no official announcement of the decision until the next day. I learned however, in the mean time, the nature of the decision, in part, but could find no one to give it to me in full. The next morning when the journal of the preceding day was read, there was a formal charge recorded, which was "/or having been actively engaged in the cir- culation of an improper periodical work.'''' The Presi- dent then announced to me from the chair, that the de- cision of the conference in my case was, '■'■that my char- acter should pass, upon my being admonished by tlie President ; and promising the conference that I would de- sist from taking any agency in spreading or supporting any publications in opposition to our discipline or gov- ernment.^'' The admonition was then given from the chair, after I had signified my disposition to submit to it, for the sake of brethren's consciences. I was then required to give a pledge that I would comply with the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 141 latter part of the resolution; which I refused to do, while the resolution remained in its unqualified form. I then replied to all the important items of the admonition, and gave my reasons for not complying with the latter part of the resolution. The following is the substance : Mr. President, — With you I admit the importance of clearly ascertaining that we have found the truth, be- fore we undertake to communicate it ; and that when we do communicate it, we ought to be careful to cultivate the spirit of Christianity, lest it be attended with greater injury than good, to our fellow men. These consider- ations have governed me throughout: and God forbid I should ever depart from them ! As it regards the allusion to my promises before I re- ceived ordination, to be obedient to my superiors, and not to "mend our rules but keep them,"* I reply, that I regret exceedingly, that when I made sucli promises, I was not better qualified to judge of our discipline and government. I was young, inexperienced and unin- formed. I perceived no errors in either of these. But, sir, if I now had to pass that examination, I should cer- tainly be strict in qualifying my promises, as I do be- lieve there are rules of discipline, as well as practices, in our administration, which ought to be modified. I do, sir, as firmly and fully believe in our doctrines, generally, as any brother; and have endeavoured since I became a member of our Church, to obey them: nor do I now feel any abatement of my purpose, to perse- vere in this path of duty to the end, by the Grace of God assisting me. I have uniformly recommended our discipline to others, as well as laboured to conform to its mandates myself: and in this course too, I feel in- •Mr Dorsey neither broke the " rules" nor mended them. 142 HISTORY OP THE clined to persevere, until some better modification of them shall be introduced by the proper authority of the Church, or until they be repealed. And as to the grand fundamentals of our government, (meaning the itinerant operations,) no member of this conference feels more disposed to support them than I do. But, sir, believing as I do, that there are some of the minutia of our disci- pline and government, which could be modified to ad- vantage, I wish to enjoy the privilege of examining the subject, by reading ecclesiastical history, the Mutual Rights, or any thing else which will afford me the ne- cessary information. And when I am fully convinced that I have obtained a knowledge of the truth, I desire the privilege of communicating it in the best possible manner to the Church and the world, either verbally or otherwise. And, although I should rejoice to have the sanction of tliis conference, in so doing, yet if it cannot be obtained, I must beg the privilege of pursuing the course which my judgment and conscience dictate. You admit that the preachers have a right to read and examine the Mutual Rights, or any thing else they please. And is it not admitted that they have the same right to communicate to others, what they learn.' Are we to retain our information, and neither speak nor write about it.' No, sir, I cannot suffer any man, or body of men, to trammel my rational faculties, in their search for truth ; nor to restrain them from promulgating it when obtained : and I now reserve to myself the entire privi- lege of doing so, either verbally, or in any other manner I judge most expedient. I have read the Mutual Rights, sir, for myself, and think highly of the work, and recommend it to every member of this conference. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 143 The bishops themselves read it, — the preachers read it, — tlie book agents read it, and exchange the Methodist Magazine for it; — and will any one say, that the people have no right to read it? Without an act of reason, my intelligence itself on the first blush of the subject, forces Uiis language upon me : — If bishops, preachers, and book agents read this work with impunity, then all the mem- bers of our Church, ought to enjoy the same privilege. But I must come to tlie conclusion and application of tills argument. — If the members have as good a right to read the Mutual Rights, as the ministry, (which all must admit, or else deny that they are free,) and if the minis- ters undoubtedly have this right, as has been admitted on this floor, by bishops and others, then there is no argu- ment to set aside the consequence, that it is the right of any preacher to recommend the work to the people, if he judge it would be profitable to them. [And every at- tempt to inflict punishment on a preacher for recom- mending it to the people, is an absolute, though indirect, declaration, that they are not at liberty to read and ex- amine for themselves.] And if it be a preacher's right, how can you punish me for so doing Yet I have been punished with an admonition, for recommending the Mu- tual Rights to one or two members ; for this is all the proof you had against me. After this I retired, and the sense of the conference was taken, whether my reply was satisfactory, and the vote was given in the negative. I was again called in and interrogated on the subject; but replied as before, in my own language, qualifying my promises, and yield- ing so far as I could, without sacrificing the clearest dictates of my judgment and conscience. I again re- tired, and as I was informed, the question, "whetlier 144 HISTORY OF THE my character pass," was again put to the conference, and answered by a vote in the negative. It was then "moved, that tlie case be postponed till to-morrow." The next day the case was again resumed, and I was once more interrogated. I replied in substance as follows : Mr. President., — Upon a candid re-examination of the subject, I am prepared to reiterate the remarks which I offered yesterday, relative to my disposition to render a respectful obedience to our discipline and government. But I request the conference, if they please, to favour me with the rule of discipline on which I have been charged, tried, and punished, that I may be better pre- pared to conclude how to shape my course. (No law was given.) If there he any rule, and you have pro- ceeded according to it, then I am subject to no further penalty, unless I can be punished twice for the same offence. It has just now been suggested to me, by a brother at my left hand, that there is a law of the General Con- ference, passed at their last session, requiring our preachers not to become agents for other booksellers, &c. Now, supposing this law to apply to the case in hand, (which we believe it will not,) / knew nothing about its existence until half an hour ago; and how then could I keep or break it.' It is not in our discipline. A law must be promulgated before it can be in force: for, " where there is no km, there " can be " no transgres- sion.'''' How then can I be punished for the transgres- sion of that law.'' I feel myself as much bound as any member of this conference, to keep the laws of the General Conference, until they shall be amended or repealed. When I violate any one of those laws, I am METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 145 amenable at this tribunal; and, if found guilty, subject to punishment -, and am willing to submit to it. But I cannot be punished now for an otTence which I may or may not commit hereafter, without a violation of justice. Moreover, it has been suggested, (by the president,) that an " Annual Conference has authority to make rules and regulations for its own members." Admitted. Rules and regulations are not laics to regulate moral conduct^ I presume. This conference is now sitting in an executive^ or legislative capacity. If the former, then not the lat- ter; and if the latter, not the former. If you are sitting in an executive capacity, how can you enact laws for yourselves to execute.' If in a legislative capacity, how can you execute your own laws.' Unless you prove that these two powers should be united in one body ; which would astonish my understanding, and form a monstrous anomaly in ecclesiastical government, in this country. But if this conference had the power both to enact laws for the regulation of the moral characters of its members, and to execute such laws, when enacted, surely none would argue that you had authority to punish one of your members for a breach of a law before it is broken, or even enacted! And when was the law enact- ed, Avhich prohibits any of your body from recommend- ing tlie Mutual Rights.' — the supposed offence for which I have sulfered the punishment of an admonition. I might easily say much more on the subject : for it is one of the deepest moment to me: but suffer me to close my remarks, by referring brethren to the many hard tilings which some of them haA-e said on this floor ; and also, to what some of them have written and pub- lished, in opposition to certain parts of our discipline 13 146 HISTORY OF THE and government; and let me request them to refer to those things, when they shall give their vote in this case. I now retired again ; and Mr. Roszel offered the fol- lowing motion: '■'■moved that the character of brother Dorsey pass, upon his being reproved by the president, for his contumacy in resisting the authority of the confer- ence.'''' This motion did not prevail. The following motion was then offered by Mr. Job Guest, but written, as the secretary says, by Mr. F. S. Evans: '■'Moved and seconded, that the bishops be, and hereby are request- ed not to give Dennis B. Dorsey an appointment for the present year, and that his name be so returned on the minutes, with the reasons assigned, why he has not an appointment ; viz. his contumacy in regard to the autho- rity of the conference.'''' This motion was divided, and the first and second parts adopted separately. The re- solution being read to me, when called in, I requested a transcript from the journal, of all the proceedings in the case ; and signified a probability of my appealing to the General Conference against their decisions. My request was laid over, however, till the next day. When the case was called up on the following day, on motion of Mr. Joshua Wells, it was resolved, that the last resolution passed on yesterday, relative to the return of the name on the minutes, be amended, and "that the words, '■xoith the reasons assigned why he has not an appointment ; viz. his contumacy in regard to the authority of the conference,^ be retained on the journal, but not published in the minutes." This motion was adopted. — The same day, as I could not be present on account of bodily indisposition, I wrote to the confer- ence, informing them of my determination to appeal to tlie General Conference, and requested them to pass a METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 147 resolution, tliat this appeal be inserted in the minutes along with their former resolution. In that letter I re- newed my request for a transcript from the journals. Mr. Robert Cadden then moved, that my ^'■request be not granted^ The secretary, Mr. Waugh, and others, made some remarks on the impropriety of my obtaining such a document, without some restraint not to publish it until the General Conference. This motion was lost. After this, it was, on motion of Mr. Roszel, '■'■resolved that'''' my '■'■request he granted.'''' Thus, dear sir, you have an outline of this afflictive and protracted trial ; and you are now left to form your own opinion concerning the nature and grounds of the charge — the manner in whicli it was introduced — the proofs by which it was sustained — the decisions of the conference on the case— and my merit or demerit of the penalties inflicted. Soliciting an interest in your petitions to the God of all grace, that I may have that love which "endureth all tilings," and " thinketh no evil," I subscribe myself, dear brother, your fellow-labourer in the cause of religious liberty, and in the ministry of reconciliation. Dennis B. Dorsey. Baltimore, May loth, 1827. It will be proper to follow up this narrative with sev- eral communications from certain individuals, which will exhibit the effect this act of injustice had on the minds of many of the preachers, and other reformers. 148 HISTORY OF THE Letter addressed to a member of the Corresponding Com- mittee, dated, Georgetown, D. C, Jpril 25ih, 1827. Dear Brother, — Your letter of the 21st inst. came duly to hand. Its contents gave me great pain. The conduct of the Baltimore conference towards brother Dorsey, is of itself quite sufficient to satisfy every unpre- judiced mind, of the necessity of relieving our trav- elling preachers of a little of that "brief authority" whose influence is so contrary to that charity which thinketh no evil, and is kind, and which puffeth not up. When we look at the past, and reflect upon passing events, althougli we have in some respects great cause for gratitude for the moral and intellectual improvement of the world, yet it must be acknowledged, in the midst of our advantages, that bigotry still sits like an Incubus upon the understanding of many — to stifle free inquiry, and to prevent the reception and advancement of truth. In the 5th century, Acacias, bishop of Constanti- nople, was expelled the Church by the decree of an Italian council, for denying the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. In the 1 9th century it appears the Baltimore conference has by its decree censured brotlier Dorsey for circulating a work which denies the supremacy of the clergy to make laws for the laity, without their concurrence. John Huss, the great and pious reformer, was con- demned to death by the council of Constance, because he would not "obey the order of the council, which commanded h\m to plead guilty, against the dictates of his conscience"^ — brother Dorsey was punished because among other things, he did not feel disposed to answer METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 149 questions to convict himself, and because he would not promise against his judgment and conscience, to cease from circulating a work which he considered advocated the cause of truth and just principles. Luther was condemned without any pretence, of a charge against his moral character, by the Diet of Worms — our brother Dorsey, whose character and piety are acknowledged to be unquestionable, has been punished by the conference of Baltimore. The council of Trent voted, " that the Holy Scrip- tures were not composed for the use of the multitude, but only for that of their spiritual teachers — and ordered that these divine records be taken from the people. The Baltimore conference voted that brother Dorsey be rep- rimanded by the chair for having advised the people to read the Mutual Riglits, and inform themselves upon the subject of church government — although many who voted for the resolution read the work themselves. By which it may be fairly inferred that they wish to keep the people in ignorance of their rights and privileges as christians. The pious Waldenses were persecuted by the Romish Church, for their piety and zeal in a good cause ; but pious and independent reformers in the Methodist Epis- copal Church, for a mere diiference of opinion upon Church government, are persecuted and expelled by their own brethren. Two parties of the Calvanists — the Superlapsarians, and the Sublapsarians, united to condemn the Arminians for teaching that the goodness of God in the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ extended to all mankind ; and at the council of Dort, obtained a sentence against tliem by which they " were declared corrupters of true 13* 150 HISTORY OF THE religion." The bishops-men, and the anti-bishops-men, in the Baltimore conference united to punish brother Dorsey for circulating a work which denies that the travelling preachers alone, are the elect from the foun- dation of the world, to make laws for the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And to conclude these parallel cases — the eloquent Chrysostom was con- demned to banishment by the council of Chalcedon — but " the people, who were tenderly attached to their pious and worthy bishop, prevented the execution of this unrighteous sentence" — and I liope, as the Baltimore conference has for the reasons stated, deprived brother Dorsey of a support for the ensuing year, by refusing to give him an appointment, that the people will shew that they are " tenderly attached" to him, and to all those who thus suffer for the truth ; and that they will prevent as far as possible the punishment thus intended to be in- flicted, by affording him a comfortable support during that period. I feel myself authorized to say, that the reformers here sincerely sympathize with him in his afflictions growing out of this outrage upon his rights, and as a small testimony of attachment to the cause of truth, I enclose to you herewith in their behalf $20, which you will be pleased to present to him with tlie assurances of our most affectionate regard. Justice to brother Dorsey requires that a fair and candid statement of his case be made to the public, for I have discovered already a dis- position in some to cast a mist over this transaction, and thus to keep out of view the prominent fact in the case. The experience of a few weeks is quite sufficient to convince every impartial mind, that those in power are determined to push matters to extremities — and conse- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 151 quently it is highly important that the feelings and senti- ments of reformers should be united by the strongest cords of friendship, union and brotherly affection. In the midst of the unpleasant scenes which surround us, let us watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation and thereby give evidence, that reformers want reforming themselves. Yours in the bonds of christian affection, Gideon Davis. The following calm and dispassionate Address to the members of the Baltimore Annual Conference, was written by the Rev. Asa Shinn, a travelling preacher in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and published in the Mutual Rights, immediately after the persecution of brother Dorsey. w2 short Address to the members of the Baltimore Annual Conference, by Bartimeus. FatJiers and Brethren, — Permit an old friend, and an old member of your conference, to address you in the language of mildness and expostulation. One who was brought out of the kingdom of darkness, by the instru- mentality of the Methodist ministry, and who has been raised up among you, as an advocate for the pure doc- trines of original Methodism. One who, in tlie twenty- second year of his age, being ordered by the bishop far hence into the wilderness, was noticed by a distinguished member of your conference, who, casting a benevolent glance at the timid young man, silently retired from the busy scenes of the day, and went from house to house, to procure a little money from the generous friends in Baltimore, to aid him through the dangers and hazards 152 HISTORY OF THE of his western tour. A member this, who then stood so high in your ranks, and in the public estimation, that wlien he had an appointment to preacli, his name was previously announced from the pulpit, that the citizens Diiglit know when they could have an opportunity to hear him. What distinguished member of your confer- ence was this It was none other than that same Nich- olas Snethen, who is now regarded as the great troubler of Israel. That mild, inofl'ensive man of God, who, for more than thirty years, through a variety of trying cir- cumstances, has held fast his righteousness, "and main- tained his integrity. Shall I forget thee, Snethen ! Now tlie shafts of reproach fly thick around ; shall I hide my- self, and leave thee to the peltings of the storm I have arisen, thou knowest, to aid thee in the mighty contest, and to share in thy reproach. I will be thy fellow- labourer through the cloudy and dark day, until summer suns shall break the dense vapours of the storm, and clear up the troubled atmospliere. Then like weather- beaten and war-worn soldiers, lifting our eyes to the tranquil stillness of the heavens, and looking abroad tlirough the surrounding beauties of spiritual vegetation, we will sing together: — "For lo! the winter is past, the rain is over and gone ; the flowers appear on the earth, the time of singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land ; the fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with tlie tender grape give a good smell." You my brethren, who are yet members of the Balti- more Annual Conference, will forgive this involuntary digression, this grateful recollection of past events, and pleasant anticipation of the future, while I solicit your attention to the intended suggestions of the present Address. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 153 I am not insensible of my obligations to you, and have long admired that dignity and intelligence, which have caused you to hold a distinguished rank among the An- nual Conferences of the United States. You possess advantages Avhich other conferences do not. Occupying a central situation, and having easy access to the fii-st sources of information, you have it in your power to sustain a valuable weight of influence, and to stand among the most useful bodies of men in our nation. The principles of reform have long been in operation among you; and you have had ample means to know and ap- preciate the evidence on which they rest. 1 retain a lively recollection of the times and seasons, when an Emory, a Ryland, and a Griffith made a noble stand on your floor, and when other intelligent brethren with tliem, plead the cause of liberty, against the dangerous accumulations of ecclesiastical power. Whence is it, then, that in your late session you have laid an embargo upon the Mutual Rights.? Is Emory gone from among you.' Is the Aoice of Ryland no more heard.' Has Griffith retired to the mournful solitudes of discouraged silence ? And have Waugh and Davis found out, that truth reaches too deep to be safely followed in all its connections.' Does the thunder of S. G. R. still terrify the rising ministry .' And have your young men " stipu- lated" to enjoy the consolation of passive obedience and non-resistance .' Whence is it, that these dismal tidings have come out from Baltimore ? Refusing to notice our arguments, and unable to obstruct their influence on society, by manoeuvre, are you now resolved that abso- lute authority shall take our citadel by storm? An em- bargo is not unfrequently a harbinger for an open decla- ration of war; and we may so regard it, perhaps in the present case. 154 HISTORY OF THE You have resolved, have you ? that the members of your conference sliall not recommend or circulate the Mutual Rights. Why is this? Have you given any reason for such an extraordinary resolution? Or have you avowed your determination, not to enter into any "discussion or controversy" upon the subject? If you will not give a reason for your conduct, let your expos- tulating brethren do it for you. We think the plain Eng- lish reason why you will not read the Mutual Rights, is, tliat the work contains more truth than you are willing to endure. Ecclesiastical power will not come to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved. You have laid the heavy arm of authority on a young man, it is said, because he has recommended and circu- lated our periodical publication. Have you any law for this? Where is it? In the discipline? In the Scrip- tures? In the codes of the United States, or of the State of Maryland? If in none of these, must you not own that it was a perfectly lawless act ? And is the Baltimore Annual .Conference withmt law to God? or is she under the law to Christ ? Brethren, what do you intend to do? To prohibit the freedom of inquiry, and of reading, is a greater outrage upon civil liberty, than to take away the freedom of speech, or of the press. It is rumoured that some great man among you, intends publicly to vindicate the con- duct of the Baltimore Annual Conference, in this case. If I cannot fairly shew his arguments to be inconclusive, I promise I will yield to them, and give up the cause of reform. If you forbid travelling preachers to circulate the Mutual Rights, why not lay the same prohibition upon the local preachers, and the private members? You METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 155 profess to have equal autliority over them in your law- making power ; and why not in your sovereign preroga- tive to act without law? If you resolve still to be inattentive to our arguments, and to our rights, have some regard, I beseech you, to your own standing in society. Will your daring efforts to abridge the freedom of thought and discussion, pass unnoticed in this land of justice and independence, which reflects the light of civil and religious liberty over both hemispheres.' Will the free-born sons of America, whose fathers had such struggles to cast off" the yoke of European despotism, be silent and respect- ful spectators of your ecclesiastical march after absolute dominion.? Will not Methodists every where, open their eyes, and see that the efforts of reformers have not been made without a cause ? Think you, that, with trembling steps, they will begin to gather up their scattered num- bers of the Mutual Rights, and commit them to the flames, lest the second edition of the Baltimore act, should involve tJiem also in its penalties.? Will they break up their Union Societies, and implore your royal clemency, pledging themselves no more to peruse the forbidden pages.? Will the reformers belonging to the Baltimore Annual Conference tamely surrender to your high-toned injunction, and with abject meanness, go and ask you what books they may be permitted to read and circulate.? As well might you expect them to bow down, and kiss the great toe of his holiness at Rome. If you are men of reason, why spurn from you the many appeals made to this noble faculty in the Mutual Rights ? If you are men of one book, the Bible, why forbid the reading of those pages, where so many sacred quotations are to be found .? If you are Wesleyan Me- 156 HISTORY OF THE tliodists, why interdict a book, which contains so many respectful appeals to Mr. Wesley's authority, and so many quotations from his works? A respectable number of you were zealous reformers four or five years ago. Have you taken a retrograde motion, or become lukewarm in the cause.'' If so, how is this fact to be accounted for.'' Has it arisen from a dread of novelties, and a sanguine confidence that notliing is true but " the old Gospel which we have had from the beginning.'"' That nothing is true which con- tradicts the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is very readily admitted, and it would be well for the christian world, if it were more generally admitted than it is. But I beseech you to reflect, that many of the warm advocates for old things, with all their fondness for an- tiquity, do not look so far back as to tlie days of our blessed Saviour and his Apostles. Many things have been invented since that time, which have now become old; and these are the things which excite the greatest outcry against novelty, and for which the most zealous efforts are made, to magnify the argument of antiquity ; because it is well known, if this should be torn from them, they would have no other argument to rest upon. Because the Gospel is old, must we therefore support all the old absurdities of popery } The mere argument of antiquity proves this, or it proves nothing. We believe the Gospel, not because it is old, for it was as true eighteen hundred years ago, as it is now; and will not be any more true, after the lapse of ten thousand years to come. And as to Church government, if you insist on antiquity, we join in with you immediately, and invite you back to the apostolic age. Is not this old enough METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 157 for you ? Or will you make your official conduct de- monstrate, that you think it quite too old ? You are ready to say, perhaps, that one thing will open the way for another, that for another, and if these reformers can have their will, we know not where they will find a stopping place. If you see them going beyond the oracles of God, and beyond the apostolic age, then I will join you with all my heart, in endea- vouring to stop them. The Church of Rome, in her Church government, went beyond the oracles of God, to borrow pagan rites, and beyond the apostolic age, to borrow many of the pompous and obsolete ceremonies of the Jews: had she regarded, and been governed by divine authority, in all her discipline, what superstition and bloodshed would have been prcA-ented through the following ages! You have no fears, have you, that Me- thodist reformers will wander as far out of the way as she did ? Allow us the stopping place just mentioned, and we will never ask you to go beyond it. Nor do we wish to urge a rapid motion, in our return to primitive usage and simplicity. We only request you to take a step at a time; but in the mean time, we wish to be looking forward, and clearing the way for future move- ments, when the proper season shall arrive. Remember, brethren, the interest you felt in the cause of reform, in 1823 — 4. Where was then, your stopping place.' Was it the election of presiding elders ? The election of a stationing committee? or both.' Now, both these points of reform evidently contemplated an en- largement of general liberty, and an abridgment of epis- copal power: and if we now request that the represen- tative principle should properly run through the whole connexion, what is this but maintaining that consistency 14 I 158 HISTORY OF THE and impartiality in our claims, \vhich truth and right- eousness require ? Will our old reforming brethren in the travelling ministry, forsake us on this account? Or, if we plead for such abridgment and responsibility of episcopal power, as shall make it correspond with the executive power of the United States, will the free- born sons of America find fault with us for this ? Will they go back, and support episcopal sovereignty in all its extent, giving up the presiding elder question, and every other question of reform, merely because we want Methodist bishops put upon a level with the dignified ruler who presides at the head of the nation? Is it pos- sible that this will frighten away any of the reformers belonging to the Baltimore Annual Conference? Will they now give up their own rights and privileges, rather than see local preachers and lay members have the en- joyment of theirs? To keep down the laity and locality, are they now willing to surrender their own claims, yield a passive obedience to their masters, and do all that in them lies, to perpetuate an absolute hierarchy, to the end of the world ? We hope better things of Balti- more reformers. Too many in that conference, we know, are not reformers; too many are violently op- posed to reform ; from them we hope but little. But brethren, who are in any degree favourable to reform, would do well to consider, that, however de- sirous they may be, to take a neutral stand, or pursue a middle course, the time appears approaching when our rulers will not sutler them to do either. They may pass along for a year or two ; but an inquiry will probably be commenced before long, on the conference floor, to ascertain who has been guilty of reading the Mutual Rights; or, who has been guilty of conversing with METHODIST PROTESTA>"T CHURCH. 159 others in favour of reform. Every thing of the kind will be considered " inveighing against our discipline." Our bishops, presiding elders, and their admirers, will be likely to insist, that every man must come out, and let the conference know where he stands. It appears to be high time, therefore, for every man to examine Church history, search his Bible, read the Mutual Rights, consult his conscience, exercise his understand- ing, and deliberately make up his mind, concerning the course he is to take, through the portentous and eventful scenes which are before us. Some of the brethren will probably reply, the event- ful scenes referred to, are the very things which stagger us. ^Ve were reformers, until we saw there was danger tliat the Church would be torn to pieces ; and now we are afraid to persevere. Well, brethren, you are per- fectly right in resolving not to do any thing that would injure the Church. This resolution, it is to be hoped, will be abundantly confirmed, in the mind of every one of you. And what, think you, will injure the Church Will reason or revelation do it.' Will the Church be injured, by her members searching for the truth, or by assisting each other in the diligent communication of it, through every lawful medium.' Pause and think. Will tlie Church be injured by an increase of light on the principles of government.' Will truth, justice, equal rights, and equal liberty, ever do her any harm ? Will it tear the Church in pieces, to ask a Methodist bishop to yield the least tittle of his power.' Or to ask "the itinerancy" to do unto' others, as they would have others do unto them ? And who intends to divide the Church ? Will reformers do it, by voluntarily separating.' Or will it be done by the episcopacy, through tlie sovereign 160 HISTORY OF THE power of expulsion ? Time will answer these questions. Can the Baltimore Annual Conference find no other way to avoid injuring and destroying the Church, but the old way of absolute power maintaining silence, — forbid- ding to read, think, judge, or converse on the subject of Church government? And pray, then, where did this conference receive her education? Where did she learn such a lesson? You will have to look across the great water, to the southern regions of Europe, for an answer to this question. But why do I write this address, to be published in the Mutual Rights, after that publication has been pro- scribed by the very persons to whom the appeal is made? Some of them may feel indignant at it, and may be disposed to ask: "What emboldeneth thee, that thou answerest?" I answer, because if you will not read in order to inform your minds of what is going on in the earth, it is probable some of your children will. If you are too wise, eitlier to yield to our arguments, or to answer them; your posterity will be able to judge, whether our arguments were too weak to need an an- swer, or too strong to adviit of one. They will dis- cover, whether your declining cause had no occasion to defend itself, or that you had no ability to give an answer which would bear the public scrutiny. Bartimeus. May, 1827. To prevent similar violent proceedings in any of the other Annual Conferences, the Baltimoi'e Union Society, published a brief notice of Mr. Dorsey's case, which we here insert. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 161 Proceedings of tJie Baltimore Union Society, in rela- tion to the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsexfs case. At a meeting of the Baltimore Union Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held on the 15th day of May, 1827, it was deemed proper to lay before the public the follo^ying brief narrative of facts relative to the case of the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey. On Wednesday tlie 18th of April, the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey " was charged before the Baltimore Annual Conference, with having- been actively engaged in the circulation of an improper periodical work." A con- fidential letter from Mr. Dorsey to a friend, recom- mending to his attention the Mutual Rights, as an im- portant work on Church government, was produced in evidence, and read in the conference. Mr. Dorsey ac- knowledged the letter to be his; but did not consider that he had violated any law by recommending the above work. After Mr. Dorsey had retired, the following reso- lution was offered by the Rev. Stephen G. Roszel, and adopted by the conference ; "Resolved, that Dennis B. Dorsey's character pass, upon his being admonished bj" the president ; and promising the conference that he will desist from taking any agency in spreading or supporting any publications in opposition to our discipline or gov- ernment." On the following day the admonition was given in due form, from the chair; but Mr. Dorsey could not be in- duced to make the promise required by the resolution. He objected to it as unreasonable and unjust — there being no law in the discipline, prohibiting any preacher from recommending or circulating such works as the Mutual Rights. He stated that he was willing to 14* 162 HISTORY OF THE promise the conference to be submissive to the discip- line and government of the Church ; and to recommend Hke obedience to others, until by the legislative authority of the Church, some modification of the government could be effected. A promise embracing more than this, lie informed them he could not make. On Friday the case was again resumed, and Mr. Dor- sey was pressed to make the promise required by the resolution, which he still declined, urging as before, the injustice of the requirement. Upon which, the Rev. Stephen G. Roszel made the following motion : " Moved, that the character of brother Dorsey pass, upon his being reproved by the president for his contumacy in resisting the authority of the conference." This motion, however, did not prevail. After considerable desultory conversation on the case, the following resolution was offered by the Rev. Job Guest, and adopted by the con- ference: "Moved and seconded, that die bishops be and hereby are requested not to give Dennis B. Dorsey an appointment for the present year ; and that his name be so returned on the minutes, with the reasons assigned why he has not an appointment, viz : his contumacy in regard to the authority of the conference." On Satur- day, the latter part of this motion was so far rescinded as to omit the publication of it on the printed minutes of the conference, but to retain it on the journal. Thus was brother Dorsey, a presbyter in the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, -^vithout any charge against his moral or religious character, left by the order of the conference, without a prospect of support for himself and family, and that too, witli a constitution seriously injured in the service of the Church. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 163 Now as it is the undoubted right of every man, to ex- press his opinion of the official conduct of his ecclesias- tical as well as his civil rulers ; and whereas we deem the proceedings against Mr. Dorsey as intended to pre- vent the diffusion of light on a subject of vital impor- tance to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the com- munity at large ; Therefore: Resolved, 1st. That the conduct of the late Baltimore Annual Conference in tlie case of the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, was oppressive in its character, and not warranted by the Scriptures, nor the discipline of tlie Church. Resolved, 2dly. That in the opinion of this Society, the conference in thus oppressing Mr. Dorsey, has evinced a determination, not only to wilh-hold represen- tation from the membership and local ministry, but also to keep them in ignorance of the true principles of Church government. Resolved, 3dly. That this Society duly appreciate tlie firm and dignified stand taken by Mr. Dorsey in the conference, in favour of the principles of religious free- dom, and tender to him their most affectionate regards. Resolved, 4thly. That this Society deem it but just to say, that several members of the conference, together with bishop Roberts, manifested a liberal spirit on the occasion. Resolved, othly. That the above narrative and reso- lutions be published. JoHX Chappell, Sen., President. The persecution of Mr. Dorsey, and the infliction of so severe a penalty on a man in such feeble health, ex - cited the indignation and called forth the sympathy of 164 HISTORY OF THE reformers in every part of the country. Letters of con- dolence witli pecuniary aid were sent to him from indi- viduals and societies in different parts of the United States. We have space for only one of these letters. We select that of Rev. Cornelius Springer, a travelling preacher in the West. Dear Sir^ — I read, last evening, the May number of the Mutual Rights, which gives an account of the dis- graceful treatment of the Baltimore Annual Conference towards you. And although you are to me a total stran- ger, yet the perusal of your case, produced in my bosom the strongest sensations of sympathy. I could not, my dear brother, suppress the falling tear. One particular reason, I suppose, why my sympathies are so great towards you is, that I have been made to pass, in sub- stance, through tlie same fiery trials through which you are now passing; and of course know how to feel for you. I was the first person, who in the Ohio Annual Conference, publicly declared in favour of reform, for which I have been made to feel the displeasure of the administration. To sum up all in a few words; I have, as it appears to me, been treated in an ungenerous man- ner. This treatment had for a time, the effect to de- stroy my happiness and to injure my health. But through tlie dispensation of a kind providence, I have weathered the storm. I now possess as much private felicity as I ever did in my life. Thanks to my Creator and Pre- server, I have been blessed and prospered in every re- spect, far beyond my most sanguine expectations. This I say, not by way of boasting, but by way of encour- agement, to stimulate you to bear up under your honour- able degradation. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 165 If the administration have now determined on the work of desolation, and we have often been threatened with it, I will anticipate their interrogatories by telling tlieni that I patronize the Mutual Rights. I respect its editore, and approve of the design of their work, and believe they are doing the Church and the world a great service. And the reformei-s, as far as I am acquainted with them, I believe to be honest men; and many of them men of tlie first moral, religious, intellectual, and independent worth. The course I have pursued in relation to this contro- versy, I honestly and conscientiously think is right, con- sequently, shall continue to pursue it until I am other- wise convinced. And after I do what I think is right, the administration, can do in relation to me, what tliey tliink is right. As it regards consequences, I have long been indifferent ; although I would not unnecessarily pro- voke persecution, yet I would not swerve an inch from the course of a manly independence, to prevent the worst that might ensue. I am, dear brother, yours in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. C. Springer. Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey. Ohio, May 24, 1827. 166 HISTORY OF THE CHAPTER IX. MEASURES TAKEN TO SECURE THE EXPULSION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BALTIMORE UNION SOCIETY. SHAM TRIALS. EXAMINATION OF MR. WESLEY's RULE AGAINST SPEAKING EVIL OF MINISTERS. The part which the Baltimore Union Society took in making public through the Mutual Rights, the facts in Mr. Dorsey's case ; and the expression of their opinion on the conduct of the Baltimore Annual Conference, brought down upon them the displeasure of its ministers. The Rev. James M. Hanson and Beverly Waugh, preachers in charge of the City and Point Stations, im- mediately excluded fourteen local preachers, who were Reformers, residing in Baltimore, from all the Methodist pulpits in this city. Several of the proscribed and perse- cuted brethren were formerly travelling preachers : most of them had been preachers from fifteen to thirty years ; and all of them had contributed to the support of the itinerant ministry, and towards the building of those very houses of worship in which they were now considered unworthy to officiate. .The private members were also made to feel the displeasure of men in power, in various ways. A brother, Mr. John Gephart, wliose religious character stood fair, and who was recommended by his leader as a suitable person to be admitted into full mem- bership in the Methodist Church, was rejected by Mr. Hanson because he loas a member of the Baltimore Union Society. It was now very evident from these facts, and from the threats thrown out by anti-reformers, that a storm of persecution was gathering over the heads of METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 167 the members of the Union Society. They were how- ever, not dismayed, but calmly awaited the crisis, trust- ing in the protection of Almighty God, and resting their cause on the sure foundation of truth and righteousness. Measures were now taken to expel the principal members of the Baltimore Union Society, in conse- quence of their having exposed the unjustifiable conduct of the Annual Conference. A secret meeting of anti- reformers was convened in July, at a school room in this City ; several travelling preachers were present and a plan was adopted to eftect the expulsion of the pro- scribed members. A committee of seven anti-reformers were appointed, who with the assistance of the preacher in charge. Rev. James M. Hanson, were to secure this most desirable object. The writer had an interview with the principal member of the committee, a day or two after their appointment, and requested some infor- mation relative to their instructions. He replied, " I will give you the information you desire, very cheer- fully, and in a few words. You and your friends are members of the Union Society, and say you will not leave it. You publish the Mutual Rights, and say, you will not discontinue that publication. You also say, you will not tcithdrmc from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now we are reduced to one of two alternatives; either to let you remain members of the Church, and let you go on peaceably publishing the Mutual Rights, by which you agitate the Church: or to expel you. We have come to the determination to take the latter alternative and EXPEL you. It is, therefore, made the duty of our committee to examine the Mutual Rights, and if we find any thing in that work which is a violation of the dis- cipline, we are authorized to bring charges and have you expelled." 168 HISTORY OF THE Here was a frank avowal of the intentions of the anti- reformers. 1. They had determined to expel the leading Reformers in Baltimore, because they were members of the Union Society. 2. Because they would continue to investigate the principles of Church government. 3. Because they would not withdraw from the Church. 4. That some pretext was to be sought by which to justify their excommunication. 5. The Mutual Rights were to be " examined'''' in order to find some real or pretended accusation by which these holy men of God might effect the expulsion of their brethren and fathers. Whilst the prosecuting committee were engaged in examining the Mutual Rights, and preparing charges, another part of the plan was developed. A meeting of all the male members belonging to the two stations, ex- clusive of reformers, was called on the 7th of August, in the little old Baptist meeting house in Pitt street. At that meeting a resolution was passed approving of the conduct of the conference in Mr. Dorsey's case; and an " address " which had been previously prepared, by a deserter from the ranks of reform, was read, and ordered to be published, in which the members of the Union Society, and other reformers, were denounced as " enemies to Methodism," &c. One of them in particu- lar, was named, and assailed in the most intemperate, unchristian and abusive language. The conduct of the preachers in cliarge, who had excluded the fourteen preachers fi'om the pulpits, was also approved and sanc- tioned by the meeting. The obvious, and immediate design of this meeting, was, to prepare the people to witness the excommunication of their friends and rela- tives, widiout those feelings of abhorrence and indigna- tion which such flagrant acts of injustice and cruelty METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 169 were calculated to inspire in the bosom of every pious man and woman in the city. By the first of September, Mr. Hanson was ready with his select committees of trial ; one, to suspend the preachers; and the other to condemn the laymen. There were nine persons on tlie two committees, three preachers and six laymen, all of whom had assisted to appoint the members of the prosecuting committee, at the meeting held in the school room ; and had prejudged and condemned the members of the Union Society, at tlie meeting held in the little Baptist Church, above referred to, on tlie 7th of August. Some of them had publicly declared, that "if they had the power, they would expel every member of the Union Society from the Church." Yet, these men were selected by Mr. Hanson, to act as jurors to condemn, that he might expel the members of the Union Society ; and were retained by him on the trials, notwithstanding they were repeat- edly objected to on these very accounts. The following note was sent to each of the accused, by the preacher in charge. The copy is made from that sent to Dr. Jennings. Baltimore, September 8th, 1827. Rev. Sir, — You are hereby informed, that charges have been preferred against you, by the following persons, J. Rogers, S. Hardin, J. Berry, T. N. Toy, A. Yearly, G. Earnest and F. Israel. As it is desirable for the satisfac- tion of all who feel an interest in the matter, that a hearing should be had as soon as practicable, it is hoped that Tues- day evening next, 7 o'clock, will suit your convenience. Yours resp'y, James M. Hanson. Rev. Dr. S. K. Jennings. 15 170 HISTORY OP THE To the above Dr. Jennings replied. The following is an extract from his letter. I have also to say to you, that the nature of my defence, will make it imperiously necessary for me, to correspond with the several writers, for the publication of whose pa- pers, as one of the editors of a periodical work, I am called to give an account. This circumstance, together with other, and very important parts of my intended defence, will necessarily require a good deal of time. A proper sense of justice on the part of the executive, therefore, will certainly protect me against the violence of being urged to too hasty a hearing. I am, &c. S. K. Jennings. Rev. J. M. Hanson. To this Mr. Hanson replied. The following is an extract from his letter. I am no less astonished, that you should think it all- important to your intended defence, to have a correspon- dence with the writers of those pieces which the brethren above alluded to have designated. The sentiments and expressions which are deemed exceptionable, have been published to the world, and speak for themselves. With the writers for the "Mutual Rights," scattered as they are over the continent, the charges in question have no imme- diate concern: nor is it easy to see how these writers are to render you any assistance. They can furnish no testi- mony, — they can undo nothing that you, as a member of the editorial committee may have done; and without de- signing to flatter, I may be permitted to say, they can place the subject in question, in no light, in which it has not appeared to your own mind ; seeing that it has been with you a subject of close and deep deliberation for seve- ral years. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 171 ^nder these impressions, and desirous, for the good of all concerned, to bring the matter to as speedy an issue as is consistent with a proper sense of justice, it is deemed altogether unadvisable to fix upon any period for investi- gation, beyond Monday 17th, at 7 o'clock, P. M. I am, &.C. Jas. M. Hanson. Rev. Dr. Samuel K. Jennings. P. S. Should you prefer any evening prior to the time above mentioned, be good enough to let us know. J. M. H. All things being ready, the prosecuting committee visited five or six members of the Union Society, and inquired of them whether they would abandon the Union Society and discontinue the Mutual Rights. But the persons visited did not see fit to comply with this modest request, which they knew those men had no right to make •, and Avhich, in fact, was an insult offered to them as free citizens of these United States, and as members of the Church of Christ. On the 17th September, 1827, the sham trials com- menced, at the old conference room, Rev. J. M. Hanson in the chair. Rev. Samuel Williams, John W. Harris and Thomas Basford, committee, to try the preachers. Mr. F. Israel, on the part of tl)e prosecution stated as follows : " I have nothing personal against Dr. Jennings, I have the highest regard and personal esteem for him. I regret that this course was unavoidable. We had no other alter- native. We were driven to this course. We have been told by the members of the Union Society that they must have lay delegation. They also say they never will with- draw from the Church. Lay delegation we believe is not practicable, or expedient. With these views, we never 172 HISTORY OF THE can agree ; we are as distant as the poles. The Mutual Rights have produced wranglings, disputations and divi- sion. Are there not two parties ? Every religious com- munity has a right to form its own discipline, and its members are not at liberty to disturb it. While they remain members of the Church, they have no right to form, and be members of, the Union Society. We claim what we conceive to be a right of ours, and we ought to be left in the peaceable enjoyment of our rights. The rules which we think have been violated, are to be found on pages 78 and 91, of the discipline, as designated in the charges and specifications, upon whtch this trial is founded : and we refer to the Mutual Rights in extenso in proof of the charges — hut more particularly to the refer- ences which are appended to the specifications." * It will be proper in this place to make some brief remarks on Mr. Israel's introduction of the charges and specifications. The introduction of the charges by Mr. Israel is in strict accordance with his declarations to the writer of this history at page 167. He "had nothing personal against Dr. Jennings" — "had the highest regard and personal esteem for him." His offence lay in being an advocate, in common with the other members of the Union Society, of lay delegation, which, in Mr. Israel's opinion, " is neither practicable nor expedient." »In the course of some interlocutory remarks, it was admitted by the brethren in the prosecution, that they were selected by the meet- ing at Dr. Roszel's school room, to examine the discipline, and to determine whether the members of the Union Society had violated it. But were left to their own discretion to prefer charges. They laboured to have it understood that they acted upon their own indivi- dual responsibility; that they pursued their own course, and came to their own conclusion. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 173 ^lere then we have, on the part of the prosecuting committee, a full and prompt disavowal of all immorality attaching to Dr. Jennings. The same disavowal of per- sonal criminality, was subsequently made by different members of the prosecuting committee in regard to other members of the Union Society. Several of these ^vere among the most inoffensive and pious members of the Church. Mr. Israel's own father, an aged and highly respectable member of the Church, was also among them. He also was guilty of the enormous crimes of being a member of the Union Society, a rea- der of the Mutual Rights, and an advocate for a lay delegation; and had lived long enough to see his own son, exhibit him to the Church and the world, as unfit for membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Another statement in the introduction merits attention: " Every religious community has a right to form its own discipline, and its members are not at liberty to disturb it." The first clause of this sentence is exactly what reformers have all along contended for. But when and where did the Methodist community form its own dis- cipline .'' Is it not known to all, that the itinerant preach- ers without consulting the community or membership, formed the discipline, with all its assumptions and ob- noxious features } It was truly wonderful to hear those men talk thus, when they must have known, that this is one of the tilings they deny. They have over and over again said, the Methodist community "have no right" personally nor by their representatives, to form their own discipline. In the same sentence, however, Mr. Israel denies the thing he asserts in the first clause; "the members are not at liberty to disturb it." They who have a right to form the discipline have no right to 15* 174 HISTORY OF THE mend it ! no, nor even to propose amendments ; for this, by the way, was all the reformers did. They did not attempt to mend the discipline, but simply proposed amendments. This was their great offence, for by doing this they produced a difference of opinion from that entertained by Mr. Israel and liis friends. This he called " wranglings, disputations and divisions." The last assertion made by this leader of the prose- cution equally surprised us; " While they remain mem- bers of the Church they have no right to form, and be members of the Union Society." Here we ask; where does the discipline of the M. E. Church forbid the members to form Union Societies } But to proceed to the charges and specifications. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONg. The Rev. Doctor Samuel K. Jennings is charged with endeavour- ing to sow dissentions in the society or Church, in this station or city, known by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and with the violation of that general rule of the discipline of the said Church or society, which prohibits its members from doing harm, and requires them to avoid evil of every kind; and especially with violating that clause of said General Rule, which prohibits speaking evil of min- isters. Specification 1st. Because the said Samuel K. Jennings, while a member and a local preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church, aforesaid, did heretofore attach himself to, and become a member of the society called the Union Society of the city of Baltimore; which Union Society is in opposition to the Discipline, in whole or in part, of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid. Specification 2d. Because the said Samuel K. Jennings, as a mem- ber of the said Union Society, directly, or indirectly, either by pecu- niary contributions or his personal influence, aiding, abetting, co- operating, or assisting in the publication and circulation of a work called "The Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church," printed under the direction of an edi- torial committee, (of which the said S. K. Jennings is, or lately was one,) appointed by, or who are members of the Union Society afore- said, which work or publication, called " The Mutual Rights of the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 175 ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church" contains (among other things) much that inveighs against the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid, in whole or in part, and is in direct opposition thereto ; and that it is abusive or speaks evil of a part if not of most of the ministers of that Church. The gen- eral tendency of which work or publication, has been to produce dis- agreement, strife, contention and breach of union among the mem- bers of said Church in this city or station. Specification 3d. Because the said Samuel K. Jennings, as a mem- ber of the Union Society aforesaid, did advise, request, or recommend, the publication of a pamphlet entitled " The History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy," written by the Rev. Alexander M'Cain, in which various declarations and assertions are made without proper proof or just foundation, calculated to disgrace and bring reproach upon the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid, its ministers and members, and which declarations and assertions are well calculated to produce, increase, and heighten the disagreemeet, strife, con- tention, and breach of union alluded to in the 2d specification. For proof of which, the publication entitled the Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church is re- ferred to, and particularly, No. 1, page 31, Constitution of the Union Society of Baltimore. " 7, " 261, Essays on Church Property, No. 1 & 2, by Rev. N. Snethen. " 25, " 26, Joseph Walker's Letter, Alabama. " 27, " 53, Luther on Representation. " 29, " 100, Timothy's Address to Junior Bishop. " 30, " 147, Dissenter. « 32, " 199, Rev. A. Shinn's Appeal. " 33, « 214, Granville Union Society. « 34, " 270, Vindex. Sovereignty of Methodism in the South. 248, Address of N. Snethen. " 35, " 277, Union Society on D. B. Dorsey's Case. " 36, " 301, Address. 300, Neale. 322, Centceville Proceedings. And, also, the said pamphlet, entitled Tlie History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy, with such other documentary or oral proof as the undersigned may deem expedient to exhibit or produce. Signed, George Earnest, Jacob Rogers, Samuel Harden, Isaac N. Joy, Alexander Yearly, Fielder Israel, and John Berry. Baltimore, September 7th, 1827. 176 HISTORY OF THE We propose first to examine the two rules of discip- line said to have been violated by the members of the Union Society. The rule on page 78 of the discipline is found in Messrs. John and Charles Wesley's General Rules, framed in 1743, for the government of their societies. It is a part of the first branch of the rules which require those who desire to continue in those societies " to avoid evil of every kind, especially, that which is most gen- erally practised such as swearing, Sabbath breaking, drunkenness, fighting, quarrelling, smuggling, usury, or taking illegal interest, and " uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; speaking evil of magistrates or ministers.'''' This last sentence, printed in italics, constitutes the rule said to have been violated by tliose of us who edited the Mutual Rights, and those who were members of the Baltimore Union Society. We are confidently assured by a pious, aged member of the Methodist Protestant Church, who was a Metho- dist in England more than sixty years ago, that by " ministers" in the above rule, the Wesleys meant the civil ministers of the croion, and not the ministers of re- ligion, and that it was so understood by all the society. That it was a common practice among Methodist poli- ticians opposed to the measures of government, to ex- press themselves freely in relation to the conduct of cab- inet ministers. Tliis practice was viewed by the Wes- leys, who were decided adliercnts to the government, as uncharitable or at least, unprofitable conversation. Hence they introduced the rule in view of putting a final stop to those political discussions in their societies. The import was ; if a member of our society will con- verse on governmental subjects, in opposition to the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 177 meaaures of ministers, and censure their conduct, " We will admonish him of the error of his way ; we will bear with him for a season. But then, if he repent not, he hath no more place among us." That this was the true sense and proper application of tiie rule ; and that it could have no other, is fairly sustained by the following facts. 1 . At the time of its formation, with the exception of the two Wesleys and a few clergymen, there were no ministers in the societies against whom uncharitable or unprofitable conversation could be indulged: and the handfuls of persons united in the societies, at that period, were so much attached to the Wesleys, and so zealous of tlieir reputation, that there could have been no occa- sion for a rule to prevent the speaking evil of them or their colleagues in the ministry. 2. The rule could not have been made for the pro- tection of the English clergy, because such a supposition would have involved the Wesleys in a violation of their own rule. Mr. John Wesley called the clergy " blind leaders of the blind." As his societies increased, he was desirous to procure some other assistance for them in addition to himself and his associates. It seems he at first had hopes that the ministers of the respective parishes would watch over those who were lately turned from the error of their ways. In this, however, he was disappointed ; and says, in his defence of himself, which he makes in the tliird part of his Farther Appeal to men of reason and religion: "And how did they (the parochial minis- ters) watch over the sinners lately reformed } Even as a leopard watches over his prey. They drove some of them also from the Lord's table; to which, till now, 178 HISTORY OF THE they had no deshe to approach. They preached all manner of evil concerning them ; openly cursing them in the name of the Lord. They turned many out of their ^vork ; persuading others to do so too, and har- rassed them all manner of ways. The event was, that some ^vere wearied out, and so turned back to their vomit again. And then those good pastors gloried over them, and endeavoured to shake others by their ex- ample." Mr. Charles Wesley, in one of his manuscript hymns, treating on our Lord's declaration, Matt. 21. 13. "It is written my house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves," turns the ex- pression against the bishops and ministers of the Church, and writes : But ye have made my house a den of Rev- erend and Right Reverend thieves. It cannot for a moment be admitted, that men who wrote thus concerning the clergy, ever designed their rule to apply to church ministers in view of screening them from censure. The construction, therefore, fur- nished by our aged brother, unquestionably gives the only legitimate sense of the rule : namely, that by " min- isters" the Wesleys meant cabinet ministers, and not the ministers of the gospel, nor the few clergymen associ- ated with themselves. The societies who first organized in Frederick County, State of Maryland, and in New York, adopted the General Rules, and, of course, the clause against speaking evil of ministers. But with them the rule had an intelligible application; for Robert Strawbridge, Philip Embury, and Capt. Webb, were British subjects, and the societies were composed of provincials, under the government of the crown ministers. And so of the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 179 members of the first conference held in Philadelphia in 1773. The six preachers who composed it were all Englishmen and under the British government, as we have shown in a preceding part of this work. But after the Provinces had achieved their independence, the rule became a dead letter, and ought to have been expunged as totally inapplicable to Methodists in this country ; or if permitted to remain in the General Rules it should have been viewed as Methodist Protestants view it, ob- solete, and not suited to their condition as American Methodists ; or, if it was deemed wholesome and neces- sary, it should have been revised and made intelligibly applicable to Methodist preachers or gospel mmisters of any denomination. But it was permitted to sleep for years ; and, without any action of subsequent General Conferences, a new sense and new application were given to it as might suit the fancy and purposes of preachers in charge of stations and circuits. The construction now given to the rule by Methodist preachers was unknown to Mr. Wesley, and the penalty is a hundred fold heavier than that attached by the fatlier of the rule. For his penalty amounted only to expulsion from a society, but this, to excommunication from the Methodist Episcopal Church. According to the wording of the rule, even in its new application, to speak evil of a minister, is to speak uncharitably'''' oi him. To misrepresent his motives or conduct would, tlierefore, be speaking evil of him. It is presumed no one will say, that to speak the truth of a minister — to represent his conduct fairly — and to point out plainly the effects of his measures, will amount to speaking evil of him. 180 HISTORY OF THE The accused brethren, denied that they had spoken or published anything false against any minister, or had intentionally misrepresented the conduct of any one; and, demanded the specific words and sentences, which had been construed into evil speaking, but the accusers of the brethren refused to point out a single sentence. The writer of this history had written and published much, but had uniformly avoided to arraign motives or misrepresent conduct. He always spoke respectfully of Mr. Asbury, and viewed him as a great and good man, but rigidly and injuriously attached to Mr. Wesley's absolute system of government. But suppose he had said: "Mr. Asbury had too much power: that more authority was vested in him than was consistent with the safety and security of the rights and privileges of the ministry and membership of the Church of Christ; that had he been so disposed, with the authority and power he possessed, he could have oppressed his bre- thren, driven them from the work, or, have imposed on them burdens and hardships, incompatible with the, gen- uine principles of christian liberty, and the rights of man." And " that he was too fond of power, and too tenacious of maintaining his authority, and of support- ing his power." Would this have been viewed as evil speaking If the assertions were false, it would be evil speaking of the worst sort; but if true, there is no evil speaking in the case. Let the testimony of a man be heard, who says, — " Mr. Asbury's name and manner of life, should be recorded on vellum, and engraven on marble." This brother was intimately acquainted with him and his movements from 1784 till his death in 1816. Speaking of the above quoted passages, in his funeral sermon on Asbury, he says : " As to those objections. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 181 this is neither the time, nor the place to repel, rebut, defend or controvert them. However, it may be pro- per, in this part of the subject, to bring them into view •, and, by way of accommodation, I have no difficulty in admitting, honestly and candidly, that the objections, when considered, on general principles, are too uell founded.'''' Rev. Ezekiel Cooper's funeral discourse, page 124. CHAPTER X. EXAMINATION OF THE GAG LAW. REMARKS ON THE SPECIFICATIONS. GROUNDS OF PROTEST BY THE CONDEMNED MINISTERS AND MEMBERS. In the list of essays and passages cited by the prose- cution, there may be found some pungent expressions that at first sight will appear unjustifiably severe, but upon close examination, each and all of them may be borne out by truth and facts. And we are happy to say, tliat this work has been performed by Dr. S. K. Jen- nings in his " Exposition of the late controversy in the Methodist Episcopal Church — and Review of the Me- tliodist Magazine and Quarterly on petitions and memo- rials," to which we beg leave to refer the reader, for a full and triumphant defence of the writers, and refuta- tion of the charge of evil speaking brought against a small part of the members of the Union Society. The second rule cited by the prosecution reads: "If a member of our Church shall be clearly convicted of endeavouring to sow dissentions in any of our societies, 16 182 HISTORY OF THE by inveighing against either our doctrines or discipline, such person so offending, shall be first reproved by the senior minister or preacher of his circuit, and if he per- sist in such pernicious practices, he shall be expelled from the Church." Page 93 Discipline, edition of 1843. The palpable and obvious meaning of this rule is: If a member of our Church shall be clearly convicted of pointing out any errors in our doctrines, or defects in our discipline, with design to produce dissentions or dif- ference of opinion among the members of our societies, such person so offending, shall be first reproved by the senior minister or. preacher of his circuit, and if he persist in such practices, he shall be expelled from the Church. The circumstances under which this rule was enacted, prove this to be the true design, namely, to prevent all discussion on the character of the discipline, or doc- trines. At the time of its introduction by the confer- ence, the preachers and societies were greatly agitated by the discussion of Mr. O'Kelly's appeal question. In consequence of their defeat, in the conference of 1792, he and Mr. McKendree, and others, withdrew from the connexion, and made the cause of their withdrawal known to the people. To prevent, therefore, the spread of this discussion, the conference framed and put in force the rule, which has been most appropriately termed " the Methodist gag-law." The rule was evi- dently intended to suppress the freedom of speech, and silence all further inveighings or censurings against the great po^ver secured to Mr. Asbury by the conference of 1792. A similar rule was passed by the British Conference in 1795, when the first plan of pacification was pub- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 183 lished. It also, was the creature of circumstances; and, like its American brother, aimed a deadly blow at the freedom of speech and of the press. It enacts, " that if any local preacher, trustee, steward or leader, shall dis- turb the peace of the society, by speaking for or against the introduction of the Lord's Supper, or concerning the old or new plan so called ; the superintendent of the circuit, or the majority of the trustees, stcAvards and leaders of the society, so disturbed, shall have authority to summon a meeting of the travelling preachers of the circuit, trustees, stewards and leaders of tlie society; evidence shall be examined on both sides, and if the charge be proven, tlie superintendent preacher shall expel from the society the person so offending." Minutes of British Conference, vol. 1, p. 322. The following year another gag-law was published. " No preacher shall publish any thing but what is given to the conference, and printed in our own press. The Book Committee to determine what is proper to be printed." Nothing, therefore, can be clearer to the understand- ing of tlie impartial reader, than, that all those rules, American and English, were designed to prevent inves- tigation, to silence discussion, and produce tame, pas- sive obedience to the unlimited authority of Methodist preachers. We are aware that a different construction has been admitted, and that the rule has for its object merely the prevention of "unchristian railing and violence." This is obviously a forced construction, unsustained by the plain wording of the rule, and contradicted by all the circumstances which induced its enactment. Neither Mr. O'Kelly nor Mr. McKendree was guilty of unchris- 184 HISTORY OF THE tian railing and violence. Mr. McKendree expressed liiniself strongly in opposition to Mr. Asbury's power, but he was not guilty of unchristian railing and violence. W e are also aware, that the General Conference of 1 828 disavowed the charge of wishing to suppress free inquiry, or to forbid the liberty of speech and of the press. But if the liberty of speech and of the press be allowed to our ministers and members, " equally with any other citizens of the United States ; " a late writer asks ; how is it that ministers and members have been expelled for not giving up the Mutual Rights ? Merely because the work is a periodical ? Surely citizens of the United States have as much right to issue a periodi- cal publication, as to enjoy the liberty of the press, in any other way whatever. And why did the General Conference propose, " that no other periodical publica- tion be devoted to the same controversy." If the gag- law " never was intended to suppress freedom of in- quiry, or to deny the liberty of speech and of the press," but merely to prevent " unchristian railing and violence," why then did not the General Conference so amend the rule as to make it bear explicitly on this kind of conduct. The truth is, the rule is suffered to remain in its present form, to enable the itinerant ministers to "defecate the Church" of men who have the moral courage to assert their christian rights, and publish their opinions of the rules of the Methodist discipline. The accused ministers did not deny, that they had publicly and in print, pointed out the great defects of the discipline, its gross assumptions, and dangerous ten- dencies; and freely admitted, tliat their design in so doing was to produce a dissent or difference of opinion from those who held the discipline to be immaculate. METHODIST PEOTESTANT CHURCH. 185 And asserted their right from Gospel grant to " try all things," and their civil right to the freedom of speech and of the press, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and the State of Maryland. But denied all intention to produce separations from the Church, or strife among the members; and shewed, that their design was to reform the government, and not to split the connexion. We propose in the next place to examine the Speci- fications. Specification \st. — "Because the said Samuel K. Jen- nings, while a member and a local preacher of the Metho- dist E. Church aforesaid, did heretofore attach himself to and become a member of the society called the Union So- ciety of Baltimore; which Union Society is in opposition to the discipline, in whole or in part, of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid.'' The assumption here is, that the discipline prohibits the formation of Union Societies; and secondly, that it forbids the members and local preachers to "attach themselves to, or become members of said Union So- cieties." Now the fact is, the discipline no where pro- hibits the formation of Union Societies; nor does it for- bid its members and local preachers to attach themselves to such societies. The entire specification is founded on what some call "false facts," that is on what is not true. No such prohibition being found in the discipline. The members and local preachers had, therefore, as un- doubted a right to form Union Societies for the purposes contemplated, as Mr. Wesley had to form his " United Societies" within the pale of the Church of England. In fact there is no law, moral, ecclesiastical or civil, prohibiting these things. Therefore, to expel men for 16* 186 HISTORY OF THE exercising this liberty was an outrage never before per- petrated by any Protestant Church in Christendom. The second Specification reads ; "Because the said Samuel K. Jennings, as a member of the said Union Society, directly, or indirectly, either by pecuniary contributions or his personal influence, aiding, abetting, co-operating, or assisting in the pubhcation and cir- culation of a work called " The Mutual Rights of the min- isters and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church," printed under the direction of an editorial committee, (of which the said S. K. Jennings is, or lately was one,) ap- pointed by, or who are members of the Union Society aforesaid, which work or publication, called " The Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church" contains (among other things) much that inveighs against the Disciphne of the Methodist Epis- copal Church aforesaid, in whole or in part, and is in direct opposition thereto; and that is abusive or speaks evil of a part if not of most of the ministers of that Church. The general tendency of which work or pubhcation, has been to produce disagreement, strife, contention and breach of union among the members of said Church in this city or station." Tliis is, perhaps, the most verbose and laboured piece of composition found in the English language. The writer, a drawer of deeds, mortgages, &c. unques- tionably checked largely on his stock of legal techni- calities in this wonderful production. Here are two things taken for granted, neither of which is true. First, that a rule existed in the discip- line forbidding the formation of Union Societies, and secondly, that a rule also existed in the same discipline forbidding the publication of any work in which any essay or paper shall ever be admitted, tliat shall be con- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 187 sidered to inveigh against the discipline, or speak evil of Gospel ministers. No such rules are to be found in the discipline. The third thing asserted is, that S. K. Jennings while a member of the Union Society assisted to publish a work in which certain writers have been permitted to inveigh against the discipline, and speak evil of min- isters. Now mark tlie injustice of the prosecution, while tlie members of the Union Society are called to account for publications in the Mutual Rights, the knomi writers are permitted to pass uncharged and un- molested, and the accused are denied time to correspond mth those writers in view of such explanations and de- fence as they could, with ease, have furnished in a fcAV weeks at most. This proves most conclusively, that the real object of the party was, not so much to punish the " inveighers," as to suppress the Mutual Rights and break up the Union Society. The third and last Specification is notoriously untrue, that Samuel K. Jennings, as a member of the Union So- ciety, did advise, request, or reconuiiend the publication of a pamphlet entitled "The History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy," written by the Rev. Alexander M'Cain, &c. Mr. M'Cain published the pamphlet at his own volition, on his oivn responsibility; and he was neither advised, requested nor recommended to publish the work, by the Union Society. The avowed and real design of instituting the period- ical entitled the Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist E. Church, in 1 824 Avas, to enlighten the Methodist community on the subject of Church government and to show the great necessity of having a lay delegation in tlie General Conference. The 188 HISTORY OF THE true design of organizing Union Societies was, to unite the friends of representation in organized forms, for the purpose of preventing secessions from the Church; to ascertain the number of ministers and members friendly to a representative government; and to prepare one similar memorial to the General Conference for lay representation. The opponents to lay representation saw clearly that these measures were judicious, and would in due time induce a majority of the ministers and members to demand representation; and, consequently, the itinerant ministers would be compelled to relinquish a portion of their absolute authority. They, therefore, determined to employ all the means in their power to put down the Mutual Rights, and to break up the Union Societies. Several means were employed for this purpose, such as branding reformers with opprobrious epithets; misrep- resenting their real designs, &c. But the principal means employed to effect their object was the putting in force the obsolete gag-law passed by the General Con- ference of 1792, against those who became members of Union Societies, or patronized the Mutual Rights. For proof of this design we have only to look at facts which had transpired since the institution of the Mutual Rights and organization of Union Societies. The itin- erant ministers commenced operations under the pro- visions of the gag-law in Tennessee by expelling in the fall of 1824 a number of ministers and members, not for immorality but for attempting to form a Union Society : — This outrageous act was followed up by the expulsion or excommunication of several ministers and members in North Carolina, because they had joined a Union Socie- ty: — In the spring of 1827, the Baltimore Annual Con- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 189 ference, left the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, without an appointment for the ensuing conference year; and finally expelled him, for recommending the Mutual Rights to a friend : — In the fall of the same year the Baltimore Union Society was assailed under the sanction of the same old rule, and after a sham trial eleven ministers and twenty- two laymen were expelled. — In 1829 three ministers and fourteen laymen were expelled in Cincinnatti (of which we shall give an account in its proper place) be- cause they read the Mutual Rights, and belonged to a Union Society. Now, let it be carefully obsen ed that in all the above cases, a distinct proposition was made to each person, that if they would cease to read or re- commend the Mutual Rights, and withdraw from the Union Society, he should not be expelled. Even the General Conference of 1828, proposed to restore the expelled ministers and members on condition that they would abandon the Mutual Rights and institute no other periodical in its place and dissolve the Union Socie- ties. From a view of the above detailed facts, is it not as palpable as day light, that the real design of the anti- reformers was to put down the Mutual Rights and break up the Union Societies, and thus to silence all further in- quiry into the nature of their government — to defeat the design of introducing a lay representation into the general conference — and to perpetuate the absolute authority which the itinerant preachers had exercised over the people from the organization of the Methodist Episco- pal Church. This being their obvious design it follows, that their declarations to the Church and the world, that reformers were not expelled for forming Union Socie- ties and publishing the Mutual Rights, but for immoral- 190 HISTORY OF THE ity, is an unjustifiable and cruel assertion contradicted by all the facts of the case. It was in fact and in truth, one party expelling the opposite party, by manouvre and the exertion of Church power. This is the light in which posterity will most unquestionably view the whole affair. The fact, that there were only a few ministers and members expelled, about eighty in all, in the United States, does not invalidate our view given above, nor mitigate the criminality of those engaged in this unhal- lowed business of excommunicating their brethren for a difference of opinion on Church government. The gross injustice of these acts of violence produced, as we shall see presently, serious secessions from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and induced the great body of re- formers to organize a separate Church fellowship, based on equitable and liberal principles. The committee appointed to try the laymen, consisted of Baltzell Sliaffer, Alexander Russell, John W. Berry, William McConkey, Thomas Kelso and T. Armstrong. These men were all objected to by the brethren tried, as having identified themselves with the prosecutors, as having prejudged the brethren; and, consequently, as being incompetent to give a righteous decision. When they were asked by the accused members, whether they had formed or Expressed an opinion, that the Mutual Rights was in opposition to the discipline, Mr. Hanson pronounced the question out of order. And when they were asked, if they had I'ormed or expressed an opinion, that the members of the Union Society ought to be ex- pelled, Mr. Hanson declared this question illegal ! And when they were only asked if they had expressed such METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 191 an opinion, three of the five jurors refused to answer tlie question, and were still retained on the committee. Mr. Baltzell Shafler, who was chairman of the committee of trial was actually chairman of the meeting which ap- pointed the prosecutors ! * The brethren protested against the whole proceed- ings on the following grounds. 1 . Against the tribunal before which they were ar- raigned, as not having jurisdiction over the case. The question being one on government, in which thousands were interested, and concerned, and not a matter recog- nizable by a common Church tribunal. 2. Against the manner in which the tribunal was gotten up, as entirely new and unprecedented. 3. Against the prosecutors, as being guilty of dupli- city^ they having been appointed at a meeting of anti- reformers to act as a committee, and yet laboured to have it understood, that they acted individually and impartially, on their own responsibility. 4. Against the members of the committees selected by Mr. Hanson to try the members of the Union So- ciety as incompetent, they having assisted to appoint the prosecuting committee at the school room — and having prejudged and condemned the brethren in the Pitt street " Address." 5. Against the judge (Mr. Hanson) as being preju- diced against the accused members. 6. Against the interference of the Church with their right to become members of the Baltimore Union So- *The Rev. Joshua Wells, member of the Baltimore Annual Con- ference, was appointed chairman of the meeting, but in consequence of his having to retire, Baltzell Shaffer was appointed chairman in his stead. 192 HISTORY OF THE ciety, seeing tliat the society contemplated no violation of the laws of God, or the rules in the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 7. Against tlie whole proceedings as a party business, designed to give the party in power an advantage over the party not in power, by stigmatizing them as dis- orderly members and evil speakers. The protests entered by the accused members and ministers, were overruled by Mr. Hanson, and the trials ordered to go on. The reformers admitted that they were members of the Union Society, and had contri- buted towards the support of the Mutual Rights; and contended, that they had a right to do both ; but denied diat they had published any thing false of any minister: that whatever personalities had appeared in the Mutual Rights, were nothing more than personal illustrations of the dejects of the government and its administration, and challenged the prosecutors to point out the particular sentences, which they alleged to be infractions of the discipline, or violations of the rules referred to : but the prosecutors uniformly declined pointing out any particular sentences, and referred to whole essays, and the entire work, where they said, such passages might be found. After this exhibit of facts, it is scarcely necessary to inform the reader, that the persons accused were all condemned. Ten of them were preachers, and twenty- two were laymen. The Rev. Alexander McCain was tried separately, in his absence, by a committee selected by Mr. Hanson, composed of three of the most illiterate local preachers, perhaps, in the State of Maryland, and suspended. The preachers carried up their cases to the District Conference, that sat on the 26lh December, 1827, which was their proper court of trial. Here they METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 193 expected to have justice done them, as a majority of the conference were reformers. But on the morning of the second day, after holding a caucus the preceding evening, the presiding elder with a minority of the con- ference and the votes of nine coloured men, w/io were not entitled to a vote, dissolved the District Conference, and ordered the preachers to appear at the Quarterly Conference and stand their trials. Indignant at this un- expected act of injustice, the preachers determined not to appear before the Quarterly Conference, but to ap- peal to the approaching Annual Conference against the arbitrary and illegal proceedings of the presiding elder. In the mean time the Quarterly Conference expelled them all. CHAPTER XI. PROTEST SENT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER. MEMORIAL TO THE BALTIMORE ANNUAL CONFERENCE. INSTRU- MENT UNDER WHICH THE EXPELLED AND THEIR FRIENDS ORGANIZED. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FEMALE FRIENDS. PROSPERITY OF THE ASSOCIATION. The following protest was sent to the Presiding Elder of the Baltimore District, Rev. Joseph Frye. We the subscribers, having been informed by your note of the 12th instant of your intention, to bring before your Quarterly Meeting Conference of the Balti- more city station, the charges and specifications hereto- fore alleged against us, and on which, the church authorities of this station, have already once acted and 17 194 HISTORY OF THE ordered our suspension; and that you say, this will be done because the "District Conference refused to hold its regular session." W e hereby inform you, that as the District Conference met, was legally organized, and for one whole day and more continued in session, according to Discipline, it was, therefore, your duty to have continued the session until the business of the con- ference was finished. Instead of this, you arbitrarily received a vote of the minority of the attending white members, for a dissolution of the conference, and pro- nounced it dissolved accordingly. We, therefore, protest against your right to bring the charges and specifications alleged against us, before the Quarterly Meeting Conference. 1st. Because we consider you to have acted without law or precedent; and, that the provision to which you refer, as made by the Discipline, has in view those districts only, in wliich the local preachers "shall refuse or neglect to hold the regular sessions" of their District Conference. In this case, the preachers had actually met, and commenced their regular session: moreover, a majority of the white members in attendance, were in favour of continuing the session. 2d. In thus arbitrarily compelling us to appear before the Quarterly Conference of the Baltimore city station you would subject us to the great injustice of being tried, by men, wlio were our prosecutors and judges in the first instance, together Avith those, who had virtually pledged themselves to sustain tlie prosecutions: first, by appointing said prosecutors at the meeting held in Roszel's school-room; and secondly, by tlieir vote for the publication of the Pitt street Address, in which they publicly declare us to be the " enemies of Methodism." METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 195 3d. Besides, in consequence of the course that you have pursued, the tribunal, designated by the Discipline, as the place of trial for local preachers, and before which we were ready to appear, ceases to exist — and you have no authority to bring us to trial before any other; our condition is altogether novel, and not within the limits of the jurisdiction of a Quarterly Meeting Conference. Our case necessarily makes its appeal to the General Conference, since there is no other tribunal which can have a right to say what shall be done, wlien a presiding elder shall have pronounced a District Conference dissolved, notwithstanding a majority of those interested shall have actually met, for the purpose of holding their regular session, declaring themselves meanwhile opposed to a dissolution. 4th. The illegality and impropriety of having counted the votes of coloured men, in deciding a question of this sort, within the limits of the State of Maryland, we presume will not be questioned. Samuel K. Jennings, Thomas McCormick, Daniel E. Reese, Luther J. Cox, James R. Williams, John S. Reese, John C. French, John Valiant, William Kesley, Reuben T. Boyd. Baltimore, 16th January, 182S. A memorial was also sent up, signed by all who were expelled in Baltimore, to the Baltimore Annual Confer- ence which assembled in Carlisle, April 1828, as follows: The memorial of the undersigned, late ministers and membei-s of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of Baltimore, and who have recently been expelled from the fellowship of said Church, respectfully sheweth, 196 HISTORY OF THE that we believe we have been unjustly deprived of our membership, for the following considerations : First. We consider it to have been a grievous en- croachment of our rights, to require us to withdraw from the Union Society, and to demand the suppression of the Mutual Rights as the only condition on which we could avoid a Church prosecution. Second. We consider it to have been a violation of the discipline, and an unjustifiable neglect of a well- known duty of the preacher, having the pastoral charge of the station, to have received accusations against us, and to have summoned us to trial without having pre- viously used all his personal influence to restore and preserve peace. Third. We consider it altogether inconsistent with any proper sense of justice that we should have been subjected to trial for publishing papers, the authors of which being members and ministers of our Church, were left unmolested; although the names of some of the writers were made public, and no demand had been made for the names of those Avho were not known. This consideration is greatly strengthened by the fact, that some of the papers to which exceptions were raised, had been published two or three years previous, and (luring all that time the characters of such of us as were official members, had been regularly passed without ex- ception, by the Quarterly Meeting Conferences, of which our prosecutors were members. Fourth. We consider it altogether unreasonable tliat the preacher in charge did not allow time to the chair- man of the editorial committee to correspond with the writers of the papers complained of, before he was compelled to appear and answer; thereby subjecting METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 197 him and all of us to the necessit}' of entering our pro- test against the illegality and injustice of the procedure. Fifth. We consider it very ohjectionable, that after tlie question upon Church government had produced so much excitement as to lead to the acknowledged forma- tion of two parties; one party should have been per- mitted to enlist the Church authorities to aid them in the expulsion of the other party, which of course produced the reproachful consequence that the Avhole of the pro- ceedings were inevitably conducted in an exparte manner. Sixth. When cited to trial, the committee ought to have been devoid of partiality or prejudice, this we pre- sume will not be denied, but the fact was far otherwise. The preacher in charge selected the tw^o committees from brethren who had previously voted at a select meeting, that we were "enemies of Methodism." More- over, when asked by the Rev. Mr. Hanson, if Ave had any objection to the committee, and after their own acknowledgment that they had voted as aforesaid, yet Mr. Hanson declared them fully competent, and they were retained, notwithstanding our solemn protestations against such a procedure. Seventh. We consider it highly objectionable, that although the preacher in charge was respectfully re- quested in accordance with the general, if not universal practice of all courts of enlightened jurisprudence, to direct the reading of tlie particular words, sentences, paragraphs, or sections, whicli were to be relied on as proof of objectionable matter ; yet Mr. Hanson in reply to the request to order the reading of such parts of the Mutual Rights as were expected to sustain the charges, declared, it could not be permitted, and the committees were permitted to retire with all their prejudices, taking 17* 198 HISTORY OF THE with tliem tlie Mutual Rights, in extenso, on which to form their decision, without having given an opportunity to the accused, to exphiin, or even to remove wrong im- pressions; and this consideration acquires additional strength from the fact, that the explanations of the ^^Tite^s themselves, which ought to have been had in the case, were also precluded, the undeniable importance of which will still more fully appear, by reference to a late paper, written by the Rev. Mr. Shinn, in reply to the Narrative and Defence, &c. and to facts which transpired in the course of the trials, &c. Eighth. Had we been required to correct any thing that was erroneous in previous numbers of the Mutual Rights, or to apologize for any severity of expression, or to explain, or to rectify any thing that might have lead a reader into error, we hereby declare, (as was de- clared in some of the protests,) that we should most gladly have done so, both as matter of duty, and for the sake of our brethren ; but these were not the conditions proposed to us, either by our brethren, who accused us, or by the preacher, who expelled us. They required us to abandon the Union Society, and to suppress the Mutual Rights, the most proper medium through which the evils complained of, if they really existed, could be corrected. Nintli. It may be asked, why did not the lay mem- bers appeal to the Quarterly Conference.? To this we answer, that having protested against the legality of the whole proceeding, we deemed it improper. The impro- priety of an appeal to that tribunal must have appeared with irresistible force to any, knowing as we did, tJiat nearly all of its members had been actively engaged in METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 199 getting up the prosecution, and had united in condemning all of us in their Pitt street publication. Your memorialists forbear to state numerous other facts developed in the course of the prosecutions and trials, calculated in their tendencies and issues, not only to degrade us, but to widen the differences amongst brethren ; and to bring lasting, and just reproach on the co-ordinate executive branches of the Methodist Epis- copal Church. We, therefore, request the conference, in the name of Him whom we all profess to serve — by their attachment to the principles of righteousness and the interests of their lacerated Zion, to interpose and restore us to the enjoyment of our former standing in the Church of our choice and affections, and from which we have been unnaturally severed — thereby they will render us an act of justice, and ensure to themselves an ever during acclaim from the virtuous and the good. Your memorialists would finally state that no malevo- lent affection has place in their souls, against either of the prosecutors, preachers, or committees. At the same time, justice and propriety demand your immediate investigation of the official conduct of the Rev. J. M. Hanson, and that of the Rev. Joseph Frye, in reference to our particular cases. That the great Head of the Church may direct your deliberations in this, and all other matters, which are interwoven with the best interests of Zion, is the sincere prayer of your memorialists. Baltimore, April, 1S28. To this memorial the conference returned the follow- ing resolutions in reply. 200 HISTORY OF THE Resolutions passed by the Baltimore Annual Confer- ence, in reply to the memorial of the expelled brethren. 1. Resolved by the Baltimore Jlnnual Conference in conference assembled, That ministers or members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who do not obey the citations of the Church to appear before inferior judi- catories, in cases of accusation or complaint; or who neglect to avail themselves of the intermediate appel- late judicatories for redress of alleged grievances, are not entitled to come before higher judicatories, either as appellants or complainants. 2. That to sanction or countenance a contrary course of proceeding, would in the judgment of this confer- ence, be subversive of wholesome and sound discipline. 3. That if the suspended local preachers in Balti- more, on the dissolution of the District Conference, had appeared before the Quarterly Meeting Conference as cited, and objected to the jurisdiction of that body, if they thought proper to do so; in such case, on an appeal, this conference would have fully considered and decided on the whole subject, embracing the question of the legality of the dissolution of the Baltimore District Conference, and the jurisdiction of the Quarterly Meet- ing Conference. But as those local preachers preferred to pursue a different course, and one, in the judgment of this conference, both irregular and disorderly; making inflammatory appeals to the public, declaring that they had no other alternative, and that a Church court, even if righteously constituted, could not be considered to have admissible jurisdiction in such a case, this confer- ence judge it both useless, and inconsistent with correct and necessary principles of discipline and order, in these circumstances to take further cognizance of the subject. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 201 4. That tlie secretary be, and he hereby is directed to furnish a copy of the preceding resolutions to Dr. Samuel K. Jennings, and others, signers of the commu- nication from Baltimore, addressed to the conference. Carlisle, Penn., April 18, 1828. At tlie session of the above named Baltimore Annual Conference, Mr. Dorsey was again tried on the same charges for which he was suspended at the preceding session, with others of a similar nature, in his absence, and was excommunicated. The Rev. William C. Pool was also expelled at the same conference for circulating the Mutual Rights and addressing a Union Society. In order to secure to themselves and friends christian communion, the expelled members united under the following instrument of association. Copy of the Instrumext under which the expelled members and ministers, in Baltimore, united, " in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhorta- tion, and to watch over one another in love, that they might help each other to work out their salvation." We the undersigned, formerly members of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church, in the city of Baltimore, hav- ing been excluded from the fellowship of that body, by what we conceive to be an unjustifiable process, based upon insufficient charges, and those charges not sustain- ed by competent testimony, have, for the present, agreed to unite together, as a society of original Methodists, under the "General Rules of the United Societies" prepared by the Rev. John and Charles Wesley. Our object is to wait, and see whether the present abuses in the administration of the government will be cor- rected. If they should, and freedom of inquiry and 202 HISTORY OF THE public discussion be permitted in tbe Methodist Episco- pal Church, it will aflbrd us pleasure to return, provided we can do so without relinquishing the opinions for which we have been excluded, namely, — an honest, and as we believe, enlightened conviction, that the present form of government in the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as it precludes the grand principle of represen- tation, and confines all legislative, executive and ju- dicial powers to the itinerant ministry, is unscriptural and anti-Christian ; — and that reform in the government of said Church, is necessary, in order to its essential and permanent prosperity. With these views, we solemnly unite in the name of the Great Head of the Church, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, receiving the Holy Scriptures as our guide; and for prudential purposes, adopting as an instrument of union, the "General Rules" of Messrs. John and Charles Wesley ; with such sub- sequent regulations as our peculiar circumstances may from time to time require. John Chappell, Thomas Jarrett, John J. Harrod, John Gephart, Jr. Wesley Starr, John P. Howard, John Kennard, Levi R. Reese, William K. Boyle, Lambert Thomas, Arthur Emmerson, Samuel Jarrett, Ebenezer Strahan, James R. Forman, John H. W. Hawkins, George Northerman, Thomas Patterson, Samuel Thompson, Samuel Krebs, Samuel Guest, Thomas Parsons, John P. Paul. Baltimore, December 2.3, 1827. We the undersigned, elders, deacons, and licensed preachers, subscribe our names respectively, to the METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 203 foregoing instrument, approving the objects contemplated therein. Samuel K. Jennings, Luther J. Cox, Daniel E. Reese, John S. Reese, James R. Williams, John C. French, William Kesley, Reuben T. Boyd, Thomas McCormick, John Valiant. Baltimore, January 26, 1828. We will here record the proceedings of the female friends of the persecuted brethren in Baltimore. Proceedings of the Female friends of the persecuted brethren in Baltimore. Baltimore, December 31si, 1827. At a meeting of female members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, convened at the Rev. Dr. Jennings', for the purpose of taking into consideration, the most advisable course to be pursued, by the wives, and friends of those members of said Church, who have been expelled, and of those ministers who are suspend- ed by the official members, of the Baltimore station, for the sake of reform. The meeting was opened with prayer. — And on mo- tion, Mrs. Rebecca Hall Avas called to the chair, and Mrs. Wesley Woods was appointed secretary. — On motion, resolved, That the members of this meeting deeply regret the necessity of withdrawing from the Methodist Episcopal Church, yet from a conviction of duty, we do hereby resolve to withdraw from said Church, when our husbands, fathers or friends shall have been expelled. On motion, resolved, that a committee of nine, be ap- pointed to consider, and report on the most advisable 204 HISTORY OF THE measures to be adopted by those females, who have de- termuied to withdraw from the Church; the following were appointed said committee, viz : — Mrs. Mummey, Mrs. Jennings, Mrs. Harrod, Mrs. W oods, Mrs. French, Mrs. Kennard, Mrs. Reese, Miss L. Martin, and Mrs. Owings. The meeting then adjourned, to give the committee time to prepare and report such measures as they may deem most advisable. Rebecca Hall, President. . Mary Ann Woods, Secretary. Monday, January 7, 1828. The meeting convened for the purpose of hearing the report of the committee. The following report was read, and unanimously adopted. REPORT. The committee appointed to inquire into the best measures to be adopted by tlie female friends of reform in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in this city, to secure their present peace and union, and their future happiness, have had the subject under serious and deliberate consideration, and beg leave to report; that inasmuch as it was unanimou.sly resolved at our meeting on tlie 31st December, that on the expulsion of our husbands, fathers, &c., we would feel it our duty to withdraw from the Church and unite Avith our expelled friends, it is expedient, in the opinion of your committee, that the wives, daughters, &c., of our friends and breth- ren already expelled, withdraw from tlie Church; and, that all who determine on this course, should address a joint letter to Mr. Hanson, stating their determination to withdraw, and assigning their reasons for so doing; and also, requesting of him a certificate of their acceptable membership. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 205 And your committee further beg leave to submit the following, as the form of a suitable instrument, to be adopted and subscribed by the females, who may with- draw from the Church. DECLARATION. The subscribers, members of the Methodist Episco- pal Church, in the city of Baltimore, believing that the form of government of the said Church, is, in some of its features, contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and that it deprives a large proportion of the ministers and mem- bers of said Church, of their natural and Christian rights ; and believing, that the ruling authorities in this city, have greatly abused the power they hold, to the injury of the cause of religion, in that they have sus- pended eleven local preachers, by what we consider improper measures, for aiding the cause of reform ; and have expelled twenty-two lay members for the same cause ; and have treated others hardly, whom they have not expelled; and have for the same cause deprived most of our former class-leaders of their official stand- ing, (which preachers, members and leaders are our companions, fathers, children, or highly esteemed breth- ren, in whom we have the fullest Christian confidence,) and by these means, they have created a state of things, calculated to destroy Christian union and Christian con- fidence. Therefore, for these and other considerations, we have determined and do hereby agree, to dissolve for the present, our connexion Avith the Methodist Episcopal Church by withdrawing therefrom, and that we will address a joint letter to Rev. J. M. Hanson, expressive of our determination to this effect, and request of him a certificate of our acceptable standing in the Church. 18 206 HISTORY OF THE And we do hereby declare, that we have been im- pelled to this measure, only by existing difficulties in the Church; and that so soon as those difficulties shall be removed, and our expelled and injured friends shall be restored to the enjoyment of their former standing and privileges, on proper and Christian principles, it will be our delight, to return to the Church, from which we now reluctantly retire. We further agree, that until the way of our return shall become practicable, or the openings of Providence shall mark out to us some other way, we will unite in Christian communion, and reli- gious worship Avith each other, and with our brethren and sisters, who have been or may be persecuted from the Church for reform principles. And finally, we hereby declare, that we have not been influenced to adopt this measure by the persuasion or other means of our husbands, relatives or friends, but from a deliberate and settled conviction of duty to our God, ourselves and our injured friends and brethren. We, therefore, hereby solemnly unite ourselves together, for the reasons, and for the purposes before named, with a firm reliance on the support and assistance of Al- mighty God, in this important duty and engagement. The committee further beg leave to offer the follow- ing as a suitable form of a letter, to be sent to the preacher in charge of this station, by those females who may determine to withdraw from the Church. [The Letter, after receivinp; the signatures appended, was presented to Mr. Hanson, the Saturday preceding the love-feast.] Eev. James M. Hanson. — We the subscribers, female members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of Baltimore, feel ourselves under the necessity of METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 207 addressing you on a subject peculiarly painful. For a series of years we have been endeavouring, in our hum- ble sphere, to serve God and make our way to heaven. And long- since the Methodist Episcopal Church, became the home of our choice, where we had fondly hoped to dwell in the peaceful enjoyment of the means of grace, and the ordinances of Christianity, to the end of life. In this Church, our dearest Christian associations and religious friendships were formed and nourished. Our hopes, our fears, our wishes, all were identified Avith those of the church of our choice. Around all her ordi- nances, her services, her ministers, our best affections were entwined ; and for her peace and prosperity, our daily prayers were offered to a throne of grace. This preference was not given to the Methodist Episcopal Church, because we considered her government more perfect than that of others ; for indeed we were no more careful to inquire into that subject, than our preachers were to give us instruction concerning it; but our pre- ference grew out of the purity of her doctrines, the piety of her members, the excellency of her moral dis- cipline, and her itinerant plan. And though recent events have led us to examine, more closely than here- tofore, the Methodist Discipline, and this examination has resulted in a conviction of its defectiveness, in many particulars ; yet, we could have borne those compara- tively trivial inconveniencies, and could have lived hap- pily in the bosom of the Church all our days, nor had we thought of forsaking her communion till death, but for recent occurrences which have taken place under your administration and superintendence. But Sir, to see a large number of our highly esteemed local preachers excluded from the pulpits, arraigned, condemned and 208 HISTORY OF THE excommunicated, and the seal of official silence set upon tlie lips which have so often conveyed heavenly conso- lation to our minds and hearts; to see our beloved class- leaders torn from us, and deprived of their official stand- ing, and a large number of our lay brethren expelled without a crime ; and to see the unwarrantable measures by which these distressing results have been effected, is too painful for us ! In short, to find our dear com- panions, fathers, brothers, children and friends treated as criminals and enemies, prosecuted, suspended and ex- pelled; denounced as backsliders and disturbers of the peace ; and to be ourselves treated coldly and distantly by our former friends, and by our pastors ; and all for a mere difference of opinion about Church government, is more than we feel bound in Christian Charity longer to endui-e ; and we, therefore, feel it our duty in the fear of God, though with emotions of poignant sorrow, and with aching hearts, to withdraAV from the Church of our choice and fondest attachments. To this painful resort we are driven by the measures you have taken against our friends and brethren. To remain in the Church under the circumstances, now existing, would be to evince a want of filial, connubial, and fraternal attach- ment to our persecuted friends, and a want of self-respect. We, therefore, request you, to consider us as with- drawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to furnish us a joint, or individual certificate of our accept- able standing, as soon as convenient. Hannah L. Harrod, Isabella Northerman, Catharine Mummey, Anna Jarrett, Guinilda Mummey, Ruth Reese, Mary Kennard, Rebecca R. Reese, Elizabeth Kennard, Margaret Reese, METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 209 Sarah Krebs, Jane Thomas, Elizabeth Williams, Sarah Williams, Elizabeth Taylor, Mary Williams, Frances Williams, Catharine Williams, Hannah Jennings, Mary O wings, Elizabeth Crouch, Elinor Gephart, Maria Paul, Elizabeth Forman, Phillippa Starr, Rachel Hawkins, Elizabeth Baxley, Susan Guest, Sarah Emmerson, Ballimore, Januanj 26, 1828. [Sisters Anna G. Chappell, the wife, and Sarah A. Chappeli, the sister of our aged brother John Chappell, had withdrawn two days previously to the first meeting.] The expelled laymen associated on the 22d Decem- ber, 1827. The preachers united with them on the 26th January, 1828. And the female members, who had withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, joined the association a few days afterwards. The association elected the preachers and ministers to serve in the same relations and offices they respec- tively held previously to their expulsion, and the instru- ment declaring this fact, was recorded in the clerk's office, Baltimore. 18* Mary Reese, Margaret Patterson, Mary French, Sidney Boyd, Rebecca Jane Roberts, Lucy Fore, Mary Jane Thomas, Jemima Jones, Hannah Martin, Letitia M. Martin, Maria M. Martin, Maria Cox, Mary Meads, Mary Ann Woods, Catharine Wallace, Elizabeth Brit, Mary Ann Valiant, Elizabeth Valiant. 210 HISTORY OF THE This act was deemed necessary to guard against the effects of representations made to the community by old side men, that being deprived of membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church our parchments became null and void, and consequently our ministerial acts would be illegal. Though these representations were erroneous as it regarded our legal qualifications, yet, as they might make an injurious impression on the minds of the uninformed, the society deemed it proper to elect the ministers to fill the offices designated by their parchments. By this measure the ministers obtained a standing in society which no Methodist Episcopal ordination could surpass. The following information relating to the prosperity of the Associated Methodist Reformers in the City of Baltimore is given in the July number of tlie Mutual Rights for 1828. Associated Methodist Reformers in the City of Baltimore. It will doubtless be acceptable to our brethren, throughout the United States, to be informed occa- sionally, of tlie condition of tliis little band of perse- cuted advocates of christian liberty. And it Avould also, it is presumed, meet the approbation of the brethren, if all associations similarly situated were to communicate, through the Mutual Rights, a brief account of their condition. Since our last notice of the association, considerable accessions have been made; and at the monthly meet- ing, lield on the 12th of June, fifty-two persons joined, nearly all members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and most of them of very long standing. Many more are preparing to follow their example. Several persons have also joined the association on probation, who have METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 211 been recently converted at the religious meetings held by the reformers. The Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, William C. Pool, and William Bawden, have been received as members and ministers in the association. Daniel Gildea, whose license to exhort was withheld at the last Quarterly Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Chui'ch in this city, on account of his being a member of the Union Society, was received as a member of the association, and authorised to discharge the duties of an exhorter. Brother Gildea is a venerable and interesting man, and was one of Mr. Wesley's converts, or as we sometimes say, one of his spiritual children. The brethren are by no means disposed to accede to the terms proposed by the late General Conference, for re-admission into the Methodist Episcopal Church; not a single individual among them has acceded to the con- ditions prescribed, nor has any one left the association. They continue associated under Mr. Wesley's general rules, harmoniously worshipping God under their own vine and fig tree; awaiting the result of the General Convention, which will be held next November. At the monthly meeting for July, thirty-three new members joined the association, several of them were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of very long standing, some of them more than forty years. There are now upwards of two hundred members in the association, and fourteen preachers. The expelled preacliers stand higher in public esti- mation, than they did previously to their expulsion. The citizens view them as good men persecuted for righteousness' sake; and the ministers of other denomi- nations frequently call upon them to officiate in their congregations. 212 HISTORY OF THE CHAPTER XII. GENERAL SYMPATHY OF REFORMERS IN BEHALF OF THE EXPELLED BRETHREN IN BALTIMORE. Those violent proceedings in Baltimore drew forth the sympathy of leformers in all parts of the United States. The editorial committee received numerous communications for publication in the Mutual Rights expressive of the abhorrence in which the writers viewed the doings of the power party. Several of these were the deliberate expressions of whole socie- ties who felt indignant at the conduct of our persecu- tors. Out of many we will furnish for this chapter a few; in view of exhibiting to posterity the great ex- citement produced among reformers in different parts of the country, by the violent proceedings in Baltimore had against their brethren. At a general meeting of the male members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Pittsburg, held at the large meeting house, on the evening of the 27th Sep- tember, 1827, the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted. Whereas the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the City of Pittsburg, have learned with un- affected grief, that intolerant measures of proscription and persecution, are in a state of progression by the Church authorities in Baltimore, against the advocates of ecclesiastical liberty in that city, and being deeply affected with the deplorable consequences, likely to result from the misguided zeal of our brethren, to destroy the means of religious freedom, by expelling its advocates from the Church. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 213 Therefore, Resolved, That all men have a right freely to form and express opinions which do not contravene the obligations of morality and religion. Resolved 2dly, That the obligations of morality and religion, enjoin inquiry and discussion, in every question involving the present and eventual interests of our race. Resolved Sdly, That the Gospel of peace, disclaims the aid of the bitter persecuting passions, to help its cause, or extend its influence over the judgment and affections of the human family : instituting as it does, a sacred charity, peace on earth and good will to men. Resolved Atklxj, That our bretliren in Baltimore who bear their testimony against exclusive clerical domina- tion in the Methodist Episcopal Chui'ch, obey the highest and noblest dictates of conscience, enlightened by revelation, and sustained by the common sense of mankind. Resolved bthly. That the oppressive proceedings against those brethren in Baltimore, for their principles, shew beyond all doubt, that an administration projecting and cherishing such acts and doings, to rend and scatter the flock of Christ, needs limitations and restrictions. Resolved 6thly, That we shall view the expulsion from the Church, of those brethren in Baltimore, w^ho have had the christian courage to stand forth against the "onward march" of clerical power, "whose tremen- dous tendency is always to accumulation ; " as an open violation of the rights of every member, who will thenceforth stand pledged to redeem the character of the most modern reformed Church in Christendom, from the odium of inquisitorial injustice against her members. Resolved Ithly, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded, attested by the chairman and secretary, to 214 HISTORY OF THE each of the Baltimore City stations, and to the Rev. Dr. Jennings, in behalf of those brethren with whom he is called to suffer. Thomas Cooper, Chairman. Charles Avery, Secretary. Pittsburg, September 27th, 1827. Agreeably to notice, a number of the male members of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Norfolk and Princess Ann circuit favourable to reform in its govern- ment, met in the Baptist Church in the borough of Nor- folk, on Friday evening, the 2d of November, 1827. The meeting was opened with a discourse by Dr. John French, on Job, 27 ch. part of 5th and 6th verses. After divine service was concluded, Seth Foster was called to the chair, and John J. Burroughs appointed secretary. The object of the meeting being stated by Dr. French and the chairman, a committee of three members, viz. Rev. John French, Rev. Thomas Blunt and John J. Burroughs were appointed to draft a pre- amble and resolutions: after a short interval, the com- mittee presented the following preamble and resolutions, which were adopted. — Whereas the Christian Church, in the first and purest age of Christianity, was governed by her ministers and members in conjunction ; And whereas in the Methodist Episcopal Church, all power, both temporal and spiritual, is placed in the hands of a part of her ministers, to the exclusion of the rest, and the whole body of her people ; And whereas it is the right of all freemen to have some voice in the govern- ment by which they are regulated, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical ; And whereas the privation of this right naturally produces arrogance on the one hand and de- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 215 basement on the other, and arrogance and debasement being alike unbecoming the family of Jesus Christ ; and other Protestant Churches having checks and balances in their government ; And whereas the present distracted state of our Church is owing to the accumulation of power in the hands of a few. — It is therefore, Resolved 1 st. That in order to restore peace and har- mony to the Church, it is necessary to restore the people to their ancient privileges in the Church of Christ. 2dly. That without an equitable distribution of power in the Church, her members will hang only on the nalced mercy of the ruling party. 3dly. That whilst we desire a change in the tem- poral economy of the Church, we heartily approve of her doctrines, of class-meetings, love-feasts, and a trav- elling ministry, together with the general rules, so called. 4thly. That we view with deep regret and astonish- ment the violent opposition which is raised against what must be considered reasonable by all unprejudiced, reflecting men. 5thly. That we sympathize with those brethren who have been arraigned by the Church authorities for advo- cating liberal principles. 6thly. That we highly approve of the periodical called Mutual Rights, as an able and useful work on Church government. 7thly. That we will co-operate with our reforming brethren in every prudent measure to improve the gov- ernment of the Church. 8thly. That we will send two delegates to the Gen- eral Convention to be held in the City of Baltimore, on the 1 5th instant, for the purpose of promoting suitable modifications in the government of our Church. 216 HISTORY OF THE Whereupon, the Rev. Dr. John French, a local preacher of Norfolk, and John B. Jones, a layman of Princess Anne County, were unanimously elected : And on motion, it is furtlier Resolved., That in case either of the said delegates should be unable to attend, that the committee appointed to draft the foregoing pre- amble and resolutions, be authorized to supply the va- cancy, and that these proceedings be signed by the chairman and secretary, and transmitted to the editorial committee in Baltimore, with a request that they may be inserted in the Mutual Rights. Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting be given to our brethren of the Baptist Church, for the use of their house this evening. Seth Foster, Chairman. J. J. Burroughs, Secretary. Resolutions, passed at a meeting of the associated friends of reform, held on the 13th November, 1827, in Philadelphia, Doct. Isaac James in the chair. Philadelphia, Nov. 13, 1827. Whereas, the exercise of power by the governors of Churches in assuming to censure and to excommunicate fellow-Christians, for any other cause than that of sin against tlie morality of the New Testament, or against the doctrines, as generally received by the body to which such individuals may belong, are acknowledged evils of the worst sort. It is by this meeting therefore, Resolved., 1 . That we utterly disapprove of the sus- pension of our brother, Dennis B. Dorsey, from his ministerial functions, as an itinerant Methodist preacher. Because we do not think, that in his case, the Baltimore Annual Conference acted on tlie ground of Scripture METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 217 authority, but on party grounds ; and that their decision was made to suppress Christian hberty. Resolved 2. That, notwithstanding the friends of re- form in the system of our Church government, residing in the city and county of Philadelphia, have refrained from thus expressing their disapprobation in Mr. Dor- sey's case, heretofore, they have entertained tender sympathies for their suffering brother, and have always regarded him, as a sufferer for righteousness' sake ; being convinced by the testimony alledged on each side of this question, that Mr. Dorsey employed no other means than such as are lawful and expedient — means which Chris- tianity has legalized and sanctified, and such as all good men in opposition to arbitrary power, have, and always must use — the means of inquiry and of imparting knowledge. Resolved 3. That we utterly disapprove of the pro- ceedings, now conducting in Baltimore, under the spe- cial superintendence of the preacher in charge of that station, against the members of the Union Society of Methodists in that city. Because, as freemen, the mem- bers of that society, possess an undoubted right to ani- madvert on a humanly devised system of Church polity; and to use lawful and expedient means for its amend- ment, in all those particulars, in principle and in admin- istration, wherein that system is in opposition to Chris- tian principles, precepts and examples. Resolved 4. That in our opinion, any system of gov- ernment, which denies to its members the right of suf- frage; and of representation in its legislative depart ment, and invests its ministers with the sole power of legislation, and at the same time, authorizes them to exercise the inquisitorial powers over the freedom of 19 218 HISTORY OF THE speech and the press, is demonstrably wrong in prin- ciple, and pernicious in its effects; and ought on the highest grounds of duty, to be strenuously opposed by every enlightened Christian. Resolved 5. That we highly approve of the integrity, meekness, and Christian courage of our brethren of the Union Society of the city of Baltimore, and think them entitled to the gratitude of reformers in all places ; and we tender ours to them in testimony of our high consid- eration of their virtues and services. Resolved 6. That we regard the increased prevalence of the principles advocated and defended, in " The Mu- tual Rights," as of the utmost importance to the integ- rity and well-being of the American Methodist body ; and, therefore, earnestly recommend that work to the patronage of every member of our Church, who is friendly to Christian rights, and privileges. Attest. Wm. Whitesides, Sec''ry. At a large and respectable meeting of the Union Society of Stcubenville, held in the Methodist Episco- pal Meeting House, on Monday evening, February 25th, 1828, the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted: Whereas, the eventful die is cast, and the melancholy tidings announced, that our pious and highly esteemed brother, the Rev. Doctor Jennings, with ten other pious preachers, and twenty-two members of respectable standing, have received the sentence of expulsion from the Methodist Episcopal Church ; through the Rev. James M. Hanson, the preacher in charge of the Baltimore station ; because they presumed to express their oj)inion upon the government of their own Church. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 219 And whereas, we would not impugn the motives of the authors of this black chapter in the history of Methodism ; yet from the best light we have, we are impelled to believe, that by a blind infatuation, the ex- pulsion of those persecuted ministers and members has been effected by a judge and jury who had prejudged their cause, and virtually pronounced them guilty, be- fore the charges against them were reduced to writing, or any evidence against them heard, and before their form of trial took place; a procedure that is at war with every principle of righteousness, and in its ten- dency cannot be viewed in any other light, than a bold effort to establish the horrible doctrine, that the will of the preacher in charge, is the tenure by which members of the Methodist Episcopal Church hold their member- ship. And whereas, we are reluctant to believe that tlie ap- proaching General Conference, can recognize the prin- ciple, that one party under the influence of party ex- citement, has a right to try and expel the other for participating in the pi-esent interesting discussion carried on in the Church ; yet we will not conceal the fact, that from the " signs of the times," we have much cause to fear that that conference will not extend an honourable and equitable relief to our much injured brethren ; see- ing this cannot be done on any principle that would re- quire them to abandon the liberty of speech and freedom of the press ; an abandonment which Avould not com- port with their duty as followers of our Lord and Sa- viour Jesus Christ; and would be incompatible with a due respect for themselves. And whereas, we are conscious that we possess a sincere attachment to the doctrines, the ordinances, the 220 HISTORY OF THE means of grace and moral discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that we, through God's grace, are striving to make our calling and election sure; we nevertheless patronize the Mutual Rights, and have formed a Union Society, and thus have done the very- acts for which alone the pains and penalties of excom- munication have been intlicted upon our persecuted brethren in the city of Baltimore. Therefore resolved : 1. That we deem the present a crisis in which all reformers, more especially such as have patronized the Mutual Rights and formed Union Societies, are called upon by every honourable and moral obligation, to re- monstrate in language that cannot be misunderstood, against the unhallowed persecution inflicted upon their brethren in Baltimore. 2. That we most cordially approve of the unyielding integrity and Christian temperament manifested by the subjects of the Baltimore persecution, during the pen- dancy of the inquisition in their case ; and view the plan under which they have united for public and social worship, eminently calculated to advance their religious progress, as well as to enable them to keep up a free and unrestrained intercourse with such as are engaged in the common cause, until Providence kindly extends some propitious opening to us all. 3. That we tender the best feelings of our hearts to our pious and magnanimous sisters, the relatives of our persecuted brethren in the city of Baltimore ; their suf- ferings excite our tenderest sympathies, their doings and sentiments as published in the Mutual Rights, furnish a theme worthy of the fairest page in the annals of our Church. And although cold-blooded bigots of our time, may scan them without emotion; yet the feeling and METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 221 virtuous of coming days, will admire their magnanimity, and shed a tear over their complaints. 4. That in our judgment, the members of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, ought to regard a discreet liberty of speech and freedom of the press, as among their dearest rights, since they are the only mediums through ^vhich those who would perpetrate maladministration can be kept in check : we esteem them as the bulwarks of our religious liberties, and will not accord to any compromise that would deprive us of them. 5. That our tender regards are justly due to the Rev. Doctor Jennings and his partners in suffering; their cause is ours, with them we stand or fall ; and under a firm conviction that they have been unjustly and illegally deprived of their privileges in the Church of their own choice, we still recognize them as ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 6. That we consider the dissolution of the District Conference of the Baltimore District, after it had met and commenced its regular course of business, a most glaring violation of a plain rule in discipline, and a vio- lent outrage upon the interest of those of its members who were to be put upon their trial before that body. 7. That although our ardent desire is, that the ruling authorities in our Church, would restore peace and har- mony to our beloved Zion, by timely extending liberty and equality to its ministers and members; yet, neither the terrors of excommunication nor dread of secessions, can deter us from contributing our mite to the great cause of Mutual Rights. 8. That we do most cordially approve of the pro- ceedings of the General Convention of Reformers re-' cently held in the city of Baltimore, that we consider 19* 222 HISTORY OF THE the memorial as containing doctrines in accordance with truth and justice ; that it is clear in its reasoning, tem- perate in its demands, and respectful in its language, and ouglit to be heard. 9. That while the essential interest of the Church, the cause of truth and a jealous regard for our own rights, demand that we should enter our solemn protest against the high-handed proscription attempted in our Church, we must not forget that we are required to do good to them that hate us, and pray for them that de- spitefully use and persecute us. 10. Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions be signed by the chairman and secretary, and forwarded to Doctor Samuel K. Jennings, of the city of Baltimore, for publication in the "Mutual Rights." James Hall, Chairman. A. Sutherland, Secretary. At a meeting of the Union Society of the Methodist Episcopal Churcli in Cincinnati, on Thursday evening, January 10th, 1828, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: 1 . Resolved., That we cordially approve of the organ- ization of Union Societies, and heartily recommend to our friends and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church generally, the necessity of establishing them in every station and circuit throughout these United States. 2. Resolved., Tliat we approve of the monthly publi- cation entitled, "The Mutual Rights, &c." and do hereby earnestly and sincerely recommend it to the travelling preachers, local preachers, and private mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in every sta- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 223 tion and circuit of the Union — as one of the most useful publications, both as it regards facts and arguments on the subject of Church government, of any periodical of which we have any knowledge; and we do earnestly request all the Union Societies to give it a speedy and general circulation. 3. Resolved, That we do most feelingly sympathize with our persecuted brethren in Baltimore and else- where who have unjustly suffered for the cause of truth and liberty, and rejoice that they have endured their trials with that deportment which characterizes the christian. 4. Resolved, That we will use all lawful and pruden- tial means to have our brethren of the Union Society of Baltimore and elsewhere (who have been expelled for their reform principles) restored ; and in order to their restoration we do further resolve to petition the next General Conference, (if not before restored) to pass such resolutions as will require the Baltimore Annual Conference, the presiding elders and preachers in charge of stations and circuits wherever such expelled members reside, immediately to restore to membership and to all the privileges of the Methodist Episcopal Church, all and every one of those thus expelled; and in the mean time, we do earnestly recommend to our expelled brethren to continue to evidence their desire of salvation, by doing no harm ; by doing all the good in their power; not neglecting the good cause of reform. 5. Resolved, Tliat however perilous our situation may be as members of the Union Society, we do pledge our- selves to each other, never to abandon the cause of reform in the Methodist Episcopal Church, as set forth and maintained in the "Mutual Rights," unless con- 224 HISTORY OF THE vinced by fair argument that we are in the wrong; but press our claims as preachers and members, and con- tinue to remonstrate against assumed prerogatives, until Ave obtain the right of suffrage and lay representation. 6. Resolved, That as individuals and as members of the Union Society of Cincinnati, we do most solemnly disapprove of the high-handed measures of the anti- reformers in the Baltimore City station and elsewhere, against reformers, and consider the conduct of J. M. Hanson, (preacher in charge of the Baltimore station) as highly reprehensible, together with all those who may have advised or in any way assisted him in the work of persecution, though he should be a bishop. 7. Resolved, That as members of the Union Society of Cincinnati, and as members of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, we do fully believe in and accord with the doctrines taught in said Church, and that we do most cordially approve of that part of the discipline which inculcates piety, morality and practical religion, together with the rules and regulations designed to per- petuate a holy ministry and maintain the itinerant plan. 8. Resolved, That we approve of the proceedings of the late convention of reformers held in the city of Bal- timore, and that we are highly gratified with that manly, dignified, and christian like manner in which they as- serted and maintained our rights as freemen and as christians; and we tender them our warmest thanks for their work of faith and labour of love. 9. Resolved, lastly. That two copies of the proceed- ings of this meeting be signed by the chairman and sec- retary, one of which shall be forwarded to the Rev. J. M. Hanson, the preacher in charge of the Baltimore METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 225 City station, and the other to the Rev. Dr. S. K. Jen- nings, for pubUcation in the " Mutual Rights." E. Hall, Chairman. John Haughton, Secretai-y. At a special meeting of the Methodist Union Society of Queen Ann's County, Eastern Shore of Maryland, convened in CentrevUle, agreeably to public notice, on the 10th of December, 1827, among other proceedings, an address was submitted, read and passed, the presi- dent and secretary were directed to sign and publish it. The following extracts are made from the address. After detailing the proceedings at Baltimore, the so- ciety say ; Now, Ave appeal to every candid and unpre- judiced man among you, and ask, if these proceedings, and this exercise of power, by the preacher in charge, do not demonstrate clearly, that some reformation in our government is necessary, and that there should be some restrictions imposed upon the preachers ? What man is safe when the strictest morality, and the most exem- plary piety, will not prevent his expulsion from the Church, if he chance to find fault with her government. Our travelling preachers have been changing and mod- ifying our government, ever, since we were formed into an independent Church ; and have manifested as much warmth in tlie discussion of their different views as reformers Jiave done. Some have contended for the present order of things. Some are against the bishops, others are against the presiding elders, whilst others wish them to be elected by the preachers. The advo- cates of these different opinions, have spoken and writ- ten what they pleased, and have carried into the Gen- eral Conferences at some periods the most unhallowed 226 HISTORY OF THE passions; and the discussions have been so warm as ahnost to drive the bishops from their seats, and to threaten an almost immediate division of the Church. Caucuses were held, at the General Conference of 1824, every night, by the two contending parties. Two bishops were to be elected. Each party named its can- didates. The friends of the present order, named Messrs. Soule and Beauchamp, and those in favour of the election of presiding elders brought forward Messrs. Hedding and Emory. The contest was a close one, and Messrs. Soule and Hedding were chosen. A book- agent was then to be chosen, and the same scene was acted over again. Mr. John Emory was brought for- ward by one side, and a Mr. Lee by the other, and Mr. Emory was elected. Notwithstanding, however, the warmth, and bitterness with which these controversies were carried on, no prosecutions were instituted against the preachers. They can do or say what they please against the discipline or each other with impunity ; but if a local preacher or private member dare to say they are not immaculate, or do wrong, they are accused of " speaking evil of ministers," and are tried and expelled. Now what greater crime is it, Ave beg to know, for a local preacher, or layman to speak against the discipline, than it is for a travelling preacher.? We aver, that as many hard things have been said against the conduct of the bishops on the one side, and against the preachers in favour of tlie election of the presiding elders on the other, as were ever uttered by the reform local preachers and laymen in Baltimore or elsewhere. Ask the mem- bers of the General Conference of 1820 and 1824, what was said by the one side, when a paper was pro- duced on the other with the names of preachers pledging METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 227 themselves to support (without discussion) a certain measure recommended by the bishops, or if not actually- produced, when it was alleged that sucha paper was in existence. What was said also against the ordination of bishop Soule, and what was the conduct, feelings, and proceedings of the General Conference, when, in viola- tion of a pledge to the contrary, after the departure of the New York delegates, one side called up the con- sideration of a measure against which those brethren would have voted. Ask also, what warmth of discussion took place on the pew question, and the question of slavery. These instances are adverted to, merely, for the purpose of shewing that the travelling preachers have done and said, with impunity, precisely what the old side allege the reformers have done. We go further and say, what little has been written by the old side, contains more abuse and slander, than any thing written by the reformers. To prove this, we will refer you to the address of the Baltimoreans, signed by William Wilkins, chairman. In this paper, the reformers are denounced as enemies to the Church, &c. And in it as severe an invective as could be penned, is pronounced against the Rev. Mr. M'Caine. Why were not these brethren tried for " evil speaking and slander V The reason is obvious, their writings were in favour of tlie present order of things. Time would fail us to enu- merate the many and glaring attacks upon us; and an enumeration of them would swell this address to too great a length for perusal. Now, who are these reformers thus denounced.' Why, many of them are travelling preachers, local preachers, and laymen of unexceptionable piety and character. Men who have grown grey in the service of the Church, or have been 228 HISTORY OF THE active in her support, and whose characters would do honour to any society. The object of this address is to enter our solemn pro- test against their sweeping denunciations of us, and all other reformers; and to express thus publicly our abhorrence to the uncharitable course pursued in Balti- more ; and our determination not to treat our discarded brethren there as heretics; but to extend to them the right hand of fellowship, and to support their cause, while ever they maintain their characters as Christians, and their attachment to the Methodist Church. We regard the whole proceedings against them as a nullity ; and, therefore, recognize them still as our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church. They have been denied an impartial trial ; and have been expelled from the Church for the publication of the writings of travelling preachers who are now members elect to the General Conference. The authors of these writings, instead of being tried and expelled, have been, by the advice of at least one of the bishops, elected to the General Con- ference. Who will then be found among us to justify the Baltimore proceedings ? Who is ready to expel a Christian from our society, because he dissents from us in opinion upon Church government, or thinlcs proper to utter his dissent } We candidly confess, that our preju- dices are not so strong (and we pray God that they never may be so,) to turn out our brethren of the old side, for their opposition to our views of Church polity. Such a spirit is not the spirit of Christ, and consequently is wrong. Wc still declare ourselves devoted to the moral and doctrinal principles of primitive Methodism, and wish for the prosperity of the Church, and firmly believe that a lay delegation in the General Conference METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 229 would be conducive to her interests. We entertain also a high respect for our founder and his distinguished coadjutors in the great work of man's salvation, and venerate their memories and services. We are also the advocates of itinerancy, class-meetings, love-feasts, &c. the assertions of the Baltimore Address to the contrary^ notwithstanding. John D. Emory, President. Thomas C. Browne, Secretary. CHAPTER XIII. GENERAL CONVENTION OF 1827. — MEMORIAL OF THE EXPELLED BRETHREN IN BALTIMORE. RESOLU- TIONS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE IN REPLY. CALL OF A GENERAL CONVENTION FOR NOVEM- BER, 1828. The delegates to the General Convention for No- vember, 1827, assembled in the city of Baltimore, and prepared a memorial to the ensuing General Conference, which was to hold its session in Pittsburg in the follow- ing May, praying for a joint representation from the local ministry and membership in the rule-making de- partment of the Church. A committee of three mem- bers was appointed to carry up tlie memorial to the General Conference, and a committee of nine members was also appointed to call another general convention, after the rising of the General Conference, if, in their judgment, the call of another general convention should be necessary. During the sitting of the General Con- 230 HISTORY OF THE ference, the expelled brethren in Baltimore also sent up a memorial to that body, giving a brief account of the violent manner in vidiich they had been expelled ; and requesting the conference to take such measures as would restore tliem to the Church, and those who had withdrawn on their account, on principles which should secure to them and the Church the liberty of speech and of the press, without sanctioning the licentiousness of either. The following is a copy of that instrument. To the bishops and members of the General Conference, of the JWethodist Episcopal Church, in conference assembled. Esteemed Fathers and Brethren, — The memorial of the undersigned, late ministers and members of the Me- thodist Episcopal Church, in the city of Baltimore, respectfully sheweth : That for upwards of three years last past, a periodical called " The Mutual Rights," has been published in said city, under the direction of a committee of ministers and members of said Church, which periodical had for its object, the discussion of the propriety, and utility of introducing an equitable repre- sentation from the ministry and membership, into the legislative department of said Church. Your memorialists beg leave to state, that most of the prominent writers for said periodical, are itinerant ministers of the said Church, all of whom we verily believe, are ardently attached to the interests thereof; and whose only object, in furnishing contributions for said periodical, was to obtain a well-balanced form of government, that said Church may become the glory of the present age, and the just admiration of posterity. Your memorialists further state, that no formal charge was preferred against either the authors, or editors, by METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 231 any legal authorities of the Church, during the aforesaid period of three years; but in the niontli of July last, a select meeting of some of the ministers and members of this station, was held for a particular purpose ; and after that purpose had been subserved, a motion was made, and carried, to appoint several persons, to examine the Mutual Rights, to ascertain if the discipline had not therein been violated. Your memorialists would represent, that about the month of September last, the committee just referred to, called on some five or six members of the Union So- ciety, individually, and demanded of each, an abandon- ment of the Union Society, and that they should with- hold their aid from the Mutual Rights, as the exclusive terms on which a prosecution was to be avoided. Those brethren on whom the demand was made, did then, and do now believe, that the requisitions were such as neither the Word of Gocf, nor the discipline of the Church recognized, as terms on which brethren in Christ Jesus, were to be continued in Church fellow'- ship, and Avere therefore conscientiously impelled, to decline giving the pledges demanded. A few days thereafter, charges and specifications, based on certain essays in the Mutual Rights, were handed by the prosecuting committee to the Rev. Mr. Hanson, against upwards of thirty members of the Union Society, which were sent by him, to the accused, with citations to trial, without a prior visit from him to either of the accused, to reconcile the parties and to prevent the unhappy collisions, and exacerbations of party feeling, consequent on a Church trial, involving so many individuals; and to prevent the justly to be deprecated issues which foUow^ed. 232 HISTORY OF THE The first person cited for trial, was the Rev. Dr. Jennings, the chairman of the editorial committee, of the periodical. He respectfully requested of Mr. Han- son, time to correspond with the authors of the pieces, adduced as proof of the charges, but this was refused. He nevertheless appeared, and made the protest, ac- companying this memorial, marked A, to which we solicit the attention of the General Conference. The most of the accused appeared, and entered their pro- tests against the glaring absurdity of the procedure, as well as the prejudiced character of the committee of trial, more particularly the latter, who had aided in promoting the prosecutions; and moreover, had in a publication, and for which they had voted previously, prejudged our cases. A considerable time after the trials (so called) Mr. Hanson sent us a communication informing us, that the committee had found us '■'■guilty;'''' although the commit- tee had reported that the charges and specifications were '•'■ sustained and in the said communication, reite- rated the demand made by the prosecutors, as before recited, and which were afterwards renewed, by Dr. Green. We cannot but consider it remarkable, that such a striking sameness of demand should be made, at three different periods, and by different persons. Suf- fice it to say, that Mr. Hanson's demand was declined on the part of the accused. A short time after the members were expelled, and the local preachers were suspended, the local preachers determined to take their trials at the District Conference, as provided by the dis- cipline. The District Conference met, and after being organized, and ready for business, was violently and illegally dissolved. Now as we cannot suppose, that METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 233 tlie General Conference ever designed to transfer the business of a District Conference, to a Quarterly Meet- ing Conference, by such means as were employed on tliis occasion, and especially by the votes of coloured preachers, in a slave-holding State, and without allow- ing the subject to be discussed, we sincerely believe that the dissolution was illegal and void, and that the Quar- terly Conference had no jurisdiction in the case. The lay members received their citations, but they did not appear, for the same reason which served to make tlie local preachers more sensible of the injustice done them by the unlawful dissolution of the District Conference, which was, that we all knew the members of the Quarterly Meeting Conference, (with but very few exceptions) at a meeting called for the purpose, had by a vote, adopted a paper, which was published by themselves, in which it was stated, that the Mutual Rights liad been rightly considered by the Baltimore Conference, to be an improper work; because in it anonymous writers were permitted to defame the trav- elling preachers, &c. Inasmuch, therefore, as the prin- cipal charge was speaking evil of ministers, and the specifications referred to the Mutual Rights, as the only evidence by which they expected to sustain the charge and specifications; it was a necessary conclusion, that they had already decided on the facts (so called) in our case. They considered all the members of the Union Society identified with the exceptionable papers,* and *At the time of the prosecutions there were 133 male members of the Methodist Episcopal Church belonging to the Baltimore Union Society, all of whom were identified with the publication of the Mu- tual Rights ; yet, only 33 of them were expelled for publishing that paper. These were considered immoral and thrown out of the bo- 20* 234 HISTORY OP THE of course we as members of the Union Society, were made the subjects of their denouncement. An appeal, to have been made under such circumstances, carried with it such a certain expectation of defeat, that our lay members could not consent to appear before the Quar- terly Meeting Conference. Moreover, it was, and is our opinion, that the subject in dispute, was one which required special legislation, and after entering our pro- tests, we intended to look to your body, for an act which would guarantee a better mode of procedure, should any instance of this kind, again occur. In the mean time, hoAvever, we were desirous of calling the at- tention of the Annual Conference to the illegality of the proceedings, and with that view, sent up to the confer- ence the memorial marked " B," (see page 1 95,) and to which, that body returned the document marked " C," (see page 200.) If we have erred, it should be remembered, that it was at a time of great excitement, and under extraordi- nary circumstances. We feel confident, that the case was entirely new. Who ever before heard of the organization of a pros- ecuting committee in the Methodist Episcopal Church, consisting of seven persons When was there ever a convocation of members of the Church, for the purpose of arraying themselves as prosecutors, against another party of the Church. 3om of the Church, as such, while the remaining hundred, were not proceeded against, but retained as innocent, although they sent in to the prosecutors a list of 3.3 more names declaring themselves raem- bers of the Baltimore Union Societj% with a promise, that when the prosecutors had disposed of those, they would send in as many more names. — Author. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 235 The measure was so new, and so inconsistent with all our former acquaintance with Metliodism, that we were apprehensive, our prosecutors had heen encouraged thereto, by some persons in high authority in the Church. When attacked in such a party manner, and under such new and fearful circumstances, we felt obliged to protest, and to publish our protests, that our friends and the public might know the highly improper course of procedure against us ; tliat we might not be injured to any very great extent, by the varied attempts of our prosecutors and their friends, until a fair and full investi- gation could be had. We are much suprised at the resolutions of the Balti- more Annual Conference. In the first resolution the ut- most scrupulosity to the formalities of the discipline, is tenaciously observed in every point regarding- the ex- pelled, whilst not a word is said respecting the informal- ities, by which the prosecutions were characterized. It appears from the second resolution, that a departure from the course prescribed, would be subversive of " wholesome discipline." That there is no general rule without some. exception, is generally admitted, and we believe our cases furnish such an exception; having been prosecuted by tliose who had condemned us, and tried by those who had found us guilty, and published it to the world, previously to their sitting on our trials, and acknowledging that tliey had so acted, even on the trials ! Surely this was a course of things extremely out of place and character. In the fourth resolution they state, Uiat "if the local preachers, on tlie dissolution of the conference, liad appeared before the Quarterly Meeting Conference, and objected to the jurisdiction of that 236 HISTORY OF THE bod}', in such case, on an appeal, this conference would have fully considered and decided on the whole subject." This is a most surprising statement, in view of all the facts in the case. The local preachers did draw up a formal protest against the jurisdiction of the Quarterly- Meeting Conference, to try tlieir cases, which they sent in to the presiding elder, (the Rev. Joseph Frye,) as the document marked D, fully proves !* With the most in- contestible evidence before the local preachers, that a large majority of the Quarterly Meeting Conference, had prejudged their cases ; that it was a party prosecu- tion ; that the presiding elder by favouring the dissolu- tion of the District Conference, was also on the side of the prosecuting party — that Mr. Hanson was also on the same side — that the committee were also of the party — that almost all the members of the Quarterly Meeting Conference had voted them " enemies to Meth- odism," &c. In view of these facts, they declined a personal attendance, trusting that the Annual Conference would defend them against such oppression; or, that if the Annual Conference should sanction such procedure, tliat the General Conference would render them an im- partial hearing, and decide only on the merits of the facts, and principles involved in the case. Finally, brethi-en, your memorialists respectfully rep- resent to the General Conference, that as we have been expelled from the Church, contrary as we believe to Scripture and Discipline, and which expulsion has been, and still is painful to our hearts, wc do hereby request your highly respected body to take such measures, as in your wisdom, sliall restore us to the Church of our former fellowship, and receive with us those who have •See page 19."?. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 237 withdrawn on our account, on principles which shall secure to us and the Church, the liberty of speech and of the press, without sanctioning the licentiousness of eitlier ; and may the great Head of the Church have you in his holy keeping, and direct you in all your delibera- tions, to the praise of His glory, is the prayer of your memorialists. Resolutions of the General Conference^ in reply to the memorial of the expelled brethren. Whereas an unhappy excitement has existed in some parts of our work, in consequence of the organization of what have been called Union Societies, for purposes and under regulations, believed to be inconsistent with the peace and harmony of the Church; and in relation to the character of much of the matter contained in a certain periodical publication called the Mutual Rights, in regard to which, certain expulsions from the Church have taken place; and whereas, this General Conference indulge a hope that a mutual desire may exist for con- ciliation and peace, and is desirous of leaving open a way for the accomplishment of so desirable an object, on safe and equitable principles. Tlierefore, Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conference, in General Conference assembled. 1 st. That in view of the pre- mises, and in the earnest hope that this measure may tend to promote this object, this General Conference affectionately advises, that no further proceedings may be had in any part of our work, against any member or minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on account of any past agency or concern, in relation to the above named periodical, or in relation to any Union Society above mentioned. 238 HISTORY OF THE 2d. If any persons expelled as aforesaid feel free to concede, that publications have appeared in said Mutual Rights, the nature and character of which were unjusti- fiably inflammatory, and do not admit of vindication; and that in others, though for want of proper informa- tion, or unintentionally have yet in fact misrepresented individuals and facts, and that they regret these things. If it be voluntarily agreed also that the Union Societies above alluded to shall be abolished ; and the periodical called the Mutual Rights be discontinued at the close of the current volume, which shall be completed, with due respect to the conciliatory and pacific design of this arrangement ; then this General Conference does hereby give authority, for the restoration to their ministry or membership respectively, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, of any person or persons, so expelled as afore- said; provided this arrangement shall be mutually as- sented to by any individual or individuals so expelled, and also by the Quarterly Meeting Conference, and the minister or preacher having the charge of any circuit or station, within which any such expulsion may have taken place ; and that no such minister or preacher shall be obliged under this arrangement, to restore any such in- dividual as leader of any class or classes, unless in his own discretion he shall judge it proper so to do ; and pro- vided also, that it be further mutually agreed, that no odier periodical publication, to be devoted to the same controversy, shall be established on either side, it being expressly understood, at the same time, that this, if agreed to, will be on the ground not of any assumption of right to require this, but of mutual consent, for the restoration of peace, and that no individual will be hereby precluded METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 239 from issuing any publication which he may judge proper, on his own responsibility. It is further understood, that any individual or indi- viduals who may have withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, on account of any proceedings in relation to the premises, may also be restored by mutual consent, under tliis arrangement, on the same principles above stated. Call of a General Convention for 1828. The Committee appointed in November, 1827, by the General Convention of the friends of reform, for the purpose of calling another similar convention, " if in die opinion of the committee it be necessary for the promotion of the great principles of Christian liberty, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, or for other pur- poses of importance to the general interests of the Metliodist Reformers;" having been duly notified by their chairman, met in Baltimore on Monday, 21st July, 1 828 ; and having taken into consideration the fate of the memorial sent up by the convention to the late Gen- eral Conference; the decision of the General Con- ference upon the case of the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, die highly exceptionable terms proposed as tlie condi- tion for the return of the brethren lately expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore, and other places, on account of Union Societies; and the publi- cation and circulation of the Mutual Rights, as also the ultimate proceedings of the General Conference, upon the subject of reform in general, as set forth by the report of their committee "on petitions and memorials," are of opinion that the only proper conclusion deducible from the whole is, that the travelling ministry not only 240 HISTORY OP THE refuse, as being " inexpedient," but absolutely deny the right of the membership, to claim a representation in the legislative department of the Church, and at the same time, assert a divine right of the travelling ministry, to legislate for the whole body, to expound the Scriptures, and administer the details of moral discipline. In fact, they consider themselves to be under special obligation to exercise this unlimited and irresponsible authority, as having been imposed upon them, by the great Head of the Church. The committee are, therefore, of opinion, that it is proper and necessary, that a General Convention should be assembled, to deliberate upon the course vs^hich is now to be pursued by the friends of reform. In discharging this duty, they think it necessary also to suggest to their friends, the propriety and importance of taking suitable measures for effecting the election of their delegates, and for clothing them with the necessary powers to act ; whether the contemplated convention shall determine to organize for an independent exis- tence; — to continue their struggle against these lofty pretensions, or peaceably to surrender their rights and give up all for lost. In those places where reformers are already associ- ated, whether in the form of Union Societies or other- wise, there can be but little difficulty. Where they are not associated, it is desirable that they should call meet- ings expressly for the purpose, and when assembled, proceed in due form to elect their representatives, and prepare for them their credentials, which should set forth the facts, that they have been duly elected, and signifying the extent of their delegated powers. If this be done in every instance, whether by Union So- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 241 cieties, associations for purposes of reform, or meetings assembled for elections, then the convention will be prepared to act with understanding and confidence. The committee wish it to be understood, however, that they in no case advise a separation from the Church, until the sentiments of the reformers generally, can be known, through their respective representatives in the contemplated convention. In conformity to the trust reposed in us by the con- vention, for the reasons above stated, we hereby give notice, that another General Convention will be held in the city of Baltimore, in St. John's Church, Liberty street, to begin its session on Wednesday, the 12th day of November next, at 10 o'clock, A. M. By order of the committee, SAiML. K. Jennings, Chairman. CHAPTER XIV. PERSECUTION, EXPULSIONS AND WITHDRAWALS AT CINCINNATI AND ALSO AT LYNCHBURG, VA. An account of the prosecutions, expulsions, and with- drawal of Reformers at Cincinnati, after the rise of the General Conference of 1 828, taken from " an exposition of facts" published in Cincinnati, in pamphlet form, im- mediately after the expulsions, &c. Prior to the Gen. Conference of 1828, an address was drawn up by the brethren at Cincinnati, and presented to that body, when in session, reprehending the prosecutions in Baltimore and elsewhere, and requesting the conference 21 242 HISTORY OF THE to restore all such members to their former standing; and also, to adopt such measures as would, in future, prevent the recurrence of similar evils. On the evening of the 26th of June, the Union Society of Cincinnati met, and appointed a committee of five members, to receive the report of the General Conference on Petitions and Memorials, and to report thereon. On the 10th of July, the society met to receive the report of their committee. The report was read and adopted, and the following Resolutions were passed. Resolved 1. That we cannot but approve of the con- duct of our expelled brethren in Baltimore, in rejecting proposals evidently so partial and unjust, and difficult to be complied Avith. Resolved 2. Tliat we feel extremely gratified at that degree of peace and prosperity with which they appear to be at present favoured, and we sincerely pray that it may be long continued. Resolved 3. That according to our present feelings and sentiments, we ought, and therefore design to pa- tronize the " Mutual Rights," and to continue the Union Society, until the meeting of the convention in Novem- ber next; and then to be governed as circumstances may seem to direct. Resolved 4. That in order to prevent unpleasant feel- ings, we will use our influence with the editors of the above named periodical, not to insert in its pages any matter calculated to excite the effects above stated. Resolved 5. That it is our wish to promote peace and concord; and whatever we can safely surrender to our old side brethren, for peace and quietness sake, we feel disposed to do it. But the liberty of speech, and of the press, with the right to assemble peaceably and METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 243 orderly, to discuss Church government, or any other lawful subject we may think proper to take up, is what we cannot relinquish to any human authority whatevei'. After the passage of the above resolutions, it was stated by some, high in authority, that the Cincinnati Reformers had passed the Ruhicon, and could no longer be tolerated. On the 17th of July, fourteen members of the Union Society were waited on by a prosecuting committee, of the following members: Christopher Smith, Robert Richardson, Sacker Nelson and Littleton Quinton. On the 25th of July, brother Wm. Young, a local preacher, w^as served with charges, of which the fol- lowing is a copy. And notified to appear for trial at the Stone Church, at 9 o'clock, Friday, 14th day of August. Rev. Wm. Young is charged with endeavouring to sow dissentions in the society or Church, in this station or city, known by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and with the violation of that general rule of the discipline of said Church, which prohibits its members from doing harm, and requires them to avoid evil of every kind; and especially with violating that clause of said general rule, which prohibits speaking evil of minister-i. Specification 1st. Because the said William Young, while a mem- ber of the Methodist Episcopal Church, did heretofore attach himself to, and become a member of the society called the Union Society of the M. E. Church of Cincinnati; which Union Society is in oppo- sition to the Discipline, in whole or in part, of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, and has arrayed and combined all the workings of the spirit of party in their pernicious and destructive forms, distin- guishing its members as organized and systematic opponents of the Church aforesaid. Specification 2d. Because the said William Young as a mem- ber of the said Union Society, directly, or indirectly, either by pecu- niary contributions or his personal influence, aiding, abetting, co- operating, or assisting in the publication or circulation of a work called "The Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church," printed in Baltimore, — (lor proof of which see Mutual Rights, No. 44, page 230, 2d resolution;) which 244 HISTORY OF THE periodical work or publication, called " The Mutual Rights," &.c., contains among other things much that inveighs against the Discip- line of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid, in whole or in part, and is in direct opposition thereto ; and that is abusive or speaks evil of a part if not of most of the ministers of that Church; the gen- eral tendency of vvhich periodical work has been to produce, and continues to produce disagreement, strife, contention and breach of union among the members of said Church in this city or station. Specification 3d. Because the said William Young, as a mem- ber of the Union Society aforesaid, did at a meeting of said society, held on the evening of the 10th of this month, (July,) vote for or otherwise agree to the adoption of the following resolution, viz: " That according to our present feelings and sentiments, we ought, and therefore design, to patronize ' The Mutual Rights,' and to con- tinue the Union Society until the meeting of the convention in No- vember next, and then to be governed as circumstances may seem to direct;" which resolution on account of the licentious manner in which the periodical called " Mutual Rights" has been conducted, and on account of the discord and strife produced by the organization and continuation of a distinct body, within the bosom of the Church, called the " Union Society," is a plain violation of the existing regu- lations under which we are voluntarily associated as Methodists and as Methodist ministers, and is in opposition to the judgment and advice of the late General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and is well calculated to produce, and increase the disagreement, strife, contention, and breach of union alluded to in the 2d specifi- cation. For proof of which, the publication entitled the Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church is referred to, and particularly the following papers.* On the following day, the Quarterly Conference met, at which it was determined to appoint a committee of five members to confer with a committee of the Union Society in view of devising a plan of reconciliation; and if no plan of reconciliation could be agreed on, then to devise a plan of separation, and to report to the Church the result of their labours. *The passages referred to are the same as those on page 175 of this History. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 245 Several communications passed between the two committees, but no terms of reconciliation could be agreed on. The reformers stated their willingness to abolish their Union Society, reserving, however, to themselves, the right to assemble as a body of reformers at any time for the purpose of transacting such business as, in their opinion, might be proper to promote the cause of reform. And in case of their withdrawing their patronage from the Mutual Rights, which, how- ever, they declined doing for the present, they reserved to themselves the right of publishing their opinions through such other medium as they might deem proper. To the above proposition, the preachers' committee would not agree, and die negotiations were broken off. On the Saturday and Monday following, the remain- ing thirteen members complained of received copies of their charges, Mr. Young having previously been fur- nished with his. On examination, it appeared they had all been taken from one original copy, and that was formed after the pattern exhibited in Baltimore. As the prosecutions just commenced were not of a private character, but involving interests and principles dear to every enlightened mind, the trustees determined, that so soon as the charges were delivered to the mem- bers complained of, they would call the Church to- gether, for the purpose of obtaining an expression of their sentiments in relation to these proceedings. Ac- cordingly, on Sunday, tlie 10th of August, the officiating ministers were furnished with notices requiring the attendance of the members at tlie Stone Church, on the following Wednesday at two o'clock, when business of importance would be submitted for their consideration. In three instances, the preachers refused to read the 21* 246 HISTORY OF THE notices, — and in another, recalled in the afternoon what had been published in the morning;. Notwithstanding the opposition of the stationed preachers, (as they were no doubt aware that a majority of the members would oppose the prosecutions,) at the appointed hour, a very considerable number attended. After the object of the meeting was stated, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: 1 . That the trustees of this station have authority to call the Church together on business in relation thereto, whenever they are of opinion such call is necessary; and such calls we consider legal and valid. 2. That, at such meetings, whatever business is laid before the Church, a majority shall decide thereon, and that decision shall be binding. 3. That, as these prosecutions most clearly involve a violation of that sacred trust committed to us by our forefathers, viz. the liberty of speech and of the press, and as they are contrary to the spirit and genius of our holy religion, unacknowledged by our book of disci- pline, and highly dangerous to our civil and religious liberties, we hereby express our entire disapprobation of such proceeding. 4. That, from any view we are able to take of these matters, the alleged grounds of complaint are totally insufficient to sustain the charges here preferred. 5. That, forasmuch as some of our accused brethren have required of the preacher in charge an investigation of these complaints before the Church, — and as the preacher has denied that privilege, a privilege which is granted in the discipline of said Church, a right which, from the peculiar and uncommon nature of these charges, is imperiously called for; we hereby declare, METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 247 we shall acknowledge no expulsions as valid or legal, where such right has heen denied. 6. That we respectfully submit to the preacher in charge the propriety of immediately withdrawing these prosecutions, as the objects for which they were institu- ted can never be accomplished thereby. 7. That should the preacher in charge reject our counsel and advice, in relation to these prosecutions, we hereby authorize and command our brethren, the trus- tees of tliis station, to adopt such measures to enforce a compliance with our wishes, as above stated, as they may judge necessary. 8. That a copy of the resolutions passed by the mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church of this station be presented, by the trustees of said Church, to the Rev. John F. Wright, preacher in charge. 9. That the trustees be required to have the reso- lutions passed by this meeting recorded in the Church book. The requisition alluded to in the fifth resolution is contained in the following note, addressed by E. Hall and M. Lyon to the preacher in charge. John F. Wright^ preadier in charge of the Cincinnati station. Dear Brother, — We have received the charges which have been preferred against us by brothers Quinton, Richardson, Smith and Nelson. We have now to ask for the privilege granted in our discipline to an accused member, viz. the right of trial before the society of which we are members. We ^vould be glad if you would send us an answer by the bearer. MosEs LvoN, Cincinnati, Jlug. 9, 1828. E. HalL. 248 HISTORY OF THE To this Mr. Wright replied: Cincinnati, 9th August, 1828. Messrs. Lyon and Hall, — In answer to your note, I need only say, the privilege you ask for is utterly im- practicable. Neither you nor myself possess power to compel members to attend; so that, if such a course should be determined on, nothing is more certain, than that no investigation could be had in the case. Yours, &c. J. F. Wright. To every unprejudiced mind, the fallacy of Mr. Wrighfs reasoning must be clear and obvious. Why would there be " no investigation in the case .'' " Did he suppose, that on suitable notice being given, a suffi- cient number would not attend to consider and decide thereon.' This he did not, he could not believe. But he feared the decision would be the very reverse of tliat which he most ardently desired, and which he liad most industriously laboured to produce. A copy of the above resolutions was presented to Mr. W., accompanied by the following note : Cincinnati, August 13th, 1823. Dear Brother, — We herewith send you a copy of the resolutions adopted by the Methodist Episcopal Church of Cincinnati, at a meeting held this day, agreeably to public notice given by the trustees of this station. We request you to inform us, by the bearer, whether you design to act in accordance with the wishes of said Church. Trustees. Rev. John F. Wright. To this note Mr. W. replied as follows: Cincinnati, August Uth, 1828. To tlie Trustees: — In answer to your note, I beg leave to remark, that in my humble opinion, the trus- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 249 tees have exceeded the power vested in them by the law of incorporation, by taking jurisdiction over and interfering with the spiritual concerns of the Methodist Episcopal Church of this station, (as trustees,) inas- much as their office only contemplates their having con- trol of temporal affairs. You wish me to say, whether I " design to act in accordance with the wishes of said Church." To which I answer — from the smallness of the number convened together on yesterday, and as I am informed but few voted, I cannot suppose the wish of the Church is yet ascertained; no regular investigation has yet been made, and I feel myself bound, as preacher in charge, to attend to the business as the discipline of our Church directs. Yours, &c. J. F. Wright. The above letter was received on the 14th August, the day appointed for the trial of the local preachers. The following are their names: — David English, Jesse B. Dorman, John Haughton, and William Young. The charges being the same against each individual, Mr- Wright had determined to try those brethren at one and the same time. The committee appointed by the preacher to try the local preachers consisted of Daniel Duvall, John Walls, and John Clark. To each of these the preachers objected, especially to John Clark on ac- count of his deep-rooted prejudices against Reformers in general. Nevertheless, in opposition to the wishes and remonstances of the accused, Mr. Clark was retained on the committee. The evidence produced to substantiate the charges, was taken from different parts of the " Mutual Rights." The "prosecuting committee" commenced by reading detached parts from sundry articles in that periodical. 250 HISTORY OF THE To this the accused objected, forasmuch as the writer's design and object could not be clearly seen. They therefore contended, that the whole of each paper should be read on which the charges were founded. But this was objected to by the prosecuting committee ; alleging, if we remember right, that it would take up too much time. Mr. Clark also made the same objec- tion, and observed that he did not come there to be de- tained two or three days, as his corn and his hay, <^c., needed his attention. And from his conduct on that day, it is highly probable, that these were of much more im- portance to him than the character and standing of his deeply injured brethren. About four or perhaps five o'clock, P. M., the evi- dence on the part of the prosecution closed ; when three of the accused made their defence. They dwelt at considerable length on the great imj)ropriety and injus- tice of making them accountable for the writings of other men, and those men travelling preachers, and within reach of the authorities of the Church ; that the point in dispute was not of a private or personal charac- ter, and could never be settled by prosecutions ; that neither in the discipline, nor in the Word of God, are those things forbidden for which they contend; and that no where are Union Societies, or periodicals on our Church government, prohibited. As it respected Bro. Dorman, he had never patronized the " Mutual Rights," as he had been furnished with the use of it by an old side brother. After the accused had made their defence, they, with the spectators, retired from the house, followed by Mr. Duvall. In some conversation which immediately took place, the old gentleman remarked, that he did not be- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 251 lieve the brethren had done any harm; that he had done as much himself. The committee retired to their homes for the night, and in tlie morning, as was expected, declared the ac- cused guilty of the charges preferred against them. They were accordingly suspended from all official acts in the Church until the meeting of the adjourned Quarterly Conference. The day appointed for the trial of the ten lay mem- bers was the 15th August, the day following the trial of the local preachers. After Mr. Wright had opened the prosecution, the accused members rose from their seats, and brother Hall, as their spokesman, read the follow- ing note : As accused members of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Cincinnati, we claim the privileges granted us in the fifth restrictive rule of the discipline of our Church, in the following words, to wit — " neither shall they," the General Conference, " do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal." We do therefore protest against being tried before a committee, or select number of said Church, contrary to our wishes or consent; and we do hereby notify you, that we will not submit to any decision in our cases, unless such decision shall be made by the society of which we are members. Signed, E. Hall, W. L. Chappell, H. Handy, S. Ash- ley, T. Wright, James Foster, M. Lyon, J. Snyder, J. Garretson, G. Lee. Mr. Wright refused to grant any such privilege, and they retired from the house. The committee and Mr. 252 HISTORY OF THE Wright proceeded with the sham trials, and found the members all guilty of the preferred charges. Some short time after the trials the preacher ad- dressed the following note to the condemned members. The copy is from that sent to bro. Hall. Cincinnati, August 18, 1S28. Brother Hall. — I take this method of discharging the painful duty of administering reproof, which devolves upon me on account of my present situation. You have been convicted of endeavouring to sow dissensions in the society or Church of which you are a member, by a decision of the committee appointed to investigate the charges preferred against you. You, therefore, plainly discover, that the only ground on which expulsion from the Church can be avoided, is, an abandonment of the course which you have for some time past pursued, and which according to the judgment of your brethren of the committee, is calculated to pro- duce disagreement, strife, contention and breach of union among the members of our Church. As you are the arbiter of your own destiny in this matter, I hope you will inform me in writing, by Wed- nesday evening next, if you should feel disposed to com- ply with the above condition. Yours, &c. John F. Wright. As no notice was taken of the preachers' communi- cation, tlie bretlnen were considered as expelled from the Church. While Mr. Wright was thus in pursuit of his prose- cuting measures, the trustees held frequent consulta- tions on what course to pursue. By the best legal au- thorities the city could afford, they were informed that they could compel Mr. Wright to grant the lay members METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 253 a hearing before the Church, or in case of refusal, by a writ of mandamus, commit him to jail. But the resort to civil law, was revolting to all the brethren, and they declined the measure. Something, however, was ne- cessary to be done immediately, as reports were in cir- culation, that at a preceding meeting a number of names had been taken down for the purpose of prosecution. This number was said to be thirty, and all members of the Union Society. The trustees, some of whom wit- nessed the former prosecutions, determined that no more sacrifices should thus be offered up to appease their angry and persecuting brethren. On the 16lh of Au- gust, early in the day, they met together to consult on these important subjects. That Avas a time of deep affliction. After much consultation, it was reconimened, that "forasmuch as no peace can be enjoyed in the Church, reformers, in a body, had better withdraw." It was therefore determined, that on Monday, the 18th of August, the reformers and their friends should meet at the Stone Church, at 2 o'clock, P. M., for the pur- pose of formally withdrawing from the Church. On the following day (Sunday) notices were furnished to the officiating ministers, requiring reformers and their friends to meet at the Stone Church, at 2 o'clock, P. M., the following day. Agreeably with this notice, at the time appointed, a considerable number of reformers and their friends repaired to the Church. After the meeting was duly opened, and the object clearly stated, about two hundred and forty gave in their names for the purpose and with the design of formally withdrawing from the Methodist Episcopal Church. In the following instru- ment, they gave the reasons for this procedure. 22 254 HISTORY OF THE Cincinnati, I8ih Jugust, 1828. Sir, — We have beheld with unfeigned sorrow and regret, the proceedings lately had against our brethren, by way of distinction called Reformers, in this city. These proceedings, we are compelled to say, are distin- guished by cruelty and oppression in their most afflicting forms. You, sir, are not ignorant that the Church in this station expressed, at a public meeting, called by the trustees for that purpose, their entire disapprobation of these prosecuting measures. You have also been ad- vised not to pi'oceed, and forewarned of the awful con- sequences, by brethren whose judgment and opinions it was your duty to respect. Nevertheless, led on and assisted by a set of men, some of whom are remarkable for their ignorance, others for their deep-rooted preju- dices, and some by tempers of the most inflammatory character, you have summoned a number of our brethren before a partial tribunal, prepared to do the direful deed; and tlius, by the most unjustifiable measures, you have procured the condemnation of our brethren, whose cha- racters stand fair before both the Church and the world. In tliese proceedings, you must be aware, you can nei- ther be sustained by the discipline of our Church, nor by the laws of our country. By an appeal to that tribunal, we can compel you to accede to the reasonable request of our brethren. Alas! we lament to prove that civil law alone will induce any Methodist preacher to accede to what religion and justice require. Oh! tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of As- kelon," lest the uncircumcised, the enemies of Christi- anity, triumph. But unwilling to avail ourselves of the advantages we thus possess, we have determined to secede, and leave our brethren in the quiet possession of METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 255 our sanctuary — our home, for peace and quietness sake, and seek a place where a watchful Providence shall direct our way. We therefore, request of you, forth- with, certificates of our good standing and character, — and pray that you, and your associates in these unhal- lowed prosecutions, may find mercy in the day of the Lord Jesus. Rev. John F. Wright. We now return to the local preachers. The former court could only suspend them. Their proper trials came on at the sitting of the Quarterly Conference. Here there could be no chance for justice as almost all the reforming leaders had been removed, some by ex- pulsion, and others had seceded, so that but few were left to oppose Mr. Wright's arbitrary measures. It is here unnecessary to say more than that the Quarterly Conference confirmed tlie decision of the committee, and they were expelled. The following note contains the decision of the Quar- terly Conference against the preachers. Dear Brother, — The conference have made it my duty to inform you of their decision. They have found you guilty of the charge, with its several specifications; and have passed a resolution, that if you promise to desist from the course in future, for which they censure you, viz. that you withdraw from the Union Society, and that you cease to patronize the Mutual Rights, that you retain your standing in the Church. Yours affectionately, G. R. Jones, Preset. Bro. W. Young. The reader will distinctly perceive, that tlie sole ground of complaint was patronizing the Mutual Rights, 256 HISTORY OF THE and being a member of the Union Society. To this note Bro. Young sent the following reply : Dear Brother, — As it respects the decision of the conference in my case, which you gave me last evening, which informed me that they considered me guilty of the charges preferred against me, I expected nothing else, from a belief that the committee of local preach- ers, and a majority of the Quarterly Conference, were selected with an eye to this decision. Concerning the proposition made to me by the con- ference, viz. to withdraw from the Union Society, and cease to patronize the Mutual Rights, I have only to say, I shall reserve to myself the right to patronize and read such books as my judgment shall from time to time direct; and for the matter contained therein, I shall en- deavour at all times to pass judgment with a reference to the rule of right. I shall continue to tliink it a right belonging to me to converse with my brethren, in so- ciety meetings or otherwise, on the subject of Church government, or any other lawful subject. I have now to say, that I consider the proceedings in my case to be illegal, and the decision unjust, and from it I shall appeal to the Annual Conference. I remain yours, Wm. Young. The brethren accordingly appealed to the Annual Conference. But as might have been expected, that body confirmed the decision of the Quarterly Conference. The seceding brethren and their friends now destitute of a place of worship, were kindly accommodated by the members of the Second Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, and were regularly favoured with the admin- istration of the Word of Life by their beloved brethren METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 257 Truman Bishop, John Price and others, and the divine blessing descended on their assemblies. The praise- worthy conduct of Dr. Bishop, however, gave great otfence to the presiding elder, G. R. Jones, who in- formed him, by letter, that he would bring charges against liim on this ground at the approaching Annual Conference. The charges were accordingly made at the conference, but were not considered as grounds of just complaint against bi'other Bishop. The conference however requested him, by a vote, not to preach to those persons in Cincinnati who had on account of the late proceedings seceded from the Church. In this act brother Bishop saw there was a fatal snare laid to entrap him ; and that he must either withdraw from under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church, violate his conscience by refusing to preach to his seceding friends, or render himself liable to trial — suspension and expulsion. On his return to Cincinnati, he ad- dressed the following letter to Mr. Wright, withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and took charge of the reformers society. To the Rev. John F. Wright. Dear Brother, — After much reflection, many tears and many prayers to Almighty God for direction, I have come to the conclusion that it is my duty to withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal Church. And I hereby tender to you, and through you to Bro. G. R. Jones, as the proper organs, a resignation of my membership in said Church, and shall, from this date, consider myself no longer accountable to the discipline and authorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was not my design or wish ever to have dissolved my connexion with a Church, for whose welfare I have 22* 258 HISTORY OF THE felt a deep interest, and have laboui'ed to the best of my ability for thirty years; but I expected to have lived and died within her pale. But the vote of the confer- ence, prohibiting me from preaching to the seceded brethren in this city, imposes a requisition with which I cannot comply as a conscientious man, and it involves a principle I cannot admit. I never can subscribe to the right of any man, or body of men, authoritatively to say to any minister, called of God to preach the Gospel to dying men ; You must not preach to any congregation of immortal souls who are probationers or candidates for eternal happiness or woe. I must be at liberty to follow the dictates of my own conscience in fulfilling the com- mission given to me by the Great Head of the Church: " Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature ; " because I know I must give an account to Him for myself in the great day. I believe it is the will of God that I should preach to those seceders in this city, — but the conference forbids it; for although the vote was in the form of a request, yet it being a formal vote of the conference, and made a matter of record on the journals, it amounts to an official prohibi- tion ; so that I am driven to the necessity of withdraw- ing from the Church, or violating my conscience. And whether it be right to obey God or men, judge ye. In this matter I am not left to choose as in a matter of judgment, but of conscience. Hence my brethren have compelled me to resign my standing in the Church, which I suppose is what some of them designed to ac- complish; and it may be pleasure to them, but it is painful to me. It is to my wounded soul like cutting off a right arm, or plucking out a right eye. But from a conviction of duty I must do it. I do not take tliis step METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 259 from any hostile feeling, or from the dictates of any un- hallowed passion; my feelings are of a very different nature. No one circumstance of my life has ever caused me more heartfelt grief, than that in which the confer- ence has placed me by the above vote. I am frequently led involuntarily to exclaim. Why did my brethren do so.' Surely if they had known the torture they were about to inflict on my already lacerated and bleeding heart, they would not have done it. Although the Church has had many much more able ministers, a truer or more sincere friend she never held within her pale. I have been in that Church, I may say, from childhood; but I now go out like the old servant of God, not know- ing whither he went. But I lean on the Divine Arm, and trust the Lord will lead and support me. Contrary to my former calculations or intention, I now retire from under the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (which is near and dear to me,) for the reason already stated, that the command of the con- ference and the command of Jesus Christ given to me, stand in direct opposition to each other. Christ says, Preach the Gospel to every creature. The conference says, Preach not the Gospel to those hundreds of souls in Cincinnati, who have seceded from the Church. So that 1 cannot obey one, without violating the other. And if I disobey the command of the conference, in obeying the command of Christ, I subject myself to trial — suspension and expulsion, which I have reason to believe would be carried into execution; and I do not wish any further affliction of tliis kind. And if I dis- obey the command of Christ, in obeying the command of the conference, I shall endanger my eternal salvation. Under these circumstances, I dare not confer with flesh 260 HISTORY OF THE and blood; I must, therefore, stand free to obey the Great Head of the Church, and leave the event with Him. Yours in deep affection, T. Bishop. EXPULSIONS AND Vi^ITHDRAW^ALS AT LYNCHBURG. Communication from Lynchburg^ Va. to the Editor of the Mutual Rights and Chistiim Intelligencer. Rev. D. B. Dorset : Lrjnchburg, October 18, 1828. Dear Sir^ — The most cogent arguments that can be advanced by the friends of Reform, in support of the principles which they advocate, are feeble when com- pared with their demonstrative facts with which our op- ponents furnish us. The principles of the Methodist government had not been developed until witliin the past year. It begun with you, and each subsequent move, more clearly tends to hold them out to public view: and in proportion as they are felt and seen, the cause of reform is advanced; such I am happy to say is the result in this place. In your last paper you noticed the meeting of the friends of reform in Lynchburg and published their resolutions, which follow : 1st. Be it therefore Resolved, That this meeting deem it expedient that they should be represented in the Gen- eral Convention to be holden in the city of Baltimore, on the 12th of November next, to deliberate on measures of importance to the great interest of Methodist Re- formers: and tliat they will be regulated, in any ultimate measures they may adopt, by the advice of that body. 2d. That wc deeply sympatliize with our I'eforming brethren in Baltimore and elsewhere, who have suffered from the potent energy of the irresponsible power which our discipline vests in the itinerant ministry: and that we METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 261 tender our affectionate regards, to our former highly es- teemed townsman, the Rev. S. K. Jennings, and his colleagues in the editorial department of the " Mutual Rights," for the high and disinterested sacrifices made in defence of christian liherty. 3d. That we approve of the determination to keep up the publication of a paper in which the subject of Church government will be freely discussed, and that we will patronize, and recommend to the patronage of others, the " Mutual Rights and Christian Intelli- gencer." 4th, and lastly, That we most earnestly and affection- ately recommend to our reforming brethren, the cultiva- tion and exercise of those christian graces, which alone will enable them to bear with patience and fortitude, the proscription, persecution and expulsion, with which tlieir infatuated opposing brethren threaten them. That we be devoutly engaged in prayer to Almighty God, for the sanctifying influences of his grace, and the shedding forth of that love; which will enable us to pray for those who despitefuUy use and persecute us. Our proceedings were speedily followed by citations, to answer before a committee, for " endeavouring to sow dissentions in our Church, by enveighing against its dis- cipline." The " specification ;" because they constituted an inflammatory meeting, on the evening of the 18th of September, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, that adopted and published in the Lynchburg Virginian, a certain preamble and resolutions, signed C. Winfree, chairman, and John Victor, secretary, of an inflamma- tory character. This meeting was attended by a large number of our most respectable citizens, and in whatever point of view 262 HISTORY OF THE it may be regarded by our opposing brethren, we have the united testimony of a disinterested and intelligent public, to sustain us in saying, that it was conducted in an orderly, respectful and dignified manner; as to the character of the meeting, however, the committee did not express an opinion. The character and tendency of the preamble and resolutions, were the ostensible ground on which they sustained the charge and specification; and that for the expression of their sentiments, on a subject of mere human policy and convenience were two local preachers and nine lay members, stewards, leaders, and exhorters cut off from the communion of the Church. The decision of the committee was, of course, sus- tained by the Quarterly Meeting Conference. Such has been the influence of their measures that although we had considered our number but small, we now find that we are surrounded by a host of warm and fast friends of reform. The females assembled and ad- dressed a letter to the preacher in charge, a copy of which I send you signed by thirty-seven members. Since then there have been other secessions, male and female; so that we now number sixty two members, who on the 13th inst. formed themselves into a society, adopting an article of association, and receiving the Rev. William J. Holcombe, and John Percival, as licensed preachers, — appointed stewards and leaders and formed three classes. A subscription paper was opened for the purpose of erecting a house of Avorship, and in this day upwards of two thousand dollars is subscribed for that purpose. In the mean time the houses of the Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Baptist denominations are open for our accommodation. Brother Holcombe METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 263 preached on last sabbath at eleven o'clock in the Baptist Church. The Episcopalian will be occupied by us on next sabbath, at the same hour, and the Presbyterian at night. Our cause is advancing daily. A number of our Methodist brethren are looking with anxiety to the con- vention, and should it be determined to establish an inde- pendent Church, and the foundation be well laid, we calculate on a very large addition to our communion. May the Great Head of the Church inspire us with wisdom commensurate with this important business. Our meetings are well attended ; much love and union prevail, and the members seem to enjoy the life and ])ower of religion. We will bear with patience the opposition and hard sayings of the opposing brethren, nor will we return railing for railing. Yours, in much love and esteem, J. Victor. CHAPTER XV. GENERAL CONVENTION OF 1828. — REPLY TO THE GEN- ERAL CONFERENCE PAPER IN ANSWER TO THE PETI- TIONS AND MEMORIALS. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. Abstract from the Journal of the General Convention of Reformers, held in the city of Baltimore, JVov. 12'T CHURCH. 375 thing, the very thing we med" to instruct the babes . in Christ, to encourage the wavering, to fortify the weak, to comfort the afflicted, to detect and reclaim the disorderly, and to promote the spirituality of the whole Church. The constitution makes provision for dividing the whole territory embraced by the Methodist Protestant Church into districts, circuits and stations. And, furthermore, another division is recognized, which is that of indi- vidual Churches. Here it is worthy of remark, that tlie division into districts, circuits and stations, relate to territory ; but to individual Churches is assigned no ter- ritorial limits. The constitutional definition of one of these is, " An Associated Methodist Church shall be composed of any number of members residing sufficiently near eacli other to assemble statedly for public worship, and to transact its temporal business." Every such so- ciety is recognized as an individual Christian Church — as holding its own property, and is only restricted in self-government, in consequence of its relation to the Association as one of the branches of the Methodist Protestant Church. Hence, each individual Church is declared to have power to admit persons into full mem- bership, and lo try, censure, or expel unworthy mem- bers, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the rules of discipline. As this constitutes the first step and the basis of Church freedom and representation, it will be proper to dwell on it, and call attention to the fact, that this Church individuality has its foundation in the Scriptures ; for in Apostolic times, there were many distinct and in- dividual Churches, enjoying all the rights and privileges of free Churches. 376 HISTORY OF THE For more than three hundred years after Christ, the respective Churches managed their own affairs, respec- tively. Nothing is plainer in the Sacred Scriptures, than the facts, that there was in Apostolic times a plu- rality of Churches ; that these were local assemblies, composed of laymen and ministers ; — that each Church possessed an identity of existence ; had its own officers, and managed its own affairs according to the circum- stances by which each one was surrounded ; and, that the only bond of union was charity and similarity of faith. They were all distinct christian Churches, ac- knowledging Christ alone as their Head, and their sis- ter Churches as their equals. The only deference paid to any individual Church, was that at Jerusalem, on ac- count of its age and intelligence, which gave it the pre- cedence, and entitled its judgment, in religious matters, to gi'eat respect. But even at Jerusalem, the first Christian Apostolic Church, as we have shown at page 65, the most weighty matters were discussed and decided by the whole assembly, composed of Apostles, elders and brethren; the Apostles themselves taking part in the debate, in common with the elders and private christians. The principle of independent, free, individual Churches, associated for the purposes of united effort in sustaining each other, and of promoting the general interests of the Redeemer's Kingdom by the spread of the Gospel, is that on Avhich the Methodist Protestant Church has based her organization. From this associ- ation of free Churches, springs her system of Church representation^ by whidi every Church is secured in her rights and privileges, and the whole body can act under- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 377 standingly, unitedly and with great effect, without the aid ol" lords over God's heritage. On this basis of muhud rights and free and inde- pendent Churches, rests the doctrine of representation. Methodist Protestants have taken this scriptural feature as their starting place: and, for the purposes of sustain- ing and assisting each other, and securing a union of effort in spreading the Gospel of Christ, have organized an association of Churches. We do not say, there is to be found in the Scriptures a satisfactory example of Church government on the representative principle; hut we find the elements of Church freedom on every hand, and the most positive prohibitions against all assumptions of authority, on the part of ministers, to the lording it over God's heritage. The most superficial examination of the constitution and discipline of the Methodist Protestant Church, will convince every one, that the projectors of the system had the two following objects in' view: First, the es- tablishment of an equitable representation from the ministers and members of the Associated Churches. And secondly, the organization of a well adjusted, efficient and responsible itinerancy. The first of these, namely, representation, was a paramount consid- eration witli reformers; which, wliile in the Methodist Episcopal Church, they claimed, petitioned for, and would be satisfied Avith nothing short of it. Knowing, that where representation docs not lie at the foundation of civil or religious associations, there can be no liberty, no equality, no security for civil rights or religious free- dom. The second, namely, an efficient, responsible itin- erancy was an object of great solicitude with reformers: Many of them had spent their best days in the itinerancy, 32* 378 HISTORY OF THE and all of them had contributed to support the system, though they knew it was based on unrighteous prin- ciples, and subversive of the rights and privileges of the whole body of the laity, and all the local ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now, though we do not say, there is Scripture war- rant or example, for either representation or itinerancy, we nevertheless believe, that both are allowable to the christian Church : and, that Avhere an association or con- federation of Churches for mutual aid and edification exists, representation is Indispensible. The condition of reformei-s previously to their association was the follow- ing — They existed in small free Churches all over the country, and regulated their respective concerns by such rules as they deemed most suitable to their peculiar situ- ation. In this isolated condition they were unable in- dividually to resist the powerful efforts put forth by their persecuting mother to crush, disperse and destroy them ; and they were equally unable in their separate condition to accomplish that amount of good they believed to be their imperative duty. An association of Churches, based on an equitable representation, possessed of a well appointed and unexceptionable itinerancy, appear- ed to the minds of our brethren as absolutely essential to the protection and usefulness of both ministers and members. Under these views they assembled a convention of representatives from all the Churches, and framed a writ- ten constitution, unalterable in its most important fea- tures, except by a future convention : and which limits and controls the legislature, and confines the different departments to their respective spheres of action. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 379 Here, however, we would have it distinctly under- stood, that when we speak of legislation under the con- stitution, we mean nothing more than the formation of human rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the laws of Christ ; or, as the constitution has it, " such rules and regulations only, as are in accord- ance with the Holy Scriptures, and may be necessary or have a tendency to carry into effect the great system of practical Christianity." None of these can be recognized as of equal authority with tlie Word of G od ; nor may they contravene the divine law ; neither dare we attach to their infringement penalties which would effect the membership or christian privileges of the brethren. In either case, such regulations would defeat their own object, which is not to add or take from the laws of God, or to supersede them, but to carry them into effect. An instance of unjustifiable legislation, which can be viewed as no smaller crime than that of passing laws equal in authority with the Scriptures, may be found in the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church: " Let him who has charge of the circuit exclude them (in the Church) shewing that they are laid aside for a breach of our rules of discipline, and not for immoral conduct.'''' Previously to entering more particularly upon our system of representation and itinerancy, it will be proper to notice one very important principle of the constitu- tion in the distribution of power. The General Confe- rence, which is the sole legislative body of the Church, is composed of an equal number of ministers and lay representatives, each part having a check on the other by means of a separate vote. Now, although in a single Church this would be inadmissible, yet in an asso- 380 HISTORY OF THE ciation of Churches, this division of power was deemed essential to the interest of I'eligion. Very important duties are committed to the ministers of the Gospel by tlie Lord Jesus Christ; such as the teaching and the oversight of the flock, and a suitable amount of execu- tive authority. It would therefore, be improper to place the ministry in a situation that would give a controlling influence to the laity. The least that could be done, was to ])lace them on a par with the lay representatives, that they might not be deprived of their just right and authority in the deliberative councils of the Church. And on the other hand, it would be equally injudicious to place the laity in a situation which would give the ministry undue authority over them. Jl conjoint action of these two classes is essential to the best interests of tlie community. The right of suffrage in the Methodist Protestant Church embraces every minister, preacher and laymen in full membership, who has attained to the age of twen- ty-one years. And eligibility to election as a represen- tative to the General Conference, is extended to every minister and preacher and every white, lay, male mem- ber, in full communion and fellowship, having attained to the age of twenty-five years, and having been in full membership two years. Here the ministers and mem- bers have the right of suff"rage and eligibility to office secured to them, and no General Conference is clothed with power to infringe in the smallest degree upon those rights; for an express prohibition is found in the tenth article, which declares that; "No rule shall be passed which shall infringe the right of suff"rage or eligibility to office, — as provided by the constitution." METHODIST PROTESTANT CHCRCH. 381 We have lieard some persons make a distinction be- tween a minister of the Gospel and a pastor; and argue, that uo minister can be acknowledged as a pastor ex- cept he have the special charge of a single congrega- tion. We cannot for a moment admit this distinction, because, it is at variance with the Word of God, and the letter and spirit of om- constitution. The Scriptures nowhere give sanction to the notion of one minister being the exclusive pastor of one flock, while all others in the Church are subordinate and infe- rior. The term " pastor," occurs only once in the New Testament as designative of a minister of the Gospel, and then it is emplo3-ed to point out a description of spiritual teacJiers in the Church of God. " And he gave some Apostles ; and some prophets ; and some evange- lists; and some pastors and teachers." Eph. 4. 11. It is evident from the enumeration of Church officers made by Paul in 1 Cor. 12. 28, that pastoi's and teachers mean •the same designation of officers. " And God hath set some m the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of heal- ing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." No mention is here made of pastors, but its equiva- lent, teachers. Moreover, nothing is clearer than the fact, that there existed at the same time a plurality of ministerial elders in each primitive Church ; and, that these were the chief ministers in the congregation, who laboured harmoniously and jointly in the same Church. When Paul touched at "Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbuteroi) of the Church." And after speaking of his labours and sufferings, and the prospect of bonds and afflictions which lay before him, he charged them as fellow labourers togetlier in the 382 HISTORY OF THE word and doctrine, to take heed unto themselves and all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers^ to feed the Church of God, which he had purchased with his own blood. If the modern notion of pastor and pastoral charge were scriptural, Paul would, doubtless, have sent to Ephesus for the pastor of the Ephesian Church, and not for the elders. And if diocesan episcopacy were scriptural, he would have sent for the bishop. But as neither the one nor the other is in accordance with the Scriptures, or known in that day as chief ministers, Paul sent for the elders. Many persons have been so long- accustomed to the language of hierarchies, and to the practice of having one minister to preach to one congregation, that the notions of pastor and pastoral charge are inseparable in their minds, and altogether, as they suppose, scriptural. The spirit and letter of our constitution, give a cor- rect and scriptural view of this matter. For while it recognizes the elements of christian liberty in the iden- tity of Churches, it does, by conventional compact, dis- tribute the labours of the ministers, and views them all as fellow labourers in the word and doctrine ; and re- quires of each, such pastoral or ministerial services as his situation in life will allow. Nor is there found in the system the least degree of partiality or proscription. Each minister is eligible to enter the itinerant ranks, without serving a probation, and when his engagement or period of service is completed, he is at liberty to retire without forfeiting his ministerial character, or incurring the censure of his brethren, and take a more circumscribed field of labour. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 383 Representation in the Annual Conferences differs ma- terially from that of the General Conference. The representation in the latter body is a vmiisterial and lay representation, consisting- of an equal number of minis- ters and laymen, who are the representatives of the ministers and laymen of the whole Church. The rep- resentation in the Annual Conference is not a repre- sentation of ministers and laymen, but a representation of the respective circuits and stations of the district, comprising all descriptions of persons in Church fellow- ship. Tliis distinction should be carefully borne in mind, if we wish to understand the peculiarities of our system, and avoid the confusion a misapprehension and miscalling of these things will produce in the minds of the people and preachers. The business of the General and Annual Conferences is also dissimilar. It is the province of tlie General Conference to make rules and regulations for every department of the Church: but to the Annual Confer- ences no power to legislate is given, except the forma- tion of a few rules necessary to their existence and continuance — to make such special rules and regula- tions as the peculiarities of the district may require — to prescribe and regulate the mode of stationing the minis- ters and preachers within the district — to make its own rules and regulations for the admission and government of coloured members, and to make for them such terms of suffrage as the Annual Conferences respectively may deem proper. The General Conference is the legislature of the Church; and the Annual Conferences are executive or working bodies. The former is the law-making de- partment; the latter are the working departments of the 384 HISTORY OF THE Church, and have a representation pecuhar to their character and business. The organization of the Annual Conferences is simply an improvement on the composition of those in the Metho- dist Episcopal Churcli, so as to admit a representation from the circuits and stations, and to give to the people a voice in stationing the preachers. The principal improvements consist in the annual election of delegates by the circuits and stations, equal in number and authority with the itinerant ministers, possessed of a check power by a separate vote: and the stationing power being placed in tlie hands of the conference, by which means the circuits and stations participate in the act of stationing as well as the preachers who are stationed: and thus exercise the right of selecting their ministers, so far as that can be done consistently with a regular and periodical change of ministers. These improvements involve principles of great consequence to the whole Church. By means of her delegates, the Methodist Protestant Church has a voice in the admission, government, and examination of the characters and abilities of the itinerant preachers : and, also, in the formation of rules for raising money to meet the expenses of the itinerancy. Without this, we should have what obtains in the old Church, taxation without representation ; preachers admitted and stationed by themselves, without the smallest participation on the part of the circuits and stations. If any object to the term taxation, it will avail nothing. The preachers must be paid, and the people must raise the money, or suffer in their credit as a religious com- munity. The allowance is fixed and must be forth- coming, and is, therefore, fully equivalent to taxation. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 385 There are several other important improvements on the old system, but we shall not notice them in this place. The composition of the Annual Conferences is of a mixed character, partly representative and partly not, as is seen from the article autliorizing their organization. The ministers under the stationing authority are empow- ered to take seats in virtue of that relation. This ap- peared indispensably necessary. As each of these are to receive an appointment from the conference to labour on some circuit or station, or missionary field — to render an account of their labours during the past year — to undergo an examination of their official character and duties — to receive an appointment for the ensuing year, and to exercise their right of appeal when necessary, it was, therefore, deemed indispensable that they all be admitted to membersliip in the Annual Conference. But as there were other interests to be consulted as well as those of the itinerant ministers, each of the circuits and stations were authorized to elect and send up to con- ference, delegates equal in number and power with the itinerant ministers, to represent and guard the interests of the unstationed ministers and the members of the respective circuits and stations. These delegates con- stitute the true and only representatives in the Annual Conferences, and may be selected from the unstationed ministers and preachers, or from the lay brethren. Though the itinerant ministers have equal power in a vote with the delegates, they cannot be considered in the light of delegates from the circuits and stations, unless we admit the absurd notion of representation where there is no election. 33 386 HISTORY OF THE In pui'suiug tlie subject of representation, we must not omit to notice the leaders meetings and Quarterly Coulereuces. These were borrowed from the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, and, so far as their composition is concerned, tliey are nearly similar. The only difference is, the introduction of tlie trustees into tlie Quarterly Conferences. This addition we conceive to be a valu- able improvement, as tliose represent the property inte- rests of tlie circuit or station. Though the composi- tion of the leaders meeting and Quarterly Conferences are nearly similar \vith those of the old Church, yet the difference in character is very great. The leaders meeting in the Methodist Episcopal Chm-ch, is nothing more than an assemblage of the preacher's officers, ap- ])ointed by him and subject to his removal at pleasure. While the leaders meeting in die Mediodist Protestant Church, is an assembly of the representatives of the classes, elected by tiie classes, and subject to their re- moval. The same difference is seen in the Quarterly Conferences. Though nearly similar in composition, thev differ 'materially in character. Those of the old Church being little more than collections of preacher's officers, completely under his intiueuce-, while a large majoritv of the nienibei-s of the Quarterly Conferences of the new Church are the representatives of the people. For the leaders, stewards and trustees are all elected by the people, and consequently, feel a degree of inde- pendence of ministerial patronage, and a freedom from improper bias or control. Their measures and decisions, are to be received as the acts of the Church, performed by her represeyitatices, who are not responsible to the ministers, but to their constituents for the faithful ad- ministration of their official duties. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 387 The composition of our Quarterly Conferences is of a mixed character, partly representative, and partly not. All the ministers, preachers and exhorters, beloni^ng to the circuit or station beini^ admitted to seats. These represent no constituents, but have seats in virtue of ministerial cliaracter. They have a vote, in common with the other members of the Quarterly Conference, but possess no check power. The common interest must be plead as the reason for their admission. The unsta- tioned ministers and preachers being assistant pastors, and required to labour in the Word and doctrine, must necessarily render an account somewhere and undergo an examination of character. Not being under the sta- tioning authority of the Annual Conference, nor account- able to that body, and their ministerial labours and fair- ness of character being of great importance to the Church, it became indispensably necessary that they should have a seat and vote in the Quarterly Conference, and be there accountable; and, that, that body have au- thority to give an efficient direction to their labours. Moreover, it was in the power of these men, to have retained a seat in the Annual Conference, as under the Conventional Articles, but they magnanimously yielded privilege and power for the common good. Thus we have endeavoured to exhibit the true cha- racter of the representation in the Methodist Protestant Church. The General Conferences being the legislative department of the whole Church, has a representation composed of an equal number of ministers and laymen, ha\ing a mutual check on each other. The Annual Con- ferences being executive or working bodies, have a rep- resentation from the circuits and stations equal in num- ber and authority with the itinerant ministers, and a check power. 388 HISTORY OF THE The Quarterly Conferences have also a. mixed com- position, well calculated to promote and secure the common interests of all concerned. While the leaders meetings are purely representative. The Itinerancy. — By an itinerancy we mean, a system for the periodical interchange of ministers. This differs from what is called a stated ministry. The Lutheran, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal and some other Churches, have a stated ministry, the congregations elect their ministers, who serve them as permanent pas- tors, not subject to removal, except by consent of the contracting parties. While Methodists, of nearly all descriptions, change their ministers. — An itinerancy may be made efficient under a despotic, or a representa- tive form of Church government. In the former case, however, there must exist a disposition on tlie part of the people to yield all to the entire control of the preachers. The stationing authority may be in the hands of irresponsible bishops, or in those of the Annual Conference, without necessarily destroying an itinerancy; but, the very existence of an itinerancy depends upon the periods of change. If these be very much protract- ed, or made to depend for their ultimate termination on contingent circumstances, there will be great danger that the system will finally be merged into Congregationalism ; or, which is more to be dreaded, a system of bargain and sale of preachers. To preserve the itinerancy of our Churcli, and prevent so sad an issue, the constitution for- bids the General Conference to pass any rule " to au- thorize the Annual Conferences to station their ministers and preachers longer than three years, successively, in the same circuit, and two years, successively, in the same station." METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 389 The itinerant " ministry of the Methodist Protestant Church consists of that part of her ministers who la- bour under the direction of the respective Annual Con- ferences, and are ultimately accountable to those bodies for their official conduct. The remaining portion of the ministers are called unstationed ministers, because they are not under the stationing authority of the Annual Conference; and have no particular station or circuit assigned them by that authority, nor are responsible to the Annual Conference. — Yet the constitution recognizes them as assistant pastors, in the circuits and stations wherein they respectively reside ; and requires of them " all the pastoral service they can render consistently with their other engagements," and makes them respon- sible to the Quarterly Conference of their circuit or station. Here it should be carefully borne in mind, that not- withstanding one part of our ministers ai-e under the stationing authority of the Annual Conference and called itinerant, and the remainder are not, yet, the two por- tions constitute one body of ministers, united as fellow- labourers in promoting the great interests of the Re- deemer's Kingdom, and in building up and establishing our Zion. Every effort put forth to exalt the one at the expense of the other is suicidal in its nature, and has a direct tendency to alienate the affections of the breth- ren and to do serious injury to the Church at large. The best interests of our Zion will be consulted by encouraging both descriptions of ministers, and obtain- ing from them all the ministerial labour they may be able and willing to perform, in their respective spheres of action. 33* 390 HISTORY OF THE In consequence of the itinerant ministers giving their whole time to the active duties of the ministry, and sub- jecting themselves to the direction of the stationing au- thority of the Annual Conference, the constitution and discipline award to them the special oversight of the circuits and stations to which they may be appointed, and the execution of discipline. The particular over- sight of the Churches and execution of discipline in an itinerancy must be lodged in some hands. There must of necessity be some executive officers for the discharge of executive duties, Avho have the requisite time for their due performance. In our system, the general oversight of a district is placed in the hands of an elder, who is termed the President of the Annual Conference. He is elected annually by the conference, but is not eligible more than three years successively, and is amenable to that body for his official conduct. The special over- sight of each circuit and station is lodged in the hands of an elder called the superintendent. The duties of these as well as those of the president, are particularly de- scribed in the constitution and discipline, to which the reader is referred for further information. All the other ministers and preachers, stationed and unstationed, are viewed as assistants, and have their respective duties to perform; and, the whole are accountable directly to the representatives of the people. The main advantages of an itinerant ministry lie in the three following particulars. First, a periodical change of ministers. Secondly, the facilities Avith which Churches are multiplied. And thirdly, the speedy, cheap, and certain spread of the Gospel. 1 . A periodical change of ministers. Experience and observation have fully proven, that an occasional change METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 391 of ministers is productive of great spiritual good to the Churches. It is true, that a change of ministers may be carried to an injurious extreme, and produce a species of religious dissipation incompatible with a growth in knowledge and grace ; but this is not a necessary con- sequence, attendant on an itinerant system, the object being to give a salutary change, and not one of injurious frequency. In almost every case that has come under our own observation, where a permanent minister has had the pastoral charge of a single congregation, a few years service has produced a dead calm, and a lamenta- ble state of barrenness. And if at any period the con- gregation has been roused from its lethargic state, it has been in consequence of the labours of some strange minister, whom God in his good Providence has sent along as a refreshing shower to water the parched •ground. An itineiant system furnishes a periodical change of ministers, and with these, a variety of talents and acquirements. This practice is generally followed by happy effects. For before one minister becomes un- interesting, and consequently unprofitable, another takes his place — a new impulse is given, and the work goes on with continued energy. It is argued by some, that a permanent or stated ministry has this advantage : The ministers being resident with their congregations, have it in tlieir power to bestow upon them more intimate and regular pastoral service than they could were they only occasional visitors, once in two or four weeks. But here it must be observed, that this comparison can only hold with circuits and not with stations; for each of the latter having a stated minister for one or two years in succes- sion, enjoy all the benefits for the time being, of a per- manent pastor ; and in addition, the great advantage of a 392 HISTORY OF THE change at the expiration of the minister's period of ser- vice. — From our own observations, for the last forty years, facts liave confirmed us in tlie opinion, that two years in succession, is a period sufficiently long for any minister to remain in one station. We liave uniformly found, that by the expiration of that period, a change was desirable and generally proved profitable. 2. Another advantage of an itinerancy lies in the facilities the system furnishes for the multiplication of Churches. With a settled ministry Churches are planted and sustained only in comparatively wealthy neighbourhoods, the poor and thinly inhabited districts of country necessarily remain without Churches until they acquire the ability to support each a minister. But with an itinerant ministry, Churches may be multi- plied and sustained in any section of country, no matter how sparse or indigent the population. Because the expense of supporting a minister, instead of being made to rest on one congregation, may be divided among five, ten or twenty societies, and thus be made so light to each as to be borne witliout inconvenience. 3. This plan furnishes likewise, the very best facili- ties for the speedy and general spread of the Gospel, of any other in use among all the Churches. For by plant- ing Churches in every neighbourhood, the whole extent of any country may be covered, and the Gospel carried to the very door of every man's residence. The system will produce similar effects to any extent. If it be argued, that those Churches who employ a stated minis- try, labour to spread the Gospel by missionaries. Ad- mitted. — But what can those missionaries effect as pio- neers for a stated ministry > They may succeed in plant- ing Churches in cities and villages to be occupied by METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 393 permanent ministers, but the great mass of the commu- nity must remain destitute of a regular supply until cir- cumstances will justify the establishment of settled min- isters. Not so with an itinerancy. This being mis- sionary in all its operations, plants as it expands, and forms Churches, not only in cities and villages, but in all the surrounding country where the means of support are less abundant. These advantages are real. They have been practi- cally exhibited by the intinerant operations of Metho- dists both in England, and in this country. They stand out in bold relief, and force conviction on the mind of every unprejudiced observer. Every thing should therefore, be done to sustain and perpetuate our system of itinerancy, especially as it has been providentially ' freed from clerical despotism, and is so modeled as to secure the rights, privileges, and interests of all con- cerned. All unnecessary tampering with the constitu- tion, should be rejected promptly, no matter how spe- cious the reasons for change. — Let us test our system fully by practice, lest we subject ourselves to the impu- tation of being theoretical novices. It should here be stated, what is freely admitted, that tlie benefits enjoyed by tlie Church through the agency of an itinerant ministry are, under God, obtained in the general at the expense of the labour and comfort of the itinerants. It is true many of them are much elevated in life by their connexion with the itinerancy, but not- withstanding this, the faithful itinerant minister will have to suffer many afflictions, but he will also have many consolations. If it will not be thought too dis- couraging, some of his afflictions might be mentioned. He who becomes an itinerant may calculate on his la- 394 HISTORY OF THE bours being greatly increased and his privations multi- plied. Except when in a station, his person will occa- sionally be exposed to the vicissitudes of the seasons. His residence will be frequently changed. His means for the support and education of his family will be lim- ited, and at times inadequate. The idea of pinching want in advanced life will frequently harass him. And tlie occasional barren state of Churches and individuals on whom much labour had been bestowed, will yield no little discouragement, while labouring for the Church and the salvation of sinners. These are appalling con- siderations, but there are others of a consoling character, which serve as off-sets to them. A few of these may be mentioned. The itinerant is relieved from worldly business with all its multifarious cares, perplexities and uncertainties — ample time is furnislied for storing his mind with the knowledge of divine things, and an exten- sive field for usefulness is opened before him. Being constantly engaged in spiritual things, his own soul must partake largely in heavenly comfort. His extensive intercourse with the followers of Christ, and the hearty welcome he meets with in the families and in the Churches, cannot fail to yield him great solace. And then, the prospect of being instrumental, under God, who has promised to be with him always, of winning many souls from the error of their ways — of diminish- ing human misery and adding to the stock of virtue and happiness, is cheering in the highest degree. — And finally, while he goes forth weepings bearing precious seed, he has a blessed hope, founded on the immutable promise of God, of returning again, bearing his sheaves, and of presenting them to the Redeemer at the last day, and of receiving the plaudit, " well done good and faith- ful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.'''' METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 395 CHAPTER XXII. STATISTICS OF THE METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 1842. MARYLAND DISTRICT. Boundaries. — Tliis District includes the States of Ma- ryland and Delaware, that part of Pennsylvania lying east of the Alleghany Mountains, and not embraced within the Pennsylvania District, and Accomac, North- ampton, Fairfax, Berkley, Frederick, Hampshire and Hardy Counties in Virginia. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. Si Preach. Min. &. Preach. Members. 12. 24. 10. 68. 76. 9378.* There are in tliis District 1 35 Houses of Worship ; valued at ^154,600. Other property, such as Burial Grounds, Preachers' Dwelling Houses, &c., $6,000. VIRGINIA DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District irffcludes all the State of Virginia, not included within the Maryland and Pitts- burg Districts. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. Si Preach. Members. 2. 10. 5. 18. 18. 1943. There are in the Virginia District 31 Houses of Wor- ship; valued at $31,150. NOR-PH CAROLINA DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the State of North Carolina. •The number of Church members in the Maryland district is brought up to April, 1843. The increase in this district during the past conference year amounts to 2366. 396 HISTORY OF THE Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. &. Preacli. Min. & Preach. Members. 4. 25. 18. 2758. In this District there are 37 Houses of Worship; valued at $8,675. SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the State of South Carolina. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. 1. 2. 7. 8. 1428. There are in" this District 9 Houses of Worship; valued at $29,500. GEORGIA DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the State of Georgia, and the Territory of East Florida. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. Sc. Preach. Mill. & Preach. Members. 6. 3. 22. 16. 1134. Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. ALABAMA DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes that part of the State of Alabama, lying south of the Tennessee river and the Territory of West Florida. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. 3. II. 4. 49. 16. 2611. There are in this District 91 Houses of Worship; valued at $34,000. Other property, $3,000. TENNESSEE DISTRICT. Boundaries.— This District includes the State of Tennessee, that part of the State of Kentucky lying south of the Kentucky river, and that part of the State of Alabama lying north of the Tennessee river. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 397 Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preacli. Min. & Prcacb. Members. 1. 12. 5. 32. 29. 2140. Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT. Boundanes. — This District includes the States of Mississippi and Louisianna. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preacli. Members. — 12. 1. 31. 15. 1089. There are in this District 38 Houses of Worship ; valued at $9,100. ARKANSAS DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the States of Arkansas and Missouri, and the Territories lying west thereof. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. — 5. 4. 19. 8. 936. Number of Houses of W^orship not ascertained. ILLINOIS DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the State of Illi- nois, tlie Territory of Iowa, and all the Territories lying west thereof Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Prcacb. Min. & Preach. Members. 1. 20. 5. 40. 55. 2455. There are in this District 14 Houses of Worship; valued at $7,200. MICHIGAN DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the State of Michigan, and that part of Indiana known as tha La- porte Mission. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. &. Preach. Members. — 8. 1. 19. 9. 600. Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. 34 398 HISTORY OF THE INDIANA DISTRICT. This District includes the State of Indiana, with the exception of that part known as the Laporte Mission. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. &. Preacli. Members. — 10. 4. 42. 38 3071. Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. OHIO DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes that part of the State of Ohio lying west of the Sciota and Sandusky rivers, excepting the counties of Crawford, Seneca and Sandusky, and that part of the State of Kentucky lying north of the Kentucky river. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. &, Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. 1. 15. 1. 31. 57. 4427. Thefe are in the Ohio District 36 Houses of Wor- ship; valued at $31,000. Burial Ground in Cincinnati, $10,000. PITTSBURG DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes that part of the State of Ohio lying east of the Ohio District, that part of the State of Pennsylvania lyirig west of the Alle- ghany Mountains, and not embraced within the Pennsyl- vania District, and that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany and north of the Cumber- land Mountains. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. 11. 45. 7. 95. 122. 12,000.* Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. *The increase of members in the Pittsburg District for the last conference year is supposed to be fully two thousand. METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 399 PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District begins at the junction of the Lehigh and Delaware rivers, and runs thence by a direct line to Harrisburg, including that city ; thence by tlie Susquehanna river to the mouth of the Juniatta; thence up the Juniatta to the dividing line of Mifflin and Huntingdon counties ; thence by a direct line due north into Alleghany county, New York, so far as to embrace Broome county by a line due east ; thence by the north- east and east lines of Broome county, to the Delaware, and thence, by said river to the place of beginning. Stationed Unstationed Smions. Circuits. Missions. IMin. & Treacli. Min. & Pioacli. Members. 2. 6. 3. 17. 21. 1177. Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. NEW YORK AND NEAV JERSEY DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the States of New Jersey and Connecticut, and that part of the State of New York lying south and east of a line beginning at the north-west corner of Sullivan county on the Dela- ware river, and running thence northerly to the south- west corner of Montgomery county ; thence easterly to Lansingburg on the Nortli river, including that toAvn : thence south by said river to Troy, and thence easterly to the north-west corner of Massachusetts, including Long and Staten Islands. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. 7. 21. — 34. — 2363. There are in this District 26 Houses of Worship; valued at $53,000. GENESEE DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District commences at the point where the Old Pre-emption line intersects Lake Ontario, 400 HISTORY OF THE and runs thence in a direct line to the foot of Seneca Lake ; thence up the middle of said Lake to the line of the Pennsylvania District; thence west to the north-west corner of said District; thence south to the southern boundary line of the State of New York; thence by said State line to Lake Erie, and thence by said Lake to the Niagara river and Lake Ontario, to the place of beginning. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Miu. & Preach. Members. — 10. ^ 21. 9. 900. In tlie Genesee District there are 4 Houses of Wor- ship ; valued at |7,500. CHAMPLAIN DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District commences at the north- east corner of the State of New York, and runs thence along the western line of the Vermont District to the south-west corner of Montgomery county ; thence north- westerly in a direct line to the mouth of Oswego river, thence along Lake Ontario and the River St. Lawrence to the line of Lower Canada, and thence by said line to the place of beginning. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. 1. 7. — 11. — 785. Number of Houses of Worship not ascertained. ONONDAGUA DISTRICT. Bmmdaries. — This District commences at the point where the Old Pre-emption line intersects Lake Ontario, and runs thence southerly, bounding on the Genesee Dis- trict, to the line of the Pennsylvania District; thence along said line to tlie Delaware river ; thence northerly to the south-west corner of Montgomery county ; thence north-westerly in a direct line to the mouth of the Os- METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH. 401 wego river, and tlience by Lake Ontario to the place of beginning. Stationed Unstationcd Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. &. Preach. Members. 2. 13. — 21. 6. 887. There are in this District 4 Houses of Worship; valued at $3,500. ' VERMONT DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District commences at the south- east corner of tlie State of Vermont, and runs thence westerly to Lansingburg, on the North river, leaving the town in the New York District ; thence westerly to the south-west corner of Montgomery county ; thence north- erly along the west boundary of Montgomery and Ful- ton counties •, thence from the north-west corner of Ful- ton county easterly opposite the town of Athol ; thence along tlie western boundary of Athol and Johnsburg, as far nortli as tlie south line of Elizabethtown; thence easterly along the south line of Elizabethtown to Lake Champlain; thence down the Lake to the Canada line; tlience east to the north-west corner of New Hampshire, and thence to the place of beginning. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. & Preach. Min. & Preach. Members. — 14. — 21. 4. 893. BOSTON DISTRICT. Boundaries. — This District includes the Stales of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachussetts, and Rhode Island. Stationed Unstationed Stations. Circuits. Missions. Min. &. Preach. Min. &. Prcacli. Members. 5. 4. 2. 12. — 900. We regret exceedingly, that we could only ascertain the number and value of the Churches for eleven Con- ferences out of twenty-one. 403 RECAPITULATION. r ./ Min- ach. ANNUAL g Q c ^ CONFERENCES. 1 S •§ Ji Statioi 1 .2 V. 2 1 1 Momb Maryland, 12 24 10 68 76 9,378 Virginia, 2 10 5 18 18 1,943 North Carolina, — 4 25 18 2,758 South Carolina, 1 2 7 8 1,428 Georgia, . — 6 3 22 16 1,134 Alabama, 3 11 4 49 16 2,611 Tennessee, 1 12 5 32 29 2,140 Mississippi, . — 12 31 15 1,089 Arkansas, 5 4 19 8 936 Illinois, 1 20 5 40 55 2 455 Michigan, 8 1 19 9 'eoo Indiana, 10 4 42 38 3,071 Ohio, 15 1 31 57 4,427 Pittsburg, 11 45 7 95 122 12,000 Pennsylvania, . 2 6 3 17 21 1,177 IN . I one OL iN . J ersey , 7 91 Oi 2,363 Genesee, . 10 21 9 900 Champlain, . 1 7 11 785 Onondagua, 2 13 21 6 887 Vermont, 14 21 4 893 Boston, 5 4 2 12 900 Total, 49 259 52 634 525 53,875 Stationed Ministers and Preachers, 634 Unstationed " " " 525 Whole number, . 55,034 Whole number of Houses of Worship, so far as reported, 421 Estimated value of Church property, so far as reported, $412,225 THE END. DATE DUE I