6X?3 83 SecttOQ Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive in 2014 littps://arcliive.org/details/constitutionalpaOObuck_0 OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR Theory and Practice of Foreign Missions. The Nathan Graves Foundation Lectures dehvered before Syracuse University, limo. Net, 75 cents. The Fundamentals and Their Contrasts. The Quillian Lectures for 1905. 12mo. Net, $1.00. Christians and the Theater. 12mo. 60 cents. A Hereditary Consumptive's Successful Battle FOR Life. 12mo. 50 cents. Paper, 30 cents. Travels in Three Continents. Europe, Africa, and Asia. Illustrated. 8vo. $2.50. Extemporaneous Oratory. Crown 8vo. $1.50. Faith-Healing, Christian Science, and Kindred Phenomena. Crown 8vo. $1.25. A History of Methodists in the United States. 8vo. Net, $2.00. ( OCT 23 1912 CONSTITUTIONAL ^^^Sioo,^ AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH BY/ JAMES M. BUCKLEY NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & GRAHAM Copyright, 1912, by JAMES M. BUCKLEY CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Explanatory vii FROM EMBURY TO COKE I. John Wesley and Wesleyan Methodism 3 II. Wesleyan Methodism in America 8 III. American Methodism Organized 16 IV. The First Ecclesiastical Conflict 24 V. A Commissioner with Extraordinary Powers 37 A CHURCH IN THE MAKING VI. Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. . . 47 VII. The Initial Years of the Church 51 VIII. A Hazardous Experiment 58 IX. The First Regular General Conference 64 X. The Struggle, Defeat, and Secession of James O'Kelly 70 XI. The General Conference of 1796 81 XII. The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804 87 XIII. Growing Demand for Equitable Methods of Legis- lation 93 XIV. The Last Nondelegated General Conference 101 XV. Comments on Preceding Chapter 114 THE CREATION OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION XVI. The Word "Constitution" 121 XVII. The "Constitution of the General Conference". . . . 128 XVIII. Radical Differences Between the Constitution of THE Methodist Episcopal Church and that of the United States 133 INTERPRETATION OF THE SEPARATE PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION XIX. Essentials of a Constitutional General Confer- ence 139 XX. Dates of Regular General Conferences and Methods of Convening Them 146 XXI. The General Conference Ready for Business 151 XXII. The First Restrictive Rule 157 XXIII. The Third Restrictive Rule 170 XXIV. The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) 184 V CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE XXV. The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) 193 XXVI. The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) 201 XXVII. The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) 209 XXVIII. The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) 222 XXIX. Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Restrictive Rules, and the Proviso for Change of Restrictive Rules. 228 CANADIAN METHODISM'S SEPARATION FROM THE METH- ODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES XXX. Separation of Canadian Methodism from the Meth- odist Episcopal Church 237 BISECTION OF THE CHURCH IN 1844-45 XXXI. The Bisection of the Church 249 XXXII. The Bisection of the Church (Continued) 256 XXXIII. The Bisection of the Church (Continued) 265 XXXIV. The Bisection of the Church (Continued) 277 XXXV. Final Change in the Discipline in Regard to Slavery 286 XXXVI. Lay Delegation 290 XXXVII. Lay Delegation (Continued) 298 XXXVIII. Lay Delegation (Continued) 307 XXXIX. Lay Delegation (Concluded) 312 XL. The Revision of the Constitution 321 PRINCIPAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION XLI. The Presiding Eldership 329 XLII. The Presiding Eldership (Continued) 339 XLIII. Proposed Veto Power for Bishops 348 XLIV. "Bishops for Races and Languages" 354 PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY XLV. Beginnings of Organization 359 XLVI. Progressive Enlargement 364 XLVII. Some Decisions by the Bishops 369 XLVIII. Rational Rules and their Rational Use 374 XLIX. "Without Debate" 380 L. An Unparalleled Free School of Parliamentary Law 387 Bibliography 401 Index 407 EXPLANATORY This volume is not intended to be a general history of Methodism, nor of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is divided into two unequal parts. The first, and by far the larger, is devoted to the history of the Consti- tution of the Methodist Episcopal Church, tracing it from its incipiency through the vicissitudes of the one hundred years of its existence. It deals with documents, debates, and persons, with officers and orders. General, Annual, and Quarterly Conferences, with the United States, South America, Europe, India and other parts of Asia, and Africa, and islands of the sea. so far as Churches and Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church in those countries are affected by the Constitution. The second part relates to the parliamentary history of the denomination ; but in no sense is it intended to be a complete discussion of that subject. It does, however, attempt to emphasize the importance of debate, its methods and its generic rules, and to show that frequently parliamentary tactics exert almost — and some- times entirely — as much influence in the final disposition of resolutions as the intrinsic value of the subject under consideration. Quotations are complete upon the subjects they treat, and are numerous to prevent the misunderstanding so common when the words of an author are substituted by those of the writer of the book. It will be observed that in most cases academic and honorary titles have been omitted. This was done for the vii viii EXPLANATORY purpose of brevity ; and the names are so well known, in most instances, as to make titles superfluous. With respect to this work : If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: hut if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. — 2 Maccabees, chapter 15, verse 38. FROM EMBURY TO COKE CHAPTER I John Wesley and Wesleyan Methodism Who, among those that heard John Weslev forbidden to preach in the church of which his father had been rector for foi"ty years, and of which he himself had been curate, could have dreamed that above twenty-five millions of adhei'ents to the society which he founded would, in every part of the habitable globe, on the two hundredth anniversary of his birth, gratefully mention his name and accord to his memory the reverence due a genuine apostle of Christ? Or who, among those that followed him to the grave, could have imagined that Episcopal Methodism, organized under his auspices in the United States of America, would, at the dawn of the twentieth century, number nearly twice as many com- municants as the thirteen colonies had inhabitants when they declared themselves to be "of right free and inde- pendent" ? the foundation builder The civilized world recognizes John Wesley, an alum- nus of Oxford University, sometime Fellow of Lincoln College, and a presbyter of the Church of England, as the founder of American Methodism. On the paternal side, descended from a line of scholars and clergymen, and of devout and intellectual Christiaus on the maternal, both ancestral traditions and personal training contributed to his religious development and choice of the ministry. His brother Charles was the originator of the movement at Oxford to which was applied the then opprobrious term "Methodist," and with him were associated a num- 3 4 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ber of students, of whom the most famous was George Whitefield. John Wesley's was the strongest, and proved to be the dominating, personalitj-. At the beginning of his minis- try he was a High Churchman and as ascetic as a monk. Controlled by those views, and almost fanatical in the reduction of them to practice, he came to the continent of North America as a missionary to the Indians of Georgia and also to act as rector of the Church of England in Savannah. There the sternness of his rule, together with various extravagances of speech and judgment, so em- barrassed his work that he returned to England, reaching there early in 1738. Having met on his voyages and while in Georgia certain German Christians, Lutherans, and especially several Moravians, he came to the conclusion that he had not yet understood the conditions or the nature of genuine Christian experience, and thereafter concentrated his intellectual and moral powers upon its attainment. After various mental and spiritual conflicts, on the evening of Wednesday, May 24, 1738, in a society of earnest Christians in London, he "felt his heart strangely warmed," and "an assurance was given" to him that Christ had taken away his sins. The full account of this transformation belongs to the universal literature of the Christian Church. Not long after this he visited the Moravians in Ger- many, and on his return to England began to attend meetings of societies similar to that in which he found peace, speaking therein whenever he could obtain a hear- ing. These were small associations organized in London and vicinity, to promote a deeper religious life than was commonly attained or sought for, and were composed chiefly of members of the Church of England. Whitefield had already begun to preach in the open air, JOHN WESLEY AND WESLEYAN METHODISM 5 but Wesley, as yet, preached only in the churches which invited him; and though he was seldom admitted for a second time, some hearers eagerly followed him. The Archbishop of Canterbury cited Charles Wesley to Lam- beth, and threatened him with excoinmunicatioa for preaching in the open air ; but, encouraged by Whitefield, both he and his brother did so almost incessantly. As the societies increased in number Wesley prepared a plan for those who were ready to work, involving preaching by each one every evening, sometimes in the afternoon, and at least three times each Sunday. Wesley being an Arminiau, and Whitefield a Calvinist of rigid type, they soon separated on account of doctrinal differences. As Wesley's organization was much stronger than that of Whitefield, it grew faster and was the object of greater hostility. Mobs spontaneously arose against outdoor preachers, and especially against Methodists, and others were frequently instigated or promoted by parish priests and civil officers. Charges were made against the Methodists of sympathy with the Roman Catholic efforts to restore the house of Stuart to the English throne; nevertheless, the movement spread rapidly, and within three years there were twenty-three itinerant preachers under the superintendence of Wesley, besides local preachers, who supported themselves and held meetings in adjacent towns and villages. Several clergymen of the Chm*ch of England publicly gave him their counte- nance by attending his services, preaching in them, con- tributing financially to their support and inducing others to do so, and also defended the Wesleys from false accusations. John Wesley had already formed the class meeting, which, beginning as a means of collecting funds for the support of the movement, was transformed, by the visits of the leader and the regular meetings of the members, C CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY into one of the most valuable agencies for guarding and training young converts and developing local and itin- erant preachers. ORIGIN OF METHODIST CONFERENCES As an aid in preserving unity, encouraging those who most suffered from mobs or social ostracism, maintaining the organization of the societies, and systematically transferring the preachers from one point to another, Wesley wrote letters to several clergymen and to his lay assistants, inviting them to meet in London and give him their ''advice respecting the best method of carrying on the work of God." In this way originated that character- istic institution. The Conference. This first Methodist Conference was held on Monday, June 25, 1744, and was composed of John and Charles Wesley, four other regular clergymen of the Church of England, and four lay preachers. After adopting resolutions for the government of the Conference, and a season of prayer, the members took up the two fundamental questions: first, "What to teach"; second, "What to do," or "How to regulate the doctrine, discipline, and practice of the ministry and the society." Two days were spent in discussing the theology which must be the basis of their preaching, and three days were devoted to rules of discipline and methods of preaching. The relations of the Methodist society to the Church of England were discussed. Wesley at this time was op- posed to encouraging a lay ministry. The Minutes record that "lay assistants are allowable only in cases of necessity." The twenty-second of these Annual Conferences con- vened at Manchester, England, August 30, 1765. There were then 25 circuits, with 71 preachers in England, 4 circuits, with as many preachers in Scotland, 2 with a JOHN WESLEY AND WESLEYAN METHODISM preacher for each in Wales, and 8 with 15 preachers in Ireland, and about 20,000 members in all. While the Conference discussed with freedom every question and expressed its sentiments by votes, the final decision in every case was with John Wesley ; his rule was absolute. Wesley's defense against the charge of usurpation At the close of the Conference in 1766 he delivered a remarkable address, describing the manner in which the societies and Conferences had involved him in his re- sponsibilities, and said: I did not seek any part of this power; it came upon me un- awares; but when it was come, not daring to bury that talent, 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 yet 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. Preaching twice or thrice a day is no burden to me at all; but the care of all the preachers and of all the people is a burden indeed. It should never be overlooked that Wesley, tliough a clergyman of the Church of England, was engaged in forming societies and not a Church; he instructed those whom he baptized to be confirmed in the Church of England, but did not require members of other com- munions who affiliated with him to disconnect themselves with the body in which they had been trained. The socie- ties were of his creation ; he was the sole arbiter, rule- maker, judge, and administrator. Hence his government was not a usurpation, and those who disliked it were under no moral or religious obligation to remain with him. CHAPTER II Wesleyan Methodism in America The rear 173!) is universally recognized as the one in which the general Methodist awakening and movement in England began; and it flourished there twent\'-one years before a single Wesleyan Methodist appeared in the territory now included in the United States of America. A company of emigrants from Ireland arrived in New York on August 10, 1760. Among them were several fol- lowers of John Wesley. One of these, Philip Embury, a carpenter by trade, with an unusual degree of education for one in his position, had served as a Wesleyan local preacher. Five years later another vessel brought over five families, most of whom were related to Embury; these also settled in New York. Nothing concerning any of them as Methodists is known prior to an event which, though small in itself, proved to be critical. EMBURY AND BARBARA HECK How Mrs. Barbara Heck, who came over with Embury, her cousin, surprised, while they were playing cards, some of the last to arrive; how she threw the cards into the fire, and having warned the players of their danger and duty, went to the house of Embury, told what she had seen and done and appealed to him to cry aloud and spare not, and show the people their sins, and gaining his consent, collected four persons, who with herself made the congregation, is many times more than a twice-told tale; but, like the act of the woman who broke the ala- baster box of precious ointment, it will be told round the whole world while Methodism lasts. 8 i WESLEYAN METHODISM IN AJVIERICA 9 After the sermon Embury enrolled the five in a class. The exact date of this first Methodist class meeting is not know n, but that it was in the latter part of the year 17(iG is certain. The congregation soon became too large for the house. Embury fully understood and scrupulously followed Wesley's plan, and in a few months two classes of adherents were formed, one of men and the other of women. A room to be used for religious services was rented near the British army quarters. The singing was so much more spirited than that of the Established Church that three musicians attended the service to hear and participate, and were converted. Embury promptly licensed them as exhorters. The poor furnished the majority of the followers. The superintendent of the almshouse invited Embury to preach there, many paupers were converted, and the su- perintendent hiiuself yielded to powerful appeals which were supported by the conduct and testimony of the inmates. CAPTAIN WEBB An event of the first importance to the infant society was the appearance at one of the meetings early in 1767, of a British oflBcer in uniform. The Methodists were somewhat startled, fearing that he was there to question them about the conversion of the musicians and others connected with the army. Taking no part in the exer- cises, he, nevertheless, bore himself so reverently as to show that he" was not hostile. At the close he informed Embury that he was "Captain Thomas Webb, of the King's Service," that "he was also a soldier of the cross," and "a spiritual son of John Wesley," and that he had been "authorized by John Wesley to preach." Three years previously he had heard Wesley and become a zealous Christian; he joined the Methodist Society, 10 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY and being in a congregation at Bath when the circuit preacher failed to come, advanced to the altar and re- counted with thrilling effect the facts of his personal experience. Wesley heard of it and licensed him as a lay preacher. His services to the growing society and to Methodism were not surpassed, except by those of Rankin and Asbury, by any Englishman who came to this coun- try in the earliest period. In 17G8 the society leased the site in John Street, New York city, purchasing it two years later. There was no expectation of founding a I'eligious denomination ; in- deed, they avowed the contrary. Webb retired with full pay as captain and settled in Jamaica, Long Island, and there started a Methodist society. On his first visit to a town he usually formed a class, and on the second or third organized a society. He planted Methodism in Trenton, the capital of New Jersey; in Burlington, and in Philadelphia, where he preached in a "sail loft" and enrolled a class of seven members. He introduced ilethodism into Delaware and continued his tour to Baltimore. ROBERT STRAWBRIDGE During this period a Methodist movement had been spreading in ^laryland, of which the Methodists in New York had never heard. Robert Strawbridge and other Irishmen had settled in Frederick County, then a back- woods country. It is maintained by some that Straw- bridge preached the tirst sermon, formed the first society, and built the first preaching house for Methodism in Maryland and in America at least three years before Wesley Chapel in John Street was built. Strong testi- mony is adduced on both sides of this question. This controversy, being of no importance to the purpose of this work, is merely recognized here. Those who wish to see WESLEYAN METHODISM IN AMERICA 11 it more fully discussed may do so in the author's History of Methodism in the United States, published in two volumes by Harper & Brothers, and i)ublished in one vol- ume by Charles Scribner's Sons ; in Stevens's Historj/ of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and at great length in The Beginnings of the Wcsleyan Movement in America, by John Atkinson, D.D., and in Lost Chapters Recovered from the Early History of American Methodism, by J. B. Wakeley, D.D. Strawbridge built the "Log Meeting House" on Sams Creek, Maryland, and the society there established soon contributed four preachers to Methodism. He also founded the first Methodist societies in the Counties of Baltimore and Harford, Maryland, and Richard Owens, the "first native preacher'' of the continent, was one of his converts. Substantial citizens, as well as the more emotional part of the community, responded to his appeals. Whatever view may be taken of the question of pri- ority, Barbara Heck, Philip Embury, Robert Straw- bridge, and Captain Webb should always be mentioned in every account, however brief, of the origin of Methodism in America. A NEVER-TO-BE-FORGOTTEN LAYMAN Thomas Taylor, a layman, arrived in this country Oc- tober 2G, 17G7, and made the acquaintance of Embury and other Methodists. Six months later he wrote to Wesley a more important communication than the latter had previously received from America. He described White- field's three visits, and the reaction which followed, and spoke of its having pleased God to "rouse up Mr. Embury to employ his talent [which for several years had been hid, as it were, in a napkin] by calling sinners to repent- ance, and exhorting believers to let their light shine be- 12 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY fore men." Also he depicted the favorable result of the presence of Webb, detailed plans for erecting a chapel, and said : "There is another point far more material, in which 1 must importune your assistance, not only in my own name, but in the name of the whole society. We need an able and experienced preacher; one who has both gifts and grace necessary for the work." He com- mended the preaching of Webb and Embury as useful, and testified that their hearts were in the work, but added that "the progress of the gospel here depends much upon the qualifications of preachers."^ He implored Wesley to send a man of wisdom, of sound faith, and a good disciplinarian. Thus feelingly he implored him: Dear Sir: I entreat you, for the good of thousands, to use your utmost endeavors to send one over. . . . With respect to money for the payment of the preachers' passage over, if they could not procure it, we would sell our coats and shirts to procure it for them. I most earnestly beg an interest in your prayers, and trust you, and many of our brethren, will not forget the Church in this wilderness. The services of Taylor to American Methodism should never be forgotten ; he was the forerunner of a long line of laymen, wise, spiritual, self-sacrificing, and per.sever- ing. Webb and Thomas Bell also wrote. Private corre- spondence with various persons had circulated the news of the progress of Methodism. Robert Williams applied to Wesley for authority to go over and preach. This Wesley granted, on the express stipulation that when the "regularly commissioned missionaries" to be sent by Wesley should arrive, he would labor under their direc- tion. Ashton, a friend of Williams, accompanied him on the voyage to Norfolk, Virginia. Wesley's preachers arrive in America In the twenty-sixth English Conference, which began •Bangs, A History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. i, pp. 52-58, Letter of Thomas Taylor to John Wesley. WESLEYAX METHODISM IN AMERICA 13 at Leeds on the third day of August, 1769, Wesley said: "We have a pressing call from our brethren at New York, who have built a preaching house, to come over and help them. Who is willing to go? Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor. What can we do further in token of our brotherly love? Let us now take a collection among ourselves." This was immediately done, and out of it about twenty pounds was given for their passage and fifty pounds was allotted to the payment of the debt incurred in the building of the preaching house. These evangelists, differing in gifts and temperament, were able men, especially Pilmoor. Full of their mission, they speedily sailed for America, disembarking at Gloucester on the Delaware River, a few miles below PhiladelfAia. In the Minutes of the English Conference for 1770 the American continent was mentioned in the appointments for the first time, and stood thus : "America : Joseph Pil- moor, Richard Boardman, Robert Williams, John King." The number of members reported in 1771 for the "great continent of North America" was three hundred and six- teen. On the ground of such progress Wesley asked for willing missionaries to send to the United States, and five responded. Only two, Francis Asbury and Richard Wright, could be spared.^ FRANCIS ASBURY Asbury was bom near Birmingham, England, August 20, 1745, learned the trade of a blacksmith, was re- ligiously impressed and instructed by his parents, chiefly his mother, came under the influence of certain clergy- men of the English Church who sympathized with Wes- ley and the revival of pure religion, and was early con- verted and became a devout Bible student and an indus- trious reader of all good and useful books. Later he 'Wright's career in this country was comparatively insignificant, and he remained but two or three years. 14 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY visited a Methodist society, and in 1760 was ready to testify to an experience similar to the strange warming of his heart which Wesley felt. Before his seventeenth year ended he was made a class leader; at the age of eighteen he was authorized to act as local preacher ; when he was twenty-one he was made a member of Wesley's Conference. The administration of the Discipline by Boardman and Pilmoor was too lax to suit Asbury's views, the en- forcement of which aroused much opposition among the members. About a year after his arrival, a letter came from Wesley in which he required a strict attention to discipline, and appointed Asbury to act as Assistant. This placed him in charge of all the preachers, including Boardman and Pilmoor. But, when the beneficial influ- ence of discipline began to be seen and felt, many who had his rigorous methods returned rejected to confess their errors and express gratitude for his fidelity. In the meantime the work of Strawbridge had widely extended in eastern Maryland (particularly throughout his own county of Frederick), Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Many able men were led to Christ through his preaching and that of Williams and King. The historic situation presents Asbury as the vice- gerent of Wesley, superintending preachers and confirm- ing preachers and people in the Wesleyan Discipline. In the meantime Webb, having labored about six years, had returned to England in 1772 to obtain more mission- aries. His enthusiastic descriptions of the condition and prospects of the American people led Charles Wesley to regard him as a fanatic. Webb requested, almost de- manded, that Christopher Hopper and Joseph Benson, two of the foremost men in the Conference, should be sent to America, which convinced Charles Wesley that "the Captain had lost his head." WESLEYAN METHODISM IN AMERICA li UANKIN, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETIES When the English Conference met in August, Webb was permitted to address the preachers, and exhorted with such effect that George Shadford, highly esteemed by Wesley, and Thomas Rankin, one of the chief men of the Wesleyan movement, offered themselves to go in the spring of 1773. At once Wesley appointed Rankin Gen- eral Assistant, or "Superintendent of the American So- cieties." This was done on three accounts: Rankin was Asbury's senior in the itinerancy; he had had wide ex- l)erience as a disciplinarian ; and, according to his own correspondence with Wesley, Asbury's difficulties had seriously increased. Rankin Avas a Scotchman, thoroughly instructed in the Catechism, and also — "although his father was a very upright man — in music and dancing." This last accom- plishment Rankin declared tended "to obliterate the good imi)ressions that from time to time had affected his mind." At the death of his father, when he was about seventeen years of age, he became profoundly interested in experimental religion. John Haine, in 1745, had wrought miracles of gi'ace in the British army in Flanders, and the converted troops returning to England, planted Methodist societies wher- ever they went. One of these was established in Dunbar, Scotland, and there Rankin first heard Methodist doc- trine; although it was under the preaching of Whitefield that he was converted. He also heard AVesley and Alex- ander Mather, and when he was sent to America had been an itinerant minister for twelve years, wonderfully successful in preaching, skillful in governing the socie- ties, and even more unyielding than Asbury. Rankin and Shadford reached America on June 13, 1773. CHAPTER III American Methodism Organized Rankings credentials being both definite and compre- hensive, Asbury received him with due respect, and en- deavored to adapt himself to a subordinate position where he had been the hij^hest local and visible authority. This, under any circumstances, oye of the hardest tests of faith and singleness of mind, was made more severe by the fact that Rankin was an autocrat and endowed with a full measure of Scotch tenacity, while Asbury was an Englishman of a time when firmness in the whole British nation was easily intensified into obstinacy. Wesley had employed Rankin where the sternesf discipline was re- quired, and Asbury had aimed to imitate Wesley in the control and regulation of Methodism in America. FIRST AMERICAN CONFERENCE The first A))ierican Conference was held in the city of Philadelphia, beginning on July 14, 1773, and continuing in session three days. It opened with nine preachers, but Asbury, who had been detained on the New York Circuit, appeared on the second day, thus making the number correspond to that at Wesley's first Conference in Eng- land twenty-nine years before. All in attendance were natives of Europe; they were Thomas Rankin, Richard Boardman, Joseph Pilmoor, Francis Asbury, Richard Wright, George Shadford, Thomas Webb, John King, Abraham Whitworth. and Joseph Yearbry. The aggregate returns of membershi]) were l.UJO, of whom 500 were in Maryland, 100 in Vir- ginia, ISO each in New York and Philadelphia, and 200 in New Jersey. These were enrolled in classes. Prob- 16 AMERICAN METHODISM ORGANIZED 17 ably as many more considered themselves adherents, for the preachers had often formed societies without classes. This Conference unanimously adopted the foundations of organized American Methodism. For the sake of clear- ness the English style of questions and answers was adopted. The three main questions were: Question 1. Ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley, and that Conference, to extend to the preachers and the people in America as well as in Great Britain and Ireland? Answer. Yes. Question 2. Ought not the doctrine and Discipline of the Methodists, as contained in the Minutes, to be the sole rule of our conduct, who labor in the connection with Mr. Wesley in America? Answer. Yes. Question 3. If so, does it not follow that if any preachers deviate from the Minutes, we can have no fellowship with them till they change their conduct? Answer. Yes. The following rules were agreed to by all the preachers present : 1. Every preacher who acts in connection with Mr. Wesley and the brethren who labor in America is strictly to avoid ad- ministering the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. All the people among whom we labor, to be earnestly ex- horted to attend the church, and to receive the ordinances there; but in a particular manner to press the people in Maryland and Virginia to the observance of this minute. 3. No person or persons to be admitted into our love feasts oftener than twice or thrice, unless they become members; and none to be admitted to the society meetings more than thrice. 4. None of the preachers in America to reprint any of Mr. Wesley's books without his authority (when it can be gotten) and the consent of their brethren. 5. Robert Williams to sell the books he has already printed, but to print no more, unless under the above restrictions. 6. Every preacher who acts as an assistant to send an ac- count of the work once in six months to the general assistant. 18 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The first question and answer determinately expressed the allegiance of preachers and people to Wesley; the \. second determined doctrinal standards and practical rules of government, and the third made adherence to the doctrines and discipline and obedience to Wesley a condi- tion of membership. The first rule is explained by the previous European and American history of the first Quarterly Conference of which any account has been preserved, which met at the house of a member on the western shore of Maryland, December 23, 1772. Ashitry's Journal (page 57) relates that the fifth proposition considered was this: "Will the people be contented without our administering the sac- raments?" J. K, (John King) was neuter; Brother S. (Strawbridge) "pleaded for the ordinances, and so did the people, who appeared to be much biased by him." On this point Wesley had required his followers in England to submit to the Established Church and to re- ceive the Holy Communion from the parish priests. Asbury strove to preserve in this country similar sub- mission, therefore he told them he would not agree to their administering the ordinances at that time and records that he insisted on "our abiding by our rules. But Mr. B. [Boardman] had given them their way at the quarterly meeting held here before and I was obliged to connive at some things for the sake of peace Reinforced in the Conference by Rankin, this first note was passed ; and such was the influence of Asbury that the second was passed. The third explains itself ; the fifth explains the fourth ; and the sixth explains itself. From Ashunj's Journal we learn that though this first rule is in such unequivocal terms, it was adopted with the understanding that "no preacher in our connection shall be permitted to administer the ordinances at this ' Asbury's Journal, p. 57. AMERICAN METHODISM ORGANIZED 10 time; except Mr. S. [Strawbridge] and he under the particular direction of the Assistant."^ Of the fourth and fifth rules Jesse Lee, the first his- torian of American Methodism, says, '"Robert Williams . . . had reprinted many of Mr. Wesley's books, and had spread them throughout the country." But notwith- standing much good had been done, "it now became neces- sary for the preachers to be united in the same cause of printing and selling our books, so that the profits arising therefrom might be divided among the preachers or ap- plied to some charitable purpose."^ Boardman and Pilmoor, whose names do not appear in the list of appointments, remained in the country nearly six months after the adjournment of the Conference. Although they had not participated in the political con- troversies of the time, being loyal Englishmen, when they perceived that war was ine%itable, '"after commending the Americans to God," they took their departure, January 2, 1774. Notwithstanding the rigor of Rankin's administration, the society had become thoroughly consolidated, and had largely increased in membership, about a thousand being added in ten months. But Rankin's manners were so abrupt, he was so monarchical in spirit, and his course was frequently so destitute of tact, that Asbury confessed himself to have been sorely tried. At the second Conference, held in Philadelphia, May 25, 1774, no regulation of permanent importance was passed, attention being concentrated on the appoint- ments, the working of the machinery of the society, and financial ways and means. SERIOUS DISAGREEMENTS Asbury writes of this Conference: "The overbearing ^ Asbury' s Journal, vol. i. p. 80. ^History of the Methodists, pp. 48, 49. 20 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY spirit of a certain person had excited my fears. My judgment was stubbornly opposed for a while, and at last submitted to.''^ Contrary to Asbury's wish, Rankin removed him from Baltimore to New York, "to exchange with himself at Philadelphia." It is evident from Ashury's Journal that he was not as submissive to the authority of Rankin as he had required others to be to his own. He records : "It is somewhat grievous that he [Rankin] should prevent my going to lialtimore, after being acciuaiuted with my engagements, and the iini)()rtunities of my friends there." He also says : "I spoke my mind to Mr. R., but we did not agree in judgment. And it appeared to me that to make any attempt to go to Baltimore would be all in vain."^ Asbury was so dissatisfied that he wrote to Wesley concerning this matter, but his fairness of spirit was manifested by his showing his letter to Rankin before sending it. Wesley addressed a letter, March 1, 1775, to all the preachers, telling them that they were never in their lives in so critical a situation as then. Some of his sentences are worthy of perpetuation : "Do all you can to help soften all ; but beware how you adopt another's jar. . . . The conduct of T. Rankin has been suitable to the Methodist plan. I hope all of you tread in his steps." The Conference of 1775 took no action modifying the proceedings of its predecessors. The Conference of 1776 assembled in Baltimore on May 21. Asbury being ill, could not attend. Among those received on trial was Freeborn Garrettson, who was to become one of the noted men of American Methodism, and an authority on its history and traditions. The ^Asbury's Journal, vol. i, p. 112. 2Ibid.. vol. i, p. 138. AMERICAN METHODISM ORGANIZEl!) 21 membership had increased more than fifty per cent during the year. This large advance was in the South; New York, Isew Jersey, Philadelphia, overrun by soldiei's and agitated by war and rumors of war, showed an alarming decline, and Baltimore made but a slight increase. THE REVOLUTION AUy WAR July 2G was appointed as a fast day to pray for the peace of America and the prosperity of the work of God. Before that day came, the Declaration of Independence, which affected every law and civic interest of the colonies, and was destined to produce immeasurable effects ujKjn Methodism, had been submitted to the judg- ment and sympathy of the world. Notwithstanding the troubled condition of the public mind, Methodism so de- voted its energies, chiefly to increase and consolidate, that when the Conference of 1777 convened in a rural circuit in Maryland, the registry showed large gains in the membership and preaching staff. It being now considered certain that the war between England and the colonies would not cease for years, most of the preachers who came from England contemplated returning if opportunity should occur. To provide against such a contingency a committee of five was ap- pointed by the Conference to act in the place of the General Assistant. Such a superintendency by commit- tee had been proposed at a preceding informal meeting of leading preachers, including Asbury, In Stevens's His- tory of the Methodist Episeopal Church, and in Lednum's Eistory there are discrepancies between the accounts of the appointment of this committee, but it is plain that it was appointed ; and that the unpopularity of the English preachers — who were stigmatized as Tories — accounts for the absence of Asbury's name from the committee of five. 22 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Wesley's unfortunate interference The unfortunate interference of Wesley, in the Ameri- can question on the English side, had made it almost impossible for Methodist ministers, natives of England, to obtain a favorable hearing; and in various sections they were subject to insults, personal assaults, and arrest. There being but few ministei-s of the Church of Eng- land to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper, the question was raised, in this Conference, whether it would not be permissible and wise for the preachers to do so. Lee observes: "We were only a religious society, and not a Church, and any member of any Church, who would conform to our rules, and meet in a class had liberty to continue in their own Church."^ While a majority of the preachers and many of the members considered themselves members of the Church of England, documents and authentic traditions show that by birth, training, and associations many of the early American Methodists were Baptists and Presby- terians. There were also not a few birthright members of the Society of Friends. Though the official Minutes make no reference to the question of sacraments, the Journal of Philip Gatch records that the question, "What shall be done with re- spect to the ordinances?" was propounded, and the answer was, "Let the preachers pursue the old plan, as from the beginning." There being dissent, another ques- tion was raised : "What alteration may we make in our original plan?" And the answer was, "Our next Con- ference will, if God permit, show us more clearly." All the English preachers, except Asbury, asked for certificates of ministerial character, that they might return home honorably. '^History of the Methodists, p. 47. AMERICAN METHODISM ORGANIZED 23 1778 The Conference of 1778 was held at Leesburg, Vir- ginia. The province of Virginia then contained nearly two thirds of the members of the Methodists in the colonies. Because of current report that Methodists sympathized with Great Britain — which grew largely out of the writings of Wesley, and also in part from the re- treat of the English ministers — Asbury, unjustly sus- pected of Toryism, was in concealment at the house of Judge White. Asbury says in his Journal:^ The reason of this retirement was as follows: From March 10, 1778, on conscientious principles I was a non-juror, and could not preach in the State of Maryland; and therefore with- drew to the Delaware State, where the clergy were not required to take the State oath; though, with a clear conscience, I could have taken the oath of the Delaware State, had it been required; and would have done it, had I not been prevented by a tender fear of hurting the scrupulous consciences of others. Philadelphia and New York were occupied by the British, and the English fleet had taken possession of the waters of Maryland. William Watters, the senior native itinerant, presided. All the ministers were young; ^^'atters himself was in his twenty-seventh year. Of the fourteen admitted on trial several were destined to become extraordinarily useful. Among these was John Dickins, whose subsequent career alone, though brief, would have made the Conference famous. For the first time a decline was shown in members; it amounted to eight hundred and seventy-three. As Asbury was not present, and no word was received from him, and no ap- pointment could be filled by him, his name does not appear in the Minutes. After debate the question of the sacraments, referred to this Conference by the preceding one, was again post- poned to the next Conference for definite settlement. •Vol. i, p. 272. CHAPTER IV The First Ecclesiastical Conflict More serious troubles than any which had yet invaded the societies were now Ijnocking loudly at the door. The continued seclusion of Asbury led to the appoint- ment of two Conferences in 177JJ. One was at the house of Judge White, Kent County, Delaware, on the 28th of April, and was attended by the preachers east of the Potomac ; the second at Fluvanna, Virginia, three weeks later, attended by those west of the Potomac. The Minutes contain separate records, but practically they were one Conference. Asbury had never presided in any Conference recorded in the Minutes previous to the one at the residence of Judge White; but at that meeting, it was voted and declared that Asbury should "act as General Assistant in America." "Helpers" were forbidden to alter the boundaries of any circuit, or to appoint preaching in any new place without consulting the Assistant. Every ex- horter and local preacher was re(]uired to obey the direc- tions of the Assistant, "going where and only where" he should appoint. The terra for members on trial was lengthened from one year to two. Traveling preachers were instructed to meet the class whenever possible. The preachers "determined to guard against a separation from the Church directly or indirectly." A SIGNIFICANT RESOLUTION The most significant resolution was this: "On hear- ing every preacher for and against what is in debate, tJie right of determination shall rest with him [Asbury], according to the Minutes." This revealed the fact that 24 THE FIRST ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICT Asbury desired to have the same power in the American Methodist societies and Conferences which Wesley wielded over and in the British society and Conference. It also showed that the preachers conceded it. He was to hear debate solely to enable him to form his imperial will, and though the form of voting took place, and the General Assistant usually acquiesced, the power of decid- ing even against a unanimous vote was recognized and recorded as fundamental law. These were the principal acts of this Conference, and weighty transactions they were, especially as no one had any legal right to call that Conference. SELF-ORDAINED PREACHERS Without the manuscripts of some who attended the Fluvanna Conference, we should be in ignorance of a transaction of extraordinary importance. This Confer- ence, having had the sacramental question referred to it by the preceding regular Ccmference, took uj) the matter and appointed a committee consisting of Gatch, Foster, Cole, and Ellis, and constituted it a presbytery, "first, to administer the ordinances to themselves ; sec- ond, to authorize any other preacher or preachers, approved by them, by the form of laying on of hands." They did this on the ground that "the E pi.'^copal csfah- lishment is noia dissolved in this country; and therefore, in almost all our circuits the memhcrs are without ordi- nances." Considerable discussion arose as to whether the Con- ference held in Kent County or that which met at Fluvanna was the regular Conference. That the latter was the only legitimate one is manifest. The following entry is in the Minutes of the Kent, or Delaware, Conference. 1. Why was the Delaware Conference held? Answer. For the convenience of the preachers in the Northern 26 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY stations, that we all might have an opportunity of meeting in Conference; it being unadvisable for Brother Asbury and Brother Ruff, with some others, to attend in Virginia; it is con- sidered also as preparatory to the Conference in Virginia. Our sentiments to be given in [to the Virginia Conference] by Brother Watters. Basing his reason on this action, Stevens thus con- cludes, Asbury had "no previous official authority to call that Conference, nor could his new appointment be considered legal until the majority of his brethren, who were within the Fluvanna Conference, should confirm it. Not till five years later did Asbury receive any such appointment from Wesley."^ In harmony with these facts, Lee, in his History of the Methodists, numbers the Fluvanna Conference as the "seventh regular Conference," merely alluding to that called by Asbury as "prepara- tory." The Fluvanna session, being the "regularly appointed" Conference, organized under the authoritatively ap- pointed Committee of Superintendence, presided over by one of these, and "composed of 'the majority of the preachers from a majority of the circuits and compris- ing a majority of the members," was the legal and right- ful session of the body. And being so, it adjourned to meet at Manakintown, Virginia, May 8, 1780. After the adjournment of the Fluvanna Conference the majority of the preachers in the South proceeded to administer the sacraments wherever the people were willing to accept them. There was, however, a division of sentiment even in the South, for some of those who had been Methodists from the beginning and had been trained to regard themselves as members of the Church of England, would not commune with them. Yet both parties feared, and shrank from, a final separation. >Stevcns's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 63. THE FIRST ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICT 27 ASBURY's BALTIMORE CONFERENCE Notwithstanding efforts made during the whole of the preceding year to prevent it, the regular Conference met according to adjournment, although no mention is made of it in Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Asburv, however, having been desig- nated at the preparatory irregular meeting of a minority of the preachers to the office of General Assistant, called a Conference of "the more Northern preachers" to meet in Baltimore on April 24, which was two weeks before the regular Conference was to convene at Manakintown. The Conference appointed by Asbury took the follow- ing action : Question 12. Shall we continue in close connection with the Church, and press our people to a closer communion with her? Answer. Yes. Question IS. Will this Conference grant the privilege to all the friendly clergy of the Church of England, at the request or desire of the people, to preach or administer the ordinances in our preaching houses or chapels? Answer. Yes. Question 20. Does this whole Conference disapprove the Btep our brethren have taken in Virginia? Answer. Yes. Question 21. Do we look upon them no longer as Methodists In connection with Mr. Wesley and us till they come back? Answer. Agreed. Question 22. Shall Brothers Asbury, Garrettson, and Watters attend the Virginia Conference, and inform them of our pro- ceedings in this, and receive their answer? Answer. Yes. Question 26. What must be the conditions of our union with our Virginia brethren? Answer. To suspend all their administrations for one year, and all meet together in Baltimore. CONDITIONS OF UNION According to Ashiiry's Journal, the Conference in 28 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Baltimore at first concluded to renounce the Southern brethren. Then he offered conditions of union ; that they should ordain no more, that they should come no farther than Hanover Circuit, that the Conference which he represented should have delegates in their Confer- ence; that they should "not presume to administer the ordinances where there is a decent Episcopal minister," and that without delay they should make preparations for a union Conference. He records that "although it was like death to think of parting," after a long debate they came back to their original determination. "At last," he testifies, "a thought struck my mind; to propose a suspension of the ordi- nances for one year, and so cancel our grievances and be one." It was agreed on both sides, and Philip Gatch and Reuben Ellis, who had been unyielding, came into it and thought "it would do." The account in Ashitn/s Joiinial of his journey to the Conference held at Manakintown indicates deep grief. Everywhere he went "the people were full of the ordi- nances." On reaching the place he writes: "I spoke with my countryman, John Dickins, and found him opposed to our continuance in union with the Episcoj)al Church. William Walters and Freeborn Garrettson were convers- ing with the different members, but found them inflex- ible." Finally, Asbury, Garrettson, Watters, and Drom- goole were invited into the Conference. Asbury read Wesley's "Thoughts against Separation," showed his private letters of instruction fioni Wesley, set before them the sentiments of the Delaware and Baltimore Conferences, read some correspondence with Gatch and Dickins, and then withdrew. The Conference at first refused to accept Asbury's proposition to suspend for (me year the operation of the measures they had taken. These men were all in earnest and thoroughly sin- THE FIRST ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICT 29 cere. ''The ambassadors on each, side,'' says Asbury, "wept like children, but kept their opinions." Asbury returned to take formal and final leave of the Conference and depart immediately to the North, but found that while he had been praying "they were brought to an agreement." He thus sums up the matter : "Surely the hand of God has been greatly seen in all this." "There might have been twenty promising preachers and three thousand people seriously aflected by this separation." In view of this reconciliation the stations of the preachers in Virginia were included in the Minutes of the year 17S0; but they are placed after all the other proceedings. Stevens notes that the names of several men of marked influence disappeared from the record. UNFORTUNATE OMISSION The Minutes of the Conference at Mauakintown are not known to exist. Because of the partial union pre- viously described the official Minutes of the Church give all the proceedings of Asbury's Conference, and at the close, in a separate question, state where the preachers in A'irginia, who attended the regularly adjourned Con- ference, were stationed. Stevens justly stigmatizes the omission or suppression of the Mauakintown Minutes as a grave defect in the official records of the denomination. Tigert also con- siders this "an essential injustice," though he thinks that other sources, principally Ashurifs Journal and the Life of Watters, "have afforded information concern- ing everything of value." This view is not supported by the situation. The discussions that lasted for parts of several days, in the absence of Watters and Asbury, and the various motions made, discussed, adopted, amended, or rejected, might 30 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY have shed much light upon the early history of Method- ism, as well as upon its principles. According to Wutters the proposition accepted was "that there should be a suspension of the ordinances for the present year, and that our circumstances should be laid before Mr. Wesley and his advice solicited; also that Mr. Asbury should be requested to ride through the different circuits and superintend the work at large." This came from one of those who had favored the ordi- nances. Two letters appear to have been written to Wesley, asking his advice: one drawn up by Dickins for those who had administered the ordinances, spoken of by Garrettson as "a circumstantial letter," the other by Asbury, who in his Journal for the 16th of September, 1780, says, "Wrote to Mr. Wesley at the desire of the Virginia Conference, who had consented to suspend the administration of the ordinances for one year." A preparatory Conference was held by Asbury on April 16, 1781, at Judge White's, at Choptank, in Delaware. It consisted of about twenty preachers. Lee speaks of this somewhat satirically : "But previous to this [the regular Conference] a few preachers on the Eastern Shore held a little confcirnce [the italics are his] to make some arrangements for those pi'eachers who could not go with them, and then adjourned, as they called it, to Baltimore." THE CONFERENCE OF 1781 The "ninth regular Conference" met at Baltimore April 24. Garrettson states that a response from Wesley to Asbury's letter, and to Dickins's circumstantial account of the case was received and read. Garrettson records that the reply was "we should continue on the old plan until further direction." He adds, "We unani- mously agreed to follow his counsel, and went on har- moniously." THE FIRST ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICT 31 Of thirty-nine preachei'S, all but oue responded aflfirraa- tively to the following question : What preachers are now determined, after mature considera- tion, close observation, and earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doctrine, and strictly enforce the Discipline, as con- tained in the Notes, Sermons, and Minutes published by Mr. Wesley, so far as they respect both preachers and people, ac- cording to the knowledge we have of them, and the ability God shall give, and firmly resolved to discountenance a separation among either preachers or people? ESTIMATE OF THE SACRAMENTAL CONTROVERSY The more closely this situation is studied the move clearly it appears that those brethren are entitled to an exalted place in the pantheon of Methodist history who "concluded that if God had called them to preach, he had called them also to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper." That this conclusion is sufficiently supported appears from the account given of these brethren by Lee, who was conversant with all the circumstances. He says : 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. . . . The preachers in the South were very successful in their ministerial labors, 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 confinn the preachers in the belief that the step they had taken was owned and honored of God. And at that time there was 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 con- sulted' Lee was a native of the South, in sympathy with its ^History of the Methodists. Jesse Lee. pp. 69 and 70. 32 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY spirit and, though not involved in the transaction, it might be thought that he looked too favorably upon those who had originated ordination and administered the ordi- nances. But the three delegates sent by the Northern preachers to the Virginia Conference "to bring them back if possible to our original usages" were Asbury, Watters, and Garrettson." Watters and Garrettson concurred with Lee, and Garrettson commended them in an exalted strain, taking occasion to do so in his Semi- centennial Sermon : I do not think that Drew in his Life of Coke, has in several particulars, done justice to our American brethren. He repre- sents them as very refractory, and supposes that Asbury had much trouble with them; whereas they went forth in the power of the Spirit, disseminating divine truth, and suffering much persecution and many privations, while Asbury had a quiet retreat at Judge White's; and that during the hottest time of our conflict. It is true, our Southern brethren, to satisfy th6 people and their own consciences, did administer the ordinances in what they thought an extreme case. The leading members of the Fluvanna Conference were Dickins, Gatch, Yeargain, Poythress, Ellis, Tatum, etc. — all faithful, pious, zealous men of God, who would have done credit to any religious connection. I admired their goodness in cordially agreeing to consult Wesley, and to follow his judgment, and till they should re- ceive his advice, to suspend the administration of the ordi- nances. If I am prolix on this subject, it is to show that our Virginia brethren were undeservedly accused of schism. If the course of Asbury, in counter-working the efforts of the majority of the preachers to secure the sacraments for themselves and the people was in several particulars arbitrary, the unsettled condition of the times^ both in Church and State, palliates it. The branches of visible Methodism in this country had been broken from the parent stem, Wesley, except as Asbury, with or without authority, held fast to it. Nor should it be forgotten that he alone of all the preachers sent out by Wesley THE FIRST ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICT 33 remained in America. And, though from the beginning of the controversy he had been dictatorial and severe, it was he who made tlie i)roj)osal which enabled the sac- rameutarians to yield at last without a deeper humili- ation than hunmu nature, when conscious of no wrong, could reasonably be expected to bear. AGITATED STATE OF THE COUNTRY • Throughout the remainder of the year 1781 and early in the following year, the ravages and distracticms of civil war were grievously felt by the Methodists. Lee, who experienced them heavily in his own person, gives a graphic account of the exigencies in which they were placed. Many members were drafted, and joined the army to fight for their country. "Some w^ere killed, "some made shipwreck of the faith, and but few returned home with as much religion as they formerly possessed." Some of the Methodists "were bound in conscience not to ' fight ; and no threatening could compel them to bear arms, or hire men to take their places." In consequence of this "some were whipped, some fined, and some im- prisoned; others were sent home, and many were much persecuted." In Virginia numerous battles were fought, which kept the people agitated, and prevented them from meeting at their usual times and places. When they did meet for worship their conversation chiefly concerned the troub- lous times. The pathetic testimony of one who went through it all, better than many pages of fine writing, enables 6ne to realize what the situation was before there were trains, telegraphs, steamboats, or even regular mails: "Before meeting would begin, and as soon as it was closed, the inquiry was, 'What is the news of the day?' One would say, 'My son is killed'; another, 'My husband is wounded or taken a prisoner, or sick and 34 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY likely to die.' " Nevertheless, there was an increase of twelve hundred and forty-six, and a gain of five preachers. It was soon found necessary to have two Conferences per year, and a singular rule was made. As the Confer- ence in the North was of longer standing, and its preach- ers the older, in making rules for the societies, it was given a veto upon the proceedings of the Southern. Lee reports it as working in practice thus : When anything was agreed to in the Virginia Conference, and afterward disapproved of in the Baltimore Conference, it was dropped. But if any rule was fixed and determined on at the Baltimore Conference, the preachers in the South were under the necessity of abiding by it.^ 1782 The Conference held two sessions in 1782, one at Ellis Chapel, Sussex County, Virginia, April 27, and "ad- journed to Baltimore May 21." Jarratt, a Church of England clergyman, friendly to Asbury, preached every day at the session in Virginia and adrninistered the Lord's Supper to preachers and people. The session in Baltimore unanimously recognized Asbury as "General Assistant" "according to Wesley's original appointment," which was before Rankin arrived. The use made of that appointment, without the ratifica- tion of Wesley, is quaint, but it had the force of a recom- mendation by Wesley. 178.3 Two Conferences were held in 178.3 at the same places as in the preceding year, and in the same order of succes- sion. No action having an important bearing upon the constitutional or legal development of the society was transacted. In the latter i)art of the year a letter of much importance was received from Wesley: iHisloru of the Methodists, pp. 78, 79. THE FIRST ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICT 35 Bristol, October 3, 1783. 1. Let all of you be determined to abide by the Methodist doctrine, and discipline, published in the four volumes of Ser- mons, and the Notes upon the New Testament, together with the large minutes of the Conference. 2. Beware of preachers coming from Great Britain or Ireland, without a full recommendation from me. Three of our traveling preachers here eagerly desired to go to America, but I could not approve of it by any means; because I am not satisfied that they thoroughly like either our discipline or doctrine: I think they differ from our judgment, in one or both. Therefore, if these or any others come without my recommendation, take care how you receive them. 3. Neither should you receive any preachers, however recom- mended, who will not be subject to the American Conference, and cheerfully conform to the Minutes both of the English and American Conferences. 4. I do not wish our American brethren to receive any who make any difllculty of receiving Francis Asiury as the General Assistant. Undoubtedly the greatest danger to the work of God in America, is likely to arise either from preachers coming from Europe, or from such as will arise from among yourselves, speaking perverse things, or bringing in among you new doc- trines, particularly Calvinism. You should guard against this with all possible care, for it is far easier to keep them out than to thrust them out. I commend you all to the grace of God, and am your affec- tionate friend and brother, John Wesley. THE TWELFTH CONFERENCE On April 30, 1784, the twelfth Conference began at Ellis's Chapel and closed in Baltimore May 28. No new principle of law was introduced, and no rule made. The 21st question was, '*How shall we conduct ourselves to- ward European preachers?" And the answer is necessary to the explanation of subsequent events: If they are recommended by Mr. Wesley, will be subject to the American Conference, preach the doctrine taught in the four volumes of Sermons and Notes on the Neiv Testament, keep the 36 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY circuits they are appointed to, follow the direction of the London and American Minutes, and be subject to Francis Asbury as General Assistant, while he stands approved by Mr. Wesley and the Conference, we will receive them; but if they walk con- trary to the above directions, no ancient right or appointment shall prevent their being excluded from our connection. Few, if any, in America or Europe foresaw the events in Methodism which were soon to occur first in England and then in the United States. CHAPTER Y A Commissioner with Extraordinary Powers The Weslej-an Methodist societies in America were organized into the Methodist Episcopal Church in Decem- ber, 1784. As resi)ects lis origin, the personal elements of wliich It was formed, the principles upon which it was founded, the spirit which it endeavored to perpetuate, and the circumstances under which the organization was effected, it has no parallel in ecclesiastical history. Wesley's tremendous problem Representations from America had convinced Wesley that, though apparent unity upon the question of the non- administration of the sacraments had been attained, the truce would be but temporary. Most of the clergy of the English Church had returned to England during the Revolution. The Presbyterians would not baptize the children of Methodists unless at least one of the parents professed faith in their doctrines, nor admit them to the communion unless they became members of their Church. The Baptists fellowshiped none except those who had been baptized on profession of faith and by immersion. The opposition of Methodists to the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees and the final per- severance of the saints caused them to be generally re- garded as heretics. The jurisdiction of the English Church had ceased in the United States and the Prot- estant Episcopal Church had not been organized. The membership of the Methodist societies was rapidly growing. It was obvious that individual withdrawals would take ])lace in increasing number and disintegration occur unless relief should be speedily given. 37 38 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY DOCTOR THOMAS COKE A person hitherto unknown to American Methodism was now to appear upon the scene. In 1776 Wesley arrived at Kingston, England, where he met a clergyman named Thomas Coke, who had ridden twenty miles to meet him. Coke was a native of Wales, the only child of wealthy parents, and an alumnus of Jesus College, Oxford. He had been intended for the profession of law, but became a clergyman^ though after his examination the degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him by Oxford. As a preacher he displayed rare gifts. Possessing a for- tune, he enlarged the church of which he was rector at his own expense, to accommodate the crowds who gath- ered to hear him. At that place he met Thomas Maxfield, a preacher originally sent out by W^esley, but ordained by the Bishop of Londonderry, who in the ceremony used this language: "Sir, I ordain you to assist that good man [John Wesley], that he may not work himself to death." Maxfield, knowing the reputation of Coke, sought his acquaintance and explained to him the necessity and nature of conversion. Coke became the subject of con- scious spiritual regeneration, and discarded his notes in preaching; and such unction attended his first sermon without them that hearers were awakened. Crowds now followed him wherever he spoke. He instituted lectures in the adjacent villages; and neighboring clergymen com- plained to the Rishop, who said that "all lie could do would be to suspend him, which would make him a martyr," and therefore "he thought best not to do it." An accusation was laid before the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who nrerely admonished him. Finally, the rector of the parish. Coke being a curate, was besought to dis- miss him, which was done. It was shortly after this event that Wesley met him; A COMMISSIONER WITH EXTRAORDINARY POWERS 39 and after the interview they carried on a correspondence for about one year, when Wesley recorded in his journal : "I went forth to Taunton with Dr. Coke, who, being dis- missed from his curacy, has determined to bid adieu to his honorable name and cast in his lot with us." As Coke had become one of the most attractive preachers in England, Wesley appointed him, in 1780, to superin- tend the affairs of the London Circuit. Toward the close of the same year Wesley designated him to visit the societies in Ireland alternately with himself once in every two years, leaving him free to take such journeys in Eng- land as prudence might direct. By virtue of his legal knowledge and training he was of great value to Wesley, who appears to have consulted him upon every important step. WESLEY AND COKE CONFER In February, 1784, Wesley invited Coke to his private chamber, and after general conversation said to him in substance: "The Revolution in America has separated the United States from the mother country forever. The episcopal establishment is utterly abolished; the Meth- odist societies are in a most deplorable condition ; and an appeal has been made to me, through Mr. Asbury, to provide some mode of Church government suited to their needs." He also said that he had long revolved the sub- ject in his thoughts, and would now unfold to him the plan; that he did not intend to deviate from the Bible; that, keeping his eye on the conduct of the primitive Churches in the ages of unadulterated Christianity, he had much admired the mode of ordaining Bishops which the Church of Alexandria had practiced ; that that church would never suffer the interference of a foreign Bishop in any of their ordinations, but «n a death of a Bishop the presbyters of that venerable apostolic Church ordained 40 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY another from their own body by the laying on of their own hands, and did this for two hundred years. Wesley said that, being himself a presbyter, he wished Coke to accept ordination from his hands, and "to pro- ceed to the continent of America, there to superintend the societies in the United States." Coke, in reporting the conversation, said that he "was startled by a measure unprecedented in modern days, and expressed doubts as to the validity of Wesley's authority." But after considering the matter two months he wrote to Wesley that his objections were silenced; therefore, in harmony with this, at the Leeds Conference, in July, 1784, the Kev. John Fletcher, a distinguished clergyman of the Church of England and a devoted friend of Wesley, being present with Wesley and Coke, the question was brought to an issue and the measure was decided upon. Wesley stated his intention to the preachers present, and from that period he considered the appointment as actually made. At this Conference Eichard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey offered their services to accompany Coke in the character of missionaries. COKE ORDAINED SUPERINTENDENT Wesley wrote in his Journal: "On Wednesday, Sep- tember 1st, being now clear in my own mind, I took a step which I had long weighed, and appointed three of our brethren to go and serve the desolate sheep in America, which I verily believe Avill be much to the glory of God." At Bristol, Wesley, assisted by Coke and the Kev. James Creighton, each of them being a presbyter of the Church of England, ordained Whatcoat and Vasey presbyters for America. Wesley also ordained Coke a Sujjerin- tendent, giving him, under his hand and seal, a certificate of which the original is extant: To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late A COMMISSIONER WITH EXTRAORDINARY POWERS 41 Fellow of Lincoln College, in Oxford, presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth greetings: Whereas, many of the people in the Southern provinces of North America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, according to the usages of the same Church; and, whereas there does not appear to be any other way of supplying them with ministers: Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be provi- dentially called at this time to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in America. And, therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye to His glory, I have this day set apart as a Superintendent, by the imposition of my hands, and prayer (being assisted by other ordained ministers), Thomas Coke, Dr. of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four. John Wesley. Wesley's explanatory letter Wesley gave Coke a letter intended to explain the grounds on which he had taken this step, which letter he instructed Coke to print and circulate among the so- cieties upon his arrival in America : Bbistol. September 10, 1784. To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America: 2. Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church convinced me, many years ago, that Bishops and presbyters are the same order, and, consequently, have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exer- cise this right, by ordaining part of our traveling 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. 42 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY 3. But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are Bishops who have a legal juris- diction. In America there are none, and but few parish min- isters: so that for some hundred miles together there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest. 4. I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury, to be joint kiuperintendents over our brethren in North America. As also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as ciders among them, by baptizing and ministering the Lord'3 Supper. John Wesley, coke's arrival in AMERICA Coke, as Superintendent, accompanied by the presby- ters, Whatcoat and Vasey, sailed for America on the 18th of September, and, after struggling with tempests, reached New York on the 3d of November. Soon after, they met John Dickins, the Methodist preacher of the city. To him Coke unfolded the plans of Wesley and his own relation to them. Dickins, though he had been in full sympathy with the proceedings of the Fluvanna Conference, ap- proved these plans without reserve. Coke preached his first sermon in John Street Chapel on the night of his arrival, and after two or three days set off for Philadelphia, arriving on Saturday evening, No- vember 6, As he was a clergyman of the Church of Eng- land, he preached by invitation the next morning for Dr, McGaw, in Saint Paul's Church. In the evening he preached to the Methodist society at Saint George's. Concerning this he writes: "After preaching I opened to the society our new plan of Church government and I have reason to believe that they all rejoice in it." Dr, White, afterward Bishop of Pennsylvania, called upon him and invited him to occupy his pulpit on the ensuing A COMMISSIONER WITH EXTRAORDINARY POWERS 43 Sabbath, The news of Coke's arrival spread, and on the 14th of November, when he and Whatcoat reached Bar- ratt's Chapel, Delaware, Asbury was present in the con- gregation. After the sermon Coke and Whatcoat admin- istered the Holy Communion, which, being the first time that it was done with Wesley's authority, made the occa- sion "memorable as one of solemn joy." COKE AND ASBURY MEET Asbury introduced himself to Coke and they had a private conversation concerning the aflairs of the society in America. Asbury said that he had collected a number of the preachers to form a council, and if it should be deemed expedient, they would immediately call a Con- ference. As all considered it necessary, Garrettson was sent with instructions to members to notify all accessible preachers to meet in Baltimore on Christmas Eve. During the interval Asbury continued his journeys over the western shore of Maryland, accompanied by Whatcoat and Vasey, and Coke traveled according to the plan agreed upon between himself and Asbury. Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, Vasey, and William Black, founder of Method- ism in Nova Scotia, met at Abingdon and, with the excep- tion of Whatcoat, journeyed to Perry Hall, the residence of a wealthy Methodist, about nine miles from Baltimore. On Friday, December 24, they rode into Baltimore. Differences of opinion have arisen as to the date on which the Conference which transformed the dependent society into an independent Church began its session. Lee and the published Minutes represent that it was on the 27th of December, Bangs and Wakeley on the 25th, but Coke's Certificate of Asbury's Ordination, Coke's Journal, Ashury's Journal, and Whatcoat's Journal make it the 24th. On their authority the historian Stevens accepts that date. A CHURCH IN THE MAKING CHAPTER VI Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church In this chapter is recorded only the series of events involved in the transformation of a cluster of societies into a Church. The significance of these events in sub- sequent constitutional and legislative action will be em- phasized in the development of the new communion of Christians. MEMBERS OF THE "CHRISTMAS CONFERENCE" Coke records that, of the eighty-one preachers in the connection, nearly sixty were jnesent in the assembly that performed the momentous deed; but only the names of twenty-nine have been ascertained. These are : Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury, William Black, Caleb Eoycr, James O. Cromwell, LeRoy Cole, John Dickins, ]Cdward Dromgoole, Ira Ellis, Reuben Ellis, Josejjh Everett, Jona- than Forrest, Freeborn Garrettson, William Glendenning, William Gill, Lemuel Green, John Haggerty, Jeremiah Lambert, Richard Ivey, James O'Kelly, William Phoebus, Ignatius Pigman, Nelson Reed, Francis Poythress, John Smith, Thomas Vasey, Thomas Ware, William Watters, Richard Whatcoat.^ ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS The Conference convened at ten o'clock; Coke presided; Wesley's letter was read and each part critically con- sidered, Coke naturally being an expert coininentator. Thomas Ware states that it was "cordially apjtrovcd." ' The evidence of the presence of the twenty-nine wliosc nnincs nro here civen may be found in the clearest and most, condensed form in the Cenlennial Ilislnry of American Mcthudism, by John Atkiuson, D.D. Published by The Methodist Book Concern, 1884. 47 48 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The next step was to form themselves into "an inde- pendent Church" ; Asbui'y says, "An Episcopal Church, and to have Superintendents, Elders and Deacons." The statement by Asbury that the Conference spent its time "debating freely, and detenu iniiuj all things hy a majority of votes/' marks a new era, and raises a pre- sumption that in all its actions the body understood precisely what it was doing. The accounts of those present concerning what was en- acted concur in all essentials. Whatcoat's is that the Conference "agreed to form a Methodist Episcopal Church, in which the Liturgy [as presented by Wesley] should be read, and the sacraments be administered by a Superintendent, Elders, and Deacons." Watters writes: We formed ourselves into a separate Church. This change was proposed to us by Mr. Wesley after we had craved his ad- vice on the subject; but could not take effect till adopted by us, which was done in a deliberate formal manner, at a Conference called for that purpose, in which 'there was not one dissenting vote. Asbury refused to accept the office of Superintendent merely on the appointment of Wesley, but desired an elec- tion by the Conference. Both Coke and Asbury were unanimously elected. ware's description The account given by Ware being the most lucid and, on the points covered, the most definite, it is here inserted in full. At the Christmas Conference we met to congratulate each other, and to praise the Lord that He had disposed the mind of our excellent Wesley to renounce the fable of uninterrupted succession, and prepare the way for furnishing us with the long-desired privileges we were thenceforward expecting to enjoy. The announcement of the plan devised by him for our organization as a Church filled us with solemn delight. . . . We, ORGAXIZATION OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 49 therefore, according to the best of our knowledge, received and followed the advice of Mr. Wesley, as stated in our Form of Discipline. After Mr. Wesley's letter, declaring his appointment of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury joint Superintendents over the Methodists in America, had been read, analyzed, and cordially approved by the Conference, the question arose, "What name or title shall we take?" I thought to myself, "I shall be satisfied that we be denominated, 'The Methodist Church,' " and so whispered to a brother sitting near me. But one proposed — I think it was John Dickins — that we should adopt the title of "Methodist Episcopal Church." Mr. Dickins was, in the esti- mation of his brethren, a man of sound sense and sterling piety, and there were few men on the Conference floor heard with greater deference than he. Most of the preachers had been brought up in what was called, "The Church of England"; and, all agreeing that the plan of general superintendence, which had been adopted, was a species of episcopacy, the motion on Mr. Dickins suggestion was carried without, I think, a dissenting voice. There was not, to my recollection, the least agitation on the question. Had the Conference indulged a suspicion that the name they adopted would be, in the least degree, offensive to the views or feelings of Mr. Wesley, they would have aban- doned it at once, for the name of Mr. Wesley was inexpressibly dear to the Christmas Conference, and especially to Mr. Asbury and Dr. Coke.* ORDINATION OF ASBURY On the second day of the session Coke, assisted by Vasey and Whatcoat, ordained Asbury a deacon, and on the third day an elder; the day after that he was conse- crated a superintendent, Coke and the elders being assisted by the Kev. Philip William Otterbein, of the Getman Reformed Church. The invitation to partici- pate was extended to Otterbein at the request of Asbury, who had long been on friendly terms with him. Several days were spent in perfecting a Discipline, in the selection of preachers on whom to confer "orders," and in the ordinations of those chosen. The first Dis- cipline was adopted by this convention. >Li7e of Thomas Ware, pp. 105, 106. 50 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY In anticipation of this event Wesley prepared and had printed for the use of the Church in America a Liturgy abridged from that of the Church of England, and a col- lection of Psalms and Hymns. The Liturgy was entitled ''The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, with other Occasional Services." The Hymn Book was entitled "A Collection of Psalms and Hymns for the Lord's Day." The Articles of Religion of the Church of England were reduced from thirty-nine to twenty-four, and those which were retained so altered as to eradicate all traces of Romanism, High Church ritualism, and Calvinism.^ A new article was adopted, as follows : XXIII. Of the Rulers of the United States of America. The Congress, the general assemblies, the governors, and councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the United States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the general act of confederation, and by the constitutions of their respective States. And the said States ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. THE BINDING >IINUTB After the organization, the ordinations, and the per- fecting of the Discipline, the most far-reaching and per- plexing act of this convention was the passage of the following "binding Minute": Question 2. What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists? Answer. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley We acknowl- edge ourselves his sons in the gospel, ready in matters belong- ing to Church government, to obey his commands. And we do engage, after his death, to do everything that we judge con- sistent 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. 'The doctrinal standards of American Methodism and the various provisions of the Discipline are discussed under their appropriate titles. CHAPTER VII The Initial Years of the Church Eighteen thousand members, one hundred and four "traveling preachers,'' at least as many "local preachers,'' and twice as many "exhorters" represented, but only in part, the results of the eighteen years of toil, travel, and hardship of preachers and people since Embury and Strawbuidge tlung out the banner of Methodism in the New World. Sixty chapels had been purchased or built, and there were more than eight hundred recognized preaching places. Stevens estimates that to the eighteen thousand members should be added ten times as many hearers, "Thousands," says Ware, "pressed to him [Coke] to have their children dedicated to the Lord in baptism, and to receive themselves the Holy Supper at his hands." Asbury makes similar representations. Stevens finds no evidence of recorded dissent to the organization of the Church or to any of the proceedings therewith connected. The office of presiding elder without the name appears in the Minutes of 1785. The legislative powers of the Church reposed in the traveling preachers ; and the busi- ness originating in any one Conference was submitted by the Superintendents to the other Conferences in their successive meetings. No legislation of permanent im- portance took place during that year. In the latter part of 1786 Wesley addressed the fol- lowing letter to Superintendent Coke: London, September 6, 1786. Dear Sir: I desire that you would appoint a General Confer- ence of all our preachers in the United States to meet at Balti- more May 1, 1787; and that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be 51 52 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY appointed Superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury. I am, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and brother, John Wesley. To the Rev. Dr. Coke. This was not acceptable to the American Methodists, and the General Conference was not held. coke's administkation criticized At the Baltimore Conference, in 1787, the preachers criticized Superintendent Coke on two grounds : First, he had assumed a right which had never been given him, having written from Europe a letter, altering the time and place of holding the Conference after it had been determined at the previous Conference; second, he had written to some of the preachers letters which were cal- culated to stir up strife and contention. Lee remarks that Coke saw "that the preachers were pretty generally united against him." He magnanimously acknowledged these faults, begged pardon of the Con- ference, and promised not to meddle with the affairs of American Methodism while he was out of the United States; and gave a writing to that effect. The state of mind of the Conference is obvious from the fact that it was discovered necessary to have the names of three witnesses attached to this certificate. On receiving this the Conference agreed to overlook what had occurred, provided the condition should be expressed in the Minutes, which was done in this form: Who are the Superintendents of our Church for the United States? Answer. Thomas Coke (when present in the States) and Francis Asbury. Wesley's choice op garrettson, and result Another remarkable circumstance occurred in connec- tion Avith this Coufeix'uce. Wesley had sent out a letter THE INITIAL YEARS OP THE CHURCH 53 directing that "Freeborn Garrettson be ordained a super- intendent for Nova Scotia." Wlien the subject was taiien up, the point was made that, if he was ordained for that station, he should confine himself wholly to that place for which he was set apart, and not be at liberty to return again to the United States. Lee says that Garrettson "did not feel freedom to enter into an obligation of that kind, and chose, rather, to continue as he was, and there- fore was not ordained." Garrettson's account of the affair is: Dr. Coke, as Mr. Wesley's delegate and representative, asked me if I would accept of the appointment. I requested the liberty of deferring my answer until the next day. I think on the next day the doctor came to my room, and asked me if I had made up my mind to accept of my appointment; I told him I had upon certain conditions. I observed to him that I was willing to go on a tour, and visit those parts to which I was appointed for one year; and if there was a cordiality in the appointment with those whom I was requested to serve, I would return to the next Conference, and receive ordination for the office of superintendent.' He says that Bishop Coke replied, "I am perfectly sat- isfied," and that he gave him a letter of commendation to the brethren in the West Indies. As soon as the Conference closed Garrettson intended to go to the West India Islands and afterward to visit Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. He adds: "What transpired in the Con ference during my absence, I know not ; but I was aston- ished, when the appointments were read, to hear my name mentioned to preside in the Peninsula."^ The fact was that the Conference did not want to lose Garrettson, who was one of the most loved and trusted of the early preachers. 'Bangs, Life of Garrettson, p. 166. 2Ibid., p. 166. 54 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OPPOSITION TO WESLEY Wesley had also directed that Whatcoat be ordained a joint superintendent with Asbury. The preachers objected on grounds summarized by Lee as follows: First, that he was not qualified to take charge of the connec- tion; second, they were apprehensive that if Whatcoat was ordained, AVesley would recall Asbury to England. Ware says, "Mr. Wesley had appointed Mr. Whatcoat a superintendent, and instructed Dr. Coke to introduce a usage among us to which I may safely say there was not one of the preachers inclined to submit, much as they loved and honored him." He refers to the fact that Wesley ''had called his preachers together not to legis- late but to confer." The Conference, when formed into a Church in 1784, had passed and inserted in the Minutes this statement: "During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley we acknowledge ourselves as sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to Church government to obey his commands." Wesley, conformably to his own usage, had instructed Coke to put as few questions to vote as pos- sible, saying, "// you, Brother Aslurij, and Brother Whatcoat are agreed, it is enough." , "coke upholds binding minute" Coke contended that on the basis of that "binding minute" they were obliged to receive Whatcoat. Many of the members argued that they were not at the Con- ference when that engagement was entered into, and did not consider themselves bound by it. Other preachers who were at the Conference that organized the Church, said that at that time they were ready "to obey his com- mands," but they "did not feel ready now to obey." Ware remarks: "To place the power of deciding all questions discussed, or nearly all, in the hands of the Superintendents was what could never be introduced THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE CHURCH 55 among us." The brethren concluded that the issue was vital, and that the rule binding them to obey Wesley must be rescinded. Ware testifies, however, that he did not vote in favor of rescinding. "Some thought it would be time enough to do so when our Supcrintendrnts should claim to decide questions independently of the Confer- ence, ichich, it teas confidently believed, they never would do." COMMENTS OF LEE AND ASBURT Lee's comment on the proceeding is: "This step of receding from the above engagement was afterward con- sidered by some disaffected persons as improper. If there was anything improper in the business, it was in entering the engagement, and not in departing from it." Asbury in his journal, alluding to the minute, writes : / never approved of that binding minute. I did not think it practical expediency to obey Mr. Wesley, at three thousand miles distance, in all matters relative to Church government; neither did Brother Whatcoat, nor several others. At the first General Conference I was mute and modest when it passed, and I was mute when it was expunged. For this Mr. Wesley blamed me, and was displeased that I did not rather reject the whole con- nection, or leave them, if they did not comply. But I could not give up the connection so easily, after laboring so many years with and for them.^ Wesley was greatly displeased, and the next year, writ- ing to Asbury, said: "There is indeed a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all Methodists. You are the elder brother to the American Methodists; I am, under God, the father of the whole family." The value of these historic facts inheres in the light that they shed upon the estimate of the power of the Conference, and of the Superintendents in relation to them. ^Aaburi/a Journal, vol. ii, p. 322. 56 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY PIHST USE OF THE TERM "BISHOP" In the Minutes for the year 1788 the first question is, "Who are the Bishops of our Church for the United States?" Wesley's name is not mentioned, and the answer to this question is, "Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." The Minutes were published by the Superin- tendents (practically by Asbury), and this, although the word "Superintendent" had appeared, was the tirst time that they had ever given themselves the title of Bishops. Lee says they "changed the title themselves without the consent of the Conference; and at the next Conference they asked the preachers if the word 'Bishop' might stand in the Minutes, assigning as a reason that it was a Scripture name, and the meaning was the same with that of Superintendent." Some opposed the alteration, but a majority agreed to let the word "Bishop" remain. NOT A GENERAL CONFERENCE It was maintained by some that the Conference held in Baltimore May 1, 1787, was a General Conference, and should be classed as such. This subject is discussed at length by Stevens, and it is demonstrated that it was not a General Conference, but simply the last Annual Conference of the year. The grounds on which it was affirmed to be a General Conference were that "Wesley asked Coke to appoint such a Conference"; that he "expected Whatcoat to be made superintendent," and "Garrettson superintendent for the British Dominions in America"; that "Coke wrote to the preachers to attend a General Conference"; that "the Baltimore Conference met at the time and place proposed by Wesley." These presimiptions are answered in several ways. One is in the conclusion of Coke's letter to the General Conference of 1808: "We had at that time [1791] no regular General Conference; one only had been held in the year 1784." THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE CHURCH 57 WESLEY'S STATUS IN AMERICAN METHODISM Wesley was sadly grieved that his name was left out of the Minutes; and the members of the Conference desired to insert it again as respectfully as they could without jeoparding their liberties. In the official Min- utes of 1789, as published by The Methodist Rook Concern from the reprint made in the year 1813, the questions relating to the episcopal office are published in this way : Question 1. Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? Answer. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury. But that answer is not as it was passed by the Con- ference, which was as follows : "John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succes- sion." Bangs* discusses what was meant. He notes that there is no little ambiguity in this question and answer: - Did they mean to say that these persons exercised a joint superintendency both in Europe and America? Certainly not; for neither Thomas Coke nor Francis Asbury exercised any episcopal powers in Europe. What they meant to say evidently was this, that Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury acted in this country as joint superintendents over the Methodist Episcopal Church, while Mr. Wesley exercised a similar power singly in Europe, and a general superintendence in America. The second question and answer make this plain : Question 2. Who have been elected by the unanimous suf- frages of the General Conference to superintend the Methodist connection in America? Answer. Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury. The case is clear. The meaning of the Conference was: Wesley is revered and loved as the father and founder of Methodism, and to be consulted as an adviser, but is practically an executive head without power in the Meth- odist Episcopal Church. ^History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. i, p. 278. CHAPTER VIII A Hazardous Experiment In the year 1789 eleven Conferences were held, several of them being within "thirty or forty miles of each other," ''which," says Lee, "was pretty generally disliked; but at that time the Bisho]) had the right of appointing as many Conferences as he thought proper, and at such times as he judged best." There were various reasons for this great number of Conferences and their ]>roximity; it saved travel, time, and expense to the preachers. But it also made it certain that the number in attendance in several, if not a majority, of the Conferences, would be small, and "small bodies are more easily controlled than large, wherein numbers give courage." A plan was devised by Bishops Coke and Asbury, chiefly by the latter, and accepted by the majority of the Conferences, which could never have been adopted had there been but five or six large Conferences. This was a provision for the establishment of a council to be invested in reality with extraordinary powers though not expressed in legal terms. The Bishops informed the Con- ferences that they "had made it a matter of prayer," and that it was the best arrangement to insure wise action, which they could proi)ose. Debate followed, and there was strong opjwsition ; but a majority of the preachers agreed to accept it. As recorded in the Minutes, the Question which pre- cedes the plan states the grounds on which it was advo- cated, and the character and composition of the council : Whereas, the holding of General Conferences on this exten- sive continent would be attended with a variety of difficulties, 58 A HAZARDOUS EXPERIMENT 59 and many inconveniences to the work of God; and, whereas, we judge it expedient that a council should be formed of chosen men out of the several districts as representatives of the whole connection, to meet at stated times; in what manner is this council to be formed, what shall be its powers, and what farther regulations shall be made concerning it? The first provision was that the council should consist of the Bishops and presiding elders, but no meeting should be held "with less than nine members." If a presiding elder were unable to attend, he had authority to send another elder from his own district to represent him; but the elder so sent should not have a seat without the approbation of the Bishop or Bishops and presiding cJdcrs present. But if after these provisions were complied with, or for any reason "the number was reduced to less than nine, the Bishop should immediately summon such elders as had not presided to complete the number." The council was to have authority "to mature every- thing it thought expedient to preserve the general union," "to render and preserve the external form of worship similar iu all our societies throughout the continent," "to preserve the essentials of the Methodist doctrines and Discipline pure and uncorrupted," "to correct all abuses and disorders" ; and, lastly, it was authorized "to mature everything that they may see necessary for the good of the Church and for the promoting and improving our colleges and plan of education." It was, however, pro- vided that nothing be "received as the resolution of the council, unless it be assented to unanimously by the council," and nothing so assented to be binding in any district until agreed upon by a majority of the Conferences held for that district. Authority was given to the Bishops "to summon the Council to meet at such times and places as they shall judge expedient." 62 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ASBURY REBUKES WARE An instance of the manner in which Bishop Asbury sometimes overcame opposition is found in the autobiog- raphy of Ware: An unwillingness to oppose Bishop Asbury led a majority of the preachers to yield, so far as to permit the experiment [of the council] to be made. A minority, however, opposed it from tho first; and I happened to be one of that number. I had ventured to say, if there must be a council to consist of Bishops and pre- siding elders, the latter should be chosen, not by the Bishops, but by the Conferences, and everything done in council should be by a simple majority. Much as I respected our Superin- tendents, for one I could not consent to give them a negative on all future proceedings. I was not prepared to charge the projectors of the plan with any other than the purest motives. Others, however, I was persuaded, would do so. And, on the whole, it was better, in my opinion, to abandon the council altogether. He [Bishop Asbury] then gave me some severe rebukes; but, nevertheless, appointed me a presiding elder.^ "coke's attitude Bishop Coke from the beginning was not earnestly in favor of the council, and finally strongly oi)posed its con- tinuance. A writer explaining Coke's vacillation and subserv- iency in this and several other matters, says: "He was in a personal presence that had become awesome to him. To eat and sleep and travel with Asbury was to feel the strange magnetism of his reverent behavior, his persua- sive logic, his unquestioned sincerity, and his dominating will." THE TREATMENT OF LEE Lee records that when the first council met he "wrote them a letter, in which he set forth his objections to their plan, and pointed out the difficulties that it would pro- >it/e of Thomas Ware, pp. 181. 182. A HAZARDOUS EXPERIMENT 63 duce, and contended for a General Conference ; which plan was disapproved of by all the council." liow much he had to endure appears from the following letter which he received in answer to his frankly stated objections in his letter to the council. The italics are in the original, and it is a thinly veiled threat of expulsion. In Council, Baltimore, December 7, 1789. Very Deae Brother: We are both grieved and surprised to find that you make so many objections to the very fundamentals of Methodism. But we consider your want of experience in many things, and therefore put the best construction on your inten- tion. You are acquainted with the Discipline of the Methodist Church. If you can quietly labor among us under our Dis- cipline and Rules, we cheerfully retain you as our brother and fellow laborer, and remain yours in sincere affection. The council was dangerous to the liberties of the peoj)le, and had it become permanent there would have been no limits to its power. To Lee, AVare, and others who opposed it Methodism will ever be indebted. CHAPTER IX The First Regular General Conference "The Christmas Conference," at which Asbury was ordained, and by which Methodists were organized into the Methodist Episcopal Church, though sometimes spoken of as the General Conference, was not actually such, for it had not been previously appointed and notice of it had not been given to all the preachers. As has been said by Bishop Soule and others, it was rather a convention, called under extraordinary circumstances to hear, through a commissioner appointed by him, a formal statement of "John Wesley's mind and will," and to take such action thereon as might seem wise. Wesley right- fully claimed authority over the Methodist societies on this side of the Atlantic, as well as in England; and from the day that he sent missionaries to America this authority, in every issue carried to a conclusion, had been conceded to him. Until the time covered by the events to be detailed in this chapter a series of District Conferences, which had come to be known as Annual, had been the only author- ized assembly of preachers. The extreme difficulty of securing concurrence in so many indei)endent bodies, and the failure of the council, made it irajierative to provide for a General Conference. The Annual Conferences dis- cussed the subject, and with unanimity, authorized the Bishops to call such an assembly to meet in Baltimore November 1, 3792. The Minutes of this body are not in existence, and all known of its proceedings must be ascer- tained from the Disci])line of 1792, the Journals of Coke and Asbury, Lee's History, and the reminiscences of Ware, Garrettson, and Colbert. 64 THE FIRST REGULAR GENERAL CONFERENCE 65 ORIGIN OF REGULAR GENERAL CONFERENCES This raises the query, To whom is the Church indebted for the tirst regular General Conference? As has been shown, to Asbury belongs the credit of having suggested the convention that organized the Church ; he had also proposed and worked out the scheme of the council. The principal promoters of the calling of this Confer- ence were Superintendent Coke, Jesse Lee, and James O'Kelly. Lee had proposed it, and by proposing the council had rendered it necessary; and O'Kelly had de- manded it in order to settle certain serious difficulties which had arisen between himself and Asbury. coke's relation to general conferences Coke described his part in the matter in a letter to the General Conference of 1808, of which the following is extracted: There are very few of you who can possibly recollect any- thing of what I am next going to add. Many of you were then only little children. We had at that time no regular General Conferences. One only had been held in the year 1784. I had, indeed, with great labor and fatigue, a few months before I wrote this letter to Bishop White, prevailed on James O'Kelly and the thirty-six traveling preachers who had withdrawn with him from all connection with Bishop Asbury, to submit to the decision of a General Conference. ... At this Conference, held, I think, the latter end of 1792, I proposed and obtained that great blessing to the American connection, a permanency for General Conferences, which were to be held at stated times.' Coke is confirmed by Snethen's "Keply to O'Kelly": •'It is nothing strange that Dr. Coke should be affected by Mr. O'Kelly's representation of Mr. Asbury's conduct; and, finding Mr. Asbury averse to a General Conference, it is not surprising that the doctor should insist upon iThe whole of this important letter may be found in Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 207-211. 66 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Mr. O'Kelly's request being granted. A few sharp words passed between the two Bishops on this occasion, but the heat was over in a minute." ASBURY-'S ATTITUDE Asbury, however, in his Journal, speaking of Coke's opposing the council, and of James O'Kelly's letters hav- ing reached London, says, "I felt perioctly calm, and acceded to a General Conference for the sake of peace." Asbury also^ commends and corrects his friend Snethen's answer to O'Kelly : "It is well done, and very correctly done, except in a few cases. There was no sharpness at all upon my side with Dr. Coke at Charleston respect- ing the proposed General Conference, which was after- ward held (in 1792). I was fully convinced that nothing else would finish the unhappy business with O'Kelly; and that did finish it." A complete demonstration of Asbury's attitude is found in a letter written to Ezekiel Cooper by him from Peters- burg, Va., April 19, 1791 : . . . You, perhaps, have heard of the General Conference which is to meet instead of the next sitting of the council. A letter from Mr. Wesley, the reappointment of Brother Whatcoat, the strange spirit of murmur here, and what can be done to amend or substitute a council, and perhaps to implead me on the one part, and a presiding elder and Conference on the other. No court is sufficient but a General Conference; and perhaps such a trial may make me and others take care how we take such rash, if not unwarrantable, steps. You are a thinking, prudent man; a word to the wise — let it rest in thy heart. I am, as ever, yours, F. ASBUEY.2 Thus it is clear that Coke, Lee, and O'Kelly were the principal promoters of a General Conference. ' Vol." iii, p. 8. ^ Light on Early Methodism, p. 129. THE FIRST REGULAR GENERAL CONFERENCE 67 It is also established that, though Asbury, preferring a council, at first did not favor a Conference, for the sake of settling an originally local, though widespread difficulty, which threatened disruption, and determining an important principle, as well as to meet other emerg- encies, did later desire the Conference, and so stated more than a year and a half before it was held. By thus doing he conserved the unity of the denomination and rendered it a signal service, for his influence directed against a General Conference would have been sullicient to divide the Annual Conferences or to cause indefinite postponement. GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1792 The first regular General Coiifoi i nee, that of 1792, was composed of men profoundly ini]>i(>ssed with the impor- tance of the occasion and with their i)ersonal resix)nsi- bility. The account given by Lee is the chief authority for many of the circumstances and for the sentiment of the Church. From him we learn that the "preachers who had been received into full connection, came together from all parts of the United i^tates" w ith the expectation that there would probably never bo another Conference at which all could attend. It w as believed that this Con- ference would adoj)t permanent regulations which would I»revent preachers from assembling in a General Confer- ence. This persuasion caused more to attend than would otherwise have done so. HASTY ACTION SOON REVOKED Lee informs us that a committee was appointed, con- sisting chiefly of the oldest preachers, to consider all sub- jects which might require legislation, and "when a ma- jority of them agreed to make any alteration, . they were to make report to the Conference." 68 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY This committee was afterward enlarged but was found to be of no real use, "for," says Lee, "if a few of the com- mittee were opposed to anything that was adopted by a majority of their brethren, when the business was brought before the whole of the Conference, those that were dis- satisfied before, would take an active part in the debates, and all the arguments that had been brought forward in the committee would be taken up again, which did not answer the end intended." The committee was given up, and any preacher was at liberty to bring forward any matter. As the danger of hasty action in such a body, which had power to alter, obliterate, or revoke an existing rule and make any new rule or regulation, was ever imminent, it was therefore resolved that "it shall take two thirds of all the members of the Conference, to make a new rule, or abolish an old one; but a majority may alter or amend any rule." GENERAL CONFERENCES MADE PERMANENT At this Conference it was decided that a General Con- ference should be made an integral part of the organiza- tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that all traveling preachers in full connection at the time of the holding of the Conference should be members of the same. The time and place of the next General Conference was fixed. Several days were spent in revising the Discipline, and many important changes and additions were made. VITAL ACTION CONCERNING BISHOPS Prior to the General Conference of 1702 it was possible for the yearly Conferences to elect Eishops ; but this body enacted that in the first instance they should be elected by the General Conference, and if because of death, ex- pulsion, or resignation, there should be no Bishop remain- THE FIRST REGULAR GENERAL CONFERENCE C9 ing, the General Conference should elect one. And the elders or any three of them that should be appointed by the General Conference should ordain him. It was pro- vided that "if they saw it necessary," the General C(m- ference should have power to exi)el a Bishop for improper conduct ; and a method was established for a "trial of an immoral Bishop in the intervals of a General Conference." Until this time, the placing of a number of circuits in the charge of an elder had been done chiefly on the authority of the General Superintendency. Some objec- tions having been made to this usage, and doubts resi>ect- ing the authority of the Bishops to make such appoint- ments, having been expressed, the General Conference authorized such appointment, and gave Bishops power to change presiding elders at their pleasure, introducing, however, the restriction that no Bishop should allow an elder to preside in the same district more than four suc- cessive years. This Conference was the first to make an express rule giving the wives of traveling preachers a claim upon the funds of the Church. LAW-MAKING POWER TRANSFERRED TO GENERAL CONFERENCE Another result was that the rules, regulations, or laws of the Church were to be enacted by the General Con- ference, and not as heretofore by the Annual. Lee says: The proceedings of this General Conference gave great satis- faction to our preachers and people; and the divisive spirit, which had heen prevailing in different parts of the connection, was considerably checked. And nothing that was done gave more satisfaction than the plan that was laid for having another General Conference at the expiration of four years from that time; to which, all the preachers in full connection were at liberty to come.' ^HistOTU of the Methodists, p. 193. CHAPTER X The Struggle^ Defeat, and Secession of James O'Kelly The most important act of the General Conference of 1792, and one which requires elucidation, was an attempt to place a liniitation on the powers of Bishops with re- spect to the appointment of pastors, and correspondingly to increase the power of Annual Conferences. It must be traced from its germ. In the Annual Con- ference held early in 1784 there was a transaction of much significance. William Glendenning, who had come from England in 1774 and entered the Conference on trial a year later, began a movement which Asbury described as "devising a plan to lay me aside, or at least to abridge my powers."^ His objections undoubtedly related to Asbnry's power over the appointments. Glendenning had been one of the committee of five, appointed to act in place of a General Assistant in case the latter should return to England before the next Conference (in 1777). This incident, though brief, was troublesome, but a letter opportunely received from Wesley determined the jwint. ASBURY^S COMMENT ON o'kBLLY's LETTER But on January 12, 1790, Asbury received a communi- cation from a preacher of the greatest influence, secured by energy, devotion to Methodism, shrewdness, unusual power of persuasion in personal intercourse, and re- markable oratorical gifts. To this letter Asbury refers : I received a letter from the presiding elder of this district, James O'Kelly: he makes heavy complaints of my power, and ^Ashury's Journal, vol. i, p. 473. 70 THE SECESSION OF JAMES O'KELLY 71 bids me stop for one year, or he must use his influence against me. Power! Power!! There is not a vote given in a Con- ference in which the presiding elder has not greatly the ad- vantage of me; all the influence I am to gain over a company of young men in a district must be done in three weeks; the greater part of them, perhaps, are seen by me only at Con- ference whilst the presiding elder has had them with him all the year, and has the greatest opportunity of gaining influence; this advantage may be abused; let the Bishops look to it; but who has power to lay an embargo upon me, and to make of none effect the decision of all the Conferences of the union?' The next reference to O'Kelly is dated August 21, 17!)1 : "I received the olive branch from All is peace — it was obtained by a kind letter from me to O'Kelly." This truce was temporary. It was certain that O'Kelly would be present at the General Conference of 1702, and in a warlike attitude. In fact, the greatest attack that Asbury had experienced, and one which lacked but little of success, was impending. o'kelly's amendment On the second day of the session of the Conference O'Kelly offered an amendment to the law investing the Bishop with the ])ower of fixing the ajiijointments of the preachers for the several circuits, which amendment was as follows: After the Bishop appoints the preachers at Conference to their several circuits, if anyone 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 Bishop shall appoint him to another circuit. The debate on this amendment, called the "Appeal," continued three days. Influential men were arrayed against each other. James O'Kelly, Richard Ivey, Hope Hull, Richard Swift, Freeborn Garrettson, without a Journal, vol. ii, p. 69. 72 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY superior in the Church, and William McKendree, after- ward a Bishop, argued for the right of appeal. Henry Willis, Jesse Lee, Thomas Morrell, Joseph Everitt, and Nelson Reed opposed the amendment. WARE^S LUMINOUS ACCOUNT There are several accounts of the debate, but that of Ware is, as usual, on every subject which he touches, the clearest. He says: When the adjustment of the powers of the oflBcers in Church or State is the subject of reflection, we are not always certain how far we ought to yield ourselves in voluntary submission. We may give up too much — more than the object is worth, or the exigence of the case requires. He expresses the opinion that "had Mr. O'Kelly's proposi- tion been diti'erently managed, it might possibly have been carried." That at first "he (Ware) "did not see anything very objectionable in it"; but during the debate he "very much disliked the spirit of those who advocated it," and wondered at their severity : Some of them said that it was a shame for a man to accept of such a lordship, much more to claim it; and that they who would submit to this absolute dominion must forfeit all claims to free- dom, and ought to have their ears bored through with an awl, and be fastened to their master's door, and become slaves for life. One said that to be denied such an appeal was an insult to his understanding, and a species of tyranny to which others might submit if they chose, but for his part he must be excused for saying he could not' ARGUMENTS AGAINST APPEAL The arguments against the appeal chiefly related to the serious difficulties with which it would be encumbered, such as that if one preacher appealed and the Conference voted that his appointment should be altered, the Bishop iLi/e of Thomas Ware. pp. 220, 221. THE SECESSION OF JAMES O'KELLY 73 would have to remove another to make room for him, in which case the second might appeal, and the first might appeal from the new appointment; or others might appeal whose appointments these successive alternations made unsatisfactory. At that time each had liberty to speak three times on any motion. Lee says : The arguments for and against the proposal were weighty and handled in a masterly manner. There never had been a subject before us that so fully called forth all the strength of the preachers. A large majority of them appeared at first to be in favor of the motion. But at last Mr. John Dickins moved to divide the question thus: First, Shall the Bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits? Second, Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal? After some debate the dividing the question was carried. The first question being put, it was carried without a dissenting voice. But when we came to the second question, "Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal?" there was a diflaculty started, whether this was to be considered a new rule, or only an amendment of an old one. If it was a new rule, it would take two thirds of the votes to carry it. After a considerable debate, it was agreed by vote that it was only an amendment of an old rule.^ Those opposed to an appeal urged that Wesley, the father of the Methodist family, had devised the plan and deemed it essential for the preservation of the itinerancy. They said that, according to the showing of O'Kelly, Wes- ley, were he alive, ought to blush, for, to the day of his death, he claimed the right to station the preachers. ASBURY's letter to the CONP'ERENCE During all this debate Coke presided, Asbury having retired. The entry in his Journal is: I felt awful at the General Conference, which began November 1, 1792. At my desire they appointed a moderator, and pre- paratory committee, to keep order and bring forward the busi- ness with regularity. . . . Some individuals among the preachers ■Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 178, 179. ^Vol. ii. pp. 172, 173. 74 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY having their jealousies about my influence in the Conference, I gave the matter wholly up to them, and to Dr. Coke, who pre- sided. Meantime I sent them the following letter: My Deab Brethren: Let my absence give you no pain — Dr. Coke presides. I am happily excused from assisting to make laws by which myself am to be governed: I have only to obey and execute. I am happy in the consideration that I never sta- tioned a preacher through enmity, or as a punishment. I have acted for the glory of God, the good of the people, and to promote the usefulness of the preachers. Are you sure, that, if you please yourselves, the people will be as fully satisfied? They often say, "Let us have such a pi-eacher"; and, sometimes, "We will not have such a preacher; we will sooner pay him to stay at home." Perhaps I must say, "His appeal forced him upon you." I am one — ye are many. I am as willing to serve you as ever. I want not to sit in any man's way. I scorn to solicit votes. I am a very trembling, poor creature to hear praise or dispraise. Speak your minds freely; but remember, you are only making laws for the present time. It may be, that as in some other things, do in this, a future day may give you further light. I am yours, etc., Francis Asbuby. This letter is just such an one as Asbury should have written (if he wrote at all), but it overthrows his Journal entry — "I gave the matter wholly up to them and to Dr. Coke, who presided." No single speech, nor ten, in the debate could have pro- duced an effect equal to that of this letter. It crystallized all the vital points in a few words. What argument is omitted? What string in the human heart is left un- touched? Not in all the annals of Methodism, including the wonderful and voluminous letters of Wesley, is there one comparable with this. During this long debate Sunday intervened. On Mon- day it was resumed, continued through the day, and, in the homely words of Lee, "At night we went to Mr. Otter- bein's church, and again continued it till near bedtime, when the vote was taken, and the motion was lost by a large majority." THE SECESSION OF JAMES O'KELLY 75 o'kelly and others secede The next morning O'Kellr, and certain other preachers who had determined to stand by him to the end, addressed a letter to the Conference setting forth that "on account of the refusal to incorporate the right of the preachers to appeal from an appointment which was oppressive, they could not in conscience take any further part in the pro- ceedings." The Conference appointed a committee of three to persuade them, if possible, to resume their seats. Garrettson, who was one of the committee, says that the situation "gave great grief to the whole Conference." In the interview "many tears were shed, but we were not able to reconcile him [O'Kelly] to the decision of the Conference. His wovmd was deep, and apparently in- curable." After a day or two O'Kelly and Coke had a long con- versation, in which the former brought forward many charges both against Coke's oflBcial acts and also against the Conference. This interview availing nothing, after staying in Baltimore one or two days longer, O'Kelly and "the preachers that were particularly influenced by him," set out for Virginia. Having left their horses about twelve miles from the city, they walked that distance, carrying their saddlebags, great coats, and other belong- ings on their shoulders. Lee, who gives these details, adds: "I stood and looked after them as they went off, and observed to one of the preachers, that I was sorry to see the old man go off in that way, for I was persuaded that he would not be quiet long, but he would try to be the head of some party." THE RESULTS The secession of James O'Kelly and the preachers who had adhered to him was no trifling matter. It seriously 7G CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY embarrassed the Methodist societies in Virginia and the adjacent parts of the country. The Minutes of 1793 con- tain a Question and Answer which had not before ap- peared : Q. What preachers have withdrawn themselves from our ordei and connection? A. James O'Kelly, John Allen, Rice Haggard, John Robertson. Many local preachers accompanied them. O'Kelly, whose services had been invaluable and whose labors and exposures had been unceasing, being in the seventh decade of his life, and weakened physically by advancing years and the effects of hard work and privation, Asbury proposed to the Conference, that it allow him forty pounds per annum, "as when he traveled in the connection, pro- vided he would be peaceable and forbear to excite divisions." o'kelly pounds a church O'Kelly accepted the appropriation for a brief period, but finally relinquished it and exerted all his great powers to originate and build up a new Church. At the close of four years, notwithstanding many accessions, the Methodists showed a loss of 7,.352 members. But, as Stevens recounts, not all went to O'Kelly, for the schism drew off many who did not affiliate with the new party. At that time the State of Virginia was politically divided into two parties, the Republicans and the Federalists, the former being largely in the majority. O'Kelly, with much shrewdness, having in view temporary effect, named his Church "The Republican Methodists." This begniled numbers. The promises made to the people were "greater liberties to lay members," and "entire equality in the ministry." Lee, who was familiar with all the circum- stances and the territory, sadly writes: "It was enough to make the saints of God weep between the porch and THE SECESSION OF JAMES O KELLY the altar, and that both day and night, to see how •The Lord's flock was carried away captive,' by that division." In 1793 they formed a constitution and gave themselves the name before mentioned. Within eight years they threw away this constitution and changed their name to "The Christian Church," based on the principle of leaving every man to interpret the Xew Testament for himself. A WAR OF TAMPHLETS A pamphlet war raged for some time. It was begun by one published by O'Kelly attacking Asbury and ''his Church." The title on which he relied to vindicate him- self and the Church w^as "The Author's Apology for Pro- testing against the Methodist Episcopal Church." Asbury collected facts and placed them in possession of the Conference, which appointed its ablest writer, Nicho- las Snethen, to reply. He named his production, "A Reply to an Apology." O'Kelly sj>eedily issued "A Vindication of an Apology." Snethen responded in "An Answer to James O'Kelly's Vindication of his Apology." In such hot discussions, the truth is usually economized accord- ing to the exigencies of the occasion and that often in- nocently. But a comparison of such documents enables the deliberative and impartial reader to ascertain the truth. m'kendree influenced by o'kelly Among the preachers who at first adhered to O'Kelly was William McKeudree, who, having been a traveling preacher for three years, had been ordained an elder by Asbury. Tradition says that he was one of the most vehe- ment advocates of the Appeal. He had long been asso- ciated with O'Kelly. In 1700 the latter visited McKen- dree and at a convention of preachers in Mecklenburg, a 78 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Council was formed to demand a General Conference. The effect was that McKendree, thoroughly believing in O'Kelly, lost faith in "the Bishop and his creatures"! Young in the ministry as he was, he informed Bishop Asbury that he had lost confidence in him, to which the Bishop replied: "I don't wonder at that, brother; some- times we can see with our eyes; sometimes we can see only with our ears." McKendree had traveled to the General Conference in company with O'Kelly. Years afterward McKendree wrote : "The old gentleman [O'Kelly] broke off. I and some others obtained liberty of the Conference to return home, and set out for Virginia. We had many consultations, were often confused in our deliberations ; and the rest of the company having left us, the old gentleman and myself traveled the greater part of the way together. He unfolded his plan. It was to be a 'glorious Church,' 'no slavery,' etc. But it was founded ui)on the supposition that a ruinous government was being introduced by the revolutionizing Conference he had left." But within a short time McKendree consented to take a station. The preachers, who departed from the Gen- eral Confernce, had done so before the Discipline was revised, and when it appeared McKendree said : "How was I surprised, in the course of the year, to find the form of Discipline entirely different from what I had expected, and also to find just cause to begin to withdraw my con- fidence from my old and best-beloved friend !"^ ASBURY TO MORRELL Asbury shows in his correspondence that he was as much "wrought up" by the controversy as O'Kelly him- •From McKendree's Autobiographical Letter written to Asbury in 1803; Paine's Life and Times of WiUiam McKendree, vol. i, pp. 58-66. THE SECESSION OF JAMES O'KELLY 79 self, for soon after the Conference he wrote to his friend, Thomas Morrell : I believe now nothing short of being an Episcopos was his first aim. His second was to make the council independent of the Bishop and General Conference, if they would canonize his writings. This could not be done. His next step was with the authority of a Pope to forbid me, by letter, to go one step further with the council, after carrying it once around the continent and through the first council, which ordered me to go round and know the minds of the brethren. His following step was to write against me to Mr. Wesley, who he knew was dis- affected to me, because I did not merely force the American Con- ference to accede to Mr. Wesley's appointment of Brother What- coat, which I did submit to Dr. Coke only for peace with our old father. How moved he then to make himself independent of me and the general connection, and dragged in the little Doctor [Coke] whom, a little before, he would have banished from the continent. Then he stipulated with me through the Doctor to let him stay in that station, and consented to leave the decision to a General Conference, and when the decision went against him, went away. Now he, who was one of the greatest opposers they had, is suspected of raising a sedition among the local preachers. And, lastly, to set the people against us. Thus he has gone. o'kelly's heresy Other reasons than opposition to the government of the Church may have actuated O'Kelly, for Lee states that, as he stood looking after O'Kelly, the preacher (to whom he said that he was sorry to see him go off in that way) informed him "that Mr, O'Kelly denied the doctrine of the Trinity and preached against it by saying that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were characters and not persons: and that these characters all belonged to Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The preacher further said that it was his in- tention to have had O'Kelly tried at that Conference for the false doctrines that he had been preaching; and he believed that his leaving the Conference was more out of 80 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY fear of being brought to trial than on account of the Ap- peal. Tradition and considerable evidence show that O'Kelly did preach, during the more than thirty years that he survived, doctrines contrary to those of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church. Asbury, with equal sagacity, courage, and self-denial, at once went among those likely to be affected by the schism where he held Confei-ences, love feasts, class and band meetings, preaching once or twice a day and riding forty or fifty miles almost daily. Lee accompained him, using his very considerable in- fluence, and had it not been for these labors of Asbury and Lee, a far larger number would have withdrawn. A similar secession had been begun by William Ham- mett, the center of which was in Charleston, South Caro- lina, and the situation was seriously complicated with the O'Kelly faction. Hammett was a man of brilliant talents and had been a commanding influence in Charleston. Ac- cording to Lee, he died in 1803, and the schism, which he had created, shortly after became extinct. CHAPTER XI The General Conference of 179G The second regular General Conference — the first whose Journal was printed — convened in Baltimore. An ad- dress in the name of the General Conference, signed by the two Bishops, was communicated to the Church. It contains this important statement: In order to prevent hasty innovations, we have, therefore, on a former occasion, confined solely to the General Con- ference the work of revising our Form of Discipline, re- serving for the yearly Conferences the common business of the connection, as directed by the form. Our General Con- ference is held once only in four years, and it is open to every preacher in full connection. Every such preacher has, therefore, ample time to weigh every subject of importance, to consult upon it with all his friends, and to be present at the General Conference, to give his vote, as well as declare his sentiments at large. Or he may deliver his thoughts, in con- fidence, to one or more of his brethren, who intend to be present. BOUNDARIES OF CONFERENCES One hundred and twenty ministers were present, but their names are not recorded. The Church was divided into six Conferences ; and, for the first time, their boimd- aries were fixed. The New England included the aff"airs of our Church in New England, and that part of the State of New York which lies on the east side of the Hudson River. (Permission was given to the Bishops to hold a Confer- ence in the Province of Maine.) The Philadelphia Con- ference included the remainder of the State of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania east of the Susquehanna River, the State of Delaware and the rest of the Penin- sula. The Baltimore comprehended the remainder of 81 82 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Pennsylvania, the remainder of Maryland, and the Northern Neck of Virginia. The Virginia Conference included that State south of the Rappahannock, and North Carolina north of the Cape Fear River, also certain circuits on the branches of the Yadkin. The South Carolina Conference covered South Carolina, Georgia, and the remainder of North Carolina; and the Western Conference consisted of the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. "The Bishops were given authority to appoint other yearly Conferences in the interval of the General Conference if a suflflciency of new circuits were anywhere formed for that purpose." REASONS FOR LARGER CONFERENCES The General Conference explained this radical action of reducing the number and enlarging the territory of the Conferences by stating, that the Conferences had been very small, and that their dimensions were attended by many inconveniences: 1. There were but few of the senior preachers, whose years and experience had matured their judgments, who could be present at any one Conference. 2. The Conferences wanted that dignity which every re- ligious synod should possess, and which always accompanies a large assembly of gospel ministers. 3. The itinerant plan was exceedingly cramped, from the diflSculty of removing preachers from one district to another. These fully justified the attitude against small Con- ferences taken by Lee and others long before. The explanation further states that the Conferences were so arranged that all "the members respectively may attend with little difficulty, . . . ; that the active, zealous, unmarried preachers may move on a larger scale, . . . while the married preachers, whose circumstances require them, in many instances, to be more located than the single men, will have a considerable field of action opened THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1796 83 to them." Also that "the Bishops will be able to attend the Conferences with greater ease, and without injury to their health." A Deed of Settlement for the churches gave the pro- tection of law to the trustees of every house or place of worship for the use of members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to the Rules and Discipline which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and preachers of the said Church, at their General Conferences in the United States of America; and in further trust and confidence that they [the trustees] shall at all times, forever hereafter, permit such ministers and preachers, belong- ing to the said Church, as shall from time to time be duly authorized by the General Conferences of the ministers and preachers of the said Methodist Episcopal Church, or by the yearly Conferences authorized by the said General Conference, and none others, to preach and expound God's Holy Word therein, etc.* The necessity of this deed is explained and its pro- visions are defended in the Journal. The Conference recommended, and engaged to promote, the publication of The Methodist Magazine. The Chartered Fund was established, for the "benefit of distressed traveling preachers, for the families of traveling preachei-s, and for the superannuated, and worn- out preachers, and the widows and orphans of preachers." Attention was given to the establishment of educa- tional institutions; and an elaborate plan of education was prepared and recommended "to our seminaries of learning and to the public and members of our societies." SETTLING THE STATUS OP COKE While no reference is made to the election of another Bishop in the Journal of the General Conference of 1796, Lee says2 : ^Journal of 1796. p. 13. 2 Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 247, 248. 84 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY At that time it was thought proper to have another Bishop elected and ordained, and the Conference voted that it should be done during the sitting of that Conference. After the vote was taken, a difficulty arose about the manner of choosing, or electing a man to be ordained a Bishop; and before the point was settled, Dr. Coke begged that the business might be laid over until the afternoon, which was done. When we met in the afternoon the Doctor offered himself to us, if we saw cause to take him; and promised to serve us in the best manner he could, and to be entirely at the disposal of. his American brethren, to live or die among them. The Conference at length agreed to the Doctor's proposal, . . . and the former vote for choosing another Bishop was dropped. The Doctor then gave us the following statement in writing: "I offer myself to my American brethren entirely to their service, all I am and have, with my talents and labors in every respect; without any mental reservation whatsoever, to labor among them, and to assist Bishop Asbury; not to station the preachers at any time when he is present; but to exercise all the episcopal duties, when I hold a Conference in his absence, and by his consent, and to visit the West Indies aad France when there is an opening, and I can be spared. "(Signed) Thomas Coke. "Conference Room, October 27, 1796." A CRITICAL DEBATE The best authorities, next to Lee, for this General Con- ference are a letter of the Rev. John Kobler and the Journal of the Rev. William Colbert, who were present. Kobler's letter was written many years after the event, but he had kept memoranda. He says : Lee was the best speaker in the Conference. He first showed that there were several members in our connection who were well qualified to fill the office, having been long and well proved; who were natives of the country, one of ourselves, and were well acquainted with the rules by which our civil and religious privi- leges were regulated. But his most powerful argument, I well remember was this, "That the Doctor was a thoroughbred Eng- lishman; and an entire stranger abroad in the country {out of the Church); that the deep-rooted prejudice against British oppression, which by our arduous Revolutionary struggle we THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1796 85 had so recently thrown off, still hung heavily, and was operat- ing powerfully upon the public mind; and that to select a high officer to govern our Church from that distant and tyrannizing nation, . . . would, in his judgment, be a very impolitic step, and •would tend to raise the suspicions and prejudices of the public against us as a Church." He further said he had frequently heard the same objections made against us as an American Church for having a native of England (Bishop Asbury) at our head; and now to add another, who, in many respects, had not the experience, prudence, nor skill in government that Bishop Asbury had, would operate very materially against the best interests of the Church. According to Kobler, this debate lasted two days, dur- ing which time Colce "was sechided from the Conference room." '"^Slr. Lee and his party had the better of the cause in debate, and were gaining confidence continually. . . , When Bishop Asbury saw how the matter was likely to go, he rose from the chair, and with much apparent feeling said : 'If we reject him, it will be his ruin, for the British Conference will certainly know of it, and it will sink him vastly in their estimation.' " This, Kobler says, put an end to the debate. He also remarks that "dur- ing the debate, the Doctor came into the Conference and made a speech" — showing that his seclusion was not com- plete. Colbert is brief but significant : Yesterday there was much talk about another Bishop, and in the afternoon Dr. Coke made an offer of himself. It was not determined whether they would receive him. But to-day I sup- pose there were not a dozen out of a hundred that rejected him by their votes. This gave me satisfaction. ANOTHER ACCOUNT The Kev. \yilliam Phoebus, M.D., a notable character, brilliant and useful, though exceedingly eccentric, gives another account. In his Memoirs of Bishop Whatcoat^ he says : > Page 84. 86 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The question before the house was, "If Francis Asbury's seat as Superintendent be vacated by death, or otherwise, was Dr. Coke considered, from the authority he had in the Church, as having a right to take the Superintendency in the same manner as it was exercised by Francis Asbury?" Dr. Coke was then asked if he would be ready to come to the United States and reside there, if he were called to take the charge as Superin- tendent, so that there might be a succession from Wesley. He agreed, as soon as he should be able to settle his charge in Eu- rope, with all pleasure and possible 'dispatch to come and spend his days in America. The Rev. Superintendent Asbury then reached out his right hand in a pathetic speech, the purport of which was: "Our enemies said we were divided, but all past grievances were buried, and friends at first, are friends at last, and I hope never to be divided." The Doctor took his right hand in token of isubmission, while many present were in tears of joy to see the happy union in the heads of department, and from a prospect of the Wesleyan episcopacy being likely to continue in regular order and succession. The phrases "heads of department," "token of submis- sion," and "Wesleyan episcopacy" indicate the almost paralyzing influence exerted by Asbury on some minds. That there is no reference in the Journal to this important debate and its equally important conclusion is perplexing. The only rational inference is that Bishops Asbury and Coke did not wish it to appear. After the close of the Conference, Coke, in perfect har- mony with Asbury, continued in the work of the episco- pacy. Both presided at the Virginia and South Carolina Conferences, Coke preaching frequently, to the delight of all. February 6, 1797, he sailed from Charleston, South Carolina, to preside over the English Conference.^ 'The Oneral Conference of 1852, on May 25, ordered the Book Agents to pub- lish the Jmmals of the General Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from 1800 to 1836 inclusive. Five days later the instructions were enlarged by the requisition to include all extant Minutes from the organization of the Church up to 1800. Dr. John McClintock, to whom the .supervision of the work was com- mitted, cloaes the preface to the Journals from 1792 to 1836 inclusive with these statements: "The Minutes of the General Conference for 1792 were never printed to my knowledge, nor can I find the original copy. Those of 1796 were published in a compendium form, which is now reprinted." CHAPTER XII The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804 The General Conference of 1800 at once took on a very radical spirit. The first business was to elect a secretary, and the next to agree upon rules for the management of business and the preservation of order. The first motion relating to the Discipline was that "the yearly Confer- ences be authorized by this General Conference to nomi- nate and elect their own presiding elders." This was made the Order of the Day for the ensuing Tuesday, the regular business of the Conference having been begun on Wednesday. PREPARING TO ELECT A BISHOP Superintendent Coke "moved, that the new Bishop" — whom the Conference had voted to elect — "whenever he presides at an Annual Conference in the absence of Bishop Asbury, shall bring the stations of the preachers into the Conference and read them, that he may hear what the Conference has to say upon each station." But this was withdrawn the next day. Then Wells "moved that the new Bishop, in stationing the preachers, be aided by a committee of not less than three, or more than four preachers, chosen by the Con- ference." A similar motion, but intended to govern all the Bishops "a majority determining," was made the next day by Buxton, and later one by Mansfield to the same eflfect, but with the additional point that the Bishops should still have the ultimate decision ; but all three were defeated. McClaskey moved "that the Conference determine, be- fore the votes be canvassed, the powers of the new Bishop, 87 88 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY whether he shall be equal to Bishop Asbury, or subordi- nate to him." This was withdrawn by consent. A motion was made by Roberts "that no man shall be eligible to the office of a Bishop who has not traveled fifteen years." But later he "obtained leave to withdraw his motion." Another was made by Wise "that the fifth section of the Form of Discipline, as far as it respects the appointment of presiding elders, be taken up and con- sidered." Mansfield moved "that the Bishops shall have full and equal jurisdiction in all and every respect whatsoever; that each and every Bishop shall attend each and every Conference, and then and there mutually preside, and station the preachers: provided, that in case they should unavoidably be prevented from all attending, the Bishop or Bishops then present shall be competent to discharge the duties of the office as fully and effectually, in every respect, as if they were all present; that at each and every Conference the Bishops present shall mutually determine and agree upon their several different routes to the en- suing Conference." This motion was lost. On a day previously appointed, Ormond's motion with reference to the appointment of presiding elders was called up, and voted down. WHATCOAT ELECTED On Monday, May 12, the Conference voted to proceed to the election of a Bishop. The ballot was a tie, and was supposed to be defective. Upon the second ballot, the number of votes being 115, there were 59 votes for Richard Whatcoat, 55 for Jesse Lee, and one blank. Whatcoat was an Englishman, ordained by Wesley, but mild, unobtru- sive, and aged. The Conference evidently feared that there would be trouble if any other elder should be associated with As- THE GENERAL, CONFERENCES OF 1800 AND 1804 89 bury in the General Superintendency. That the first ballot was a tie, and that a change of three votes on the second would have elected Lee shows his high standing and influence. William Phoebus represents that Lee was defeated be- cause he had "a Presbyterian idea of the episcopacy" ; but no other witness affirms this, and others assign different reasons. Subsequent events also render probable that Phoebus unconsciously allowed his owti desires to suggest this reason. The record of this Conference shows that all attempts to limit the episcopacy in making the appointments were either withdrawn or voted down, and that all efforts to determine and define the relations of Bishops, as to whether they were to be equal to Bishop Asbury or sub- ordinate to him, were also voted doAvn. 1804 This General Conference began with much discussion of proposed amendments to the Rules of Order. The eligibility of five applicants for membership was challenged by a motion of McCaine that a committee be appointed ''to inquire into the right of Knowlton, Taylor, Ryan, Jacob Gruber, and Lyon to seats in this Confer- ence." A committee of seven was appointed, including Lee, Garrettson. and George Pickering. Lee reported for the committee that they "are unanimous in their opinion that the five brethren are not entitled to a seat in this Conference." It was then "resolved by vote, that the re- port of the committee be considered by Conference, sepa- rately and distinctly, with respect to the several persons objected against." The next record is : Determined, by vote, that the time of any preacher's traveling, under the direction of a presiding elder, shall not be reckoned as part of his probation, which shall commence from the time of his reception by Conference. 90 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY It was then referred to the committee with power, and at the next session Lee reported that the five brethren "have not a right to sit in this Conference." Much time was spent in revising the Discipline section by section. In view of what followed, this was one of the most important pieces of work performed by any Con- ference. The results were' incorporated in the Discipline, but the Journal of the General Conference omits the de- tails. The proposition to make local deacons eligible to or- dination as elders elicited a long debate, and when put to vote was lost, the same number of votes (44) being cast for and against the motion. Bishops Coke and Asbury took an active part in the proceedings. Coke made not less than fourteen motions, generally showing an orderly mind and an excellent judgment; Asbury introduced six resolutions; and it is significant that nearly all these motions made by the General Superintendents were carried. Close attention was given to slavery, the Book Concern, and the Chartered Fund. HEATED DISCUSSIONS Every relevant question, great or small, seems to have been debated at length, and there are evidences that there were so much excitement and so many personalities as to make the Conference ashamed to admit spectators. The only reference found, in the Journal, to the devout and amiable Bishop Whatcoat {except his signature at the end) is in these words: "Bishop Whatcoat rose to recom- mend the suppression of passion or ill will in debate, and that reason should rule in every loving contest." Imme- diately after this remark by Whatcoat Asbury moved that "the doors he closed," and by a second vote they were closed "against all except members of Conference." Again THE GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1800 AND 1804 91 it was voted that "all the official members of our Church" should be "admitted as spectators." But later it was voted that "wo person be admitted as a spectator," and after this the doors were closed against all but local elders. Asbury's references to this Conference are: "There were attempts made upon the ruling eldership. We had a great talk. I talked little on any subject. . . . The Lord did not own the ministerial labors of the General Con- ference, it was a doubt if any souls were converted. This made us mourn." Lee laments: "There was very little stir of religion among us during the sitting of the Conference." It is remarkable that a man, of so democratic a spirit in most respects should assign such a cause as this: "One prin- cipal reason of our barrenness, I believe, was owing to an improper plan which was adopted by the Conference in the beginning of their business, which was this: to admit men, ivomen, and children into the galleries of the meeting house to hear our debates." This confirms the conclusion that there must have been much ill feeling, and many exhibitions of it; for decorous debates on the government and work of the Church can- not Impede the growth of genuine religion. SALIENT POINTS OF THE DISCIPLINE At this Conference, Ezekiel Cooper, then everywhere recognized as one of the statesmen of Methodism, "moved an alteration in the twenty-third Article of Religion, viz., 'Constitution of the United States' for 'General Act of Confederation,' and 'are a sovereign and independent na- tion, and' to be inserted between the word 'States' and 'ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.' " Cooper also moved the insertion of this question : "Who shall appoint the place of the Annual Conferences? 92 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Answer: Each Annual Conference shall appoint the place of its own sitting" — which was carried. The existence and powers of the presiding eldership were discussed. On the fourth day of the Conference "Thomas Syell moved the abolition of the whole fifth section, concerning presiding elders. This was afterward altered by the mover to that there he no presiding elders." In the proceedings of the next session, the Journal is: "After a long debate, the motion 'That there be no pre- siding elders' was lost." • This will be seen to have a weighty bearing on future momentous events. The next day McCIaskey moved that "no presiding elder shall have power to remove the preacher who has the charge of the circuit or station, ivithout his consent." The motion was lost. The Conference of 1804 is also celebrated for the rule forbidding the Bishops to allow any preacher to remain in the same station or circuit more than two years suc- cessively, except the presiding elders, etc. CHAPTER XIII Growing Demand for Equitable Methods op Legislation Dissatisfaction with the composition of the General Conference had been for years manifestly increasing. It arose from several radical defects; one of these was that preachers of little experience, most dei^endent on leaders, and obsequious to authority, and often of the least ability, were equally eligible to seats and votes with those of in- dependent opinions and thorough familiarity Avith the rules and needs of the Church. Another was the ine- quality of the representation of Conferences near to or re- mote from the place of meeting. A plan to remove the first difficulty went into effect for the first time, in the General Conference of 1804. Prior to this all preachers who had traveled tivo years were eligible to membership, but by a rule made in 1800, "only preachers of four years' standing in the Annual Conferences" could be admitted to seats. Hence, though the number present in 1804 was less than before, Lee says, "We considered it of greater weight because of their age in the ministry." unbearable inequality The second difficulty was even more irritating. The Conference of 1804 was held in Baltimore, and thirty of the members of the Baltimore Conference were present, and of the Philadelphia thirty-seven appeared; from the large Conference of Virginia there were but seventeen ; from New Yoi'k but twelve; from South Carolina only five came; from the New England but four; while from 93 94 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY the great and growing Western Conference a meager con- tingent of three reported. In that early period neither steamboats nor railways diminished hardships nor speeded the traveler on his way. Baltimore and Philadelphia together had a majority of thirteen in the body, and lacked but five of having two thirds. Lee remarks: "We saw the necessity of making an alteration in that point; but, after all, we let it re- main as it was." There were several additional vexatious elements in the situation. The central Conferences had had the oppor- tunity of unifying sentiment, and great power had been exerted by the two largest Conferences, particularly by the Baltimore. When the General Conference assembled, the members from distant points found the business ma- tured and a majority committed on almost every question. The Virginia Conference, consisting of men of force — not a little jealous of the central Conferences and of the influence of the Bishops through them, and remembering the early sacramental controversy — stood to some extent between the remote and central section, and a considerable number in all Conferences were ready to join them or the majority according to their convictions or interests. STEPS LEADING TO A DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE So far as can be ascertained from contemporaneous documents and tradition, the steps which led to the for- mation of a delegated General Conference are as follows; Asbury records in his Journal: "This day brother Jesse Lee put a paper into my hand, proposing the election of not less than two, nor more than four, preachers from each Conference, to form a General Conference in Balti- more, in December, 1792, to be continued annually."^ This testimony gives Lee a foremost place in American •Vol. ii. p. 128. July 7. 1791. EQUITABLE METHODS OF LEGLISLATION 95 Methodism as a farseeing and sagacious man, the de- nouncer and destroyer of the aristocratic council, and the early perceiver that a delegated Conference, and that only, would provide for permanent, consistent, and satis- factory legislation. In the General Conference of 1800, on May 8, James Folleson moved that. Whereas, Much time has been lost, and will always be lost in the event of a General Conference being continued; and, Whereas, The circuits are left without preachers for one, two, or three months, and other great inconveniences attend so many of the preachers leaving their work, and no real advantage arises therefrom, Resolved, That instead of a General Conference we substitute a delegated one. This motion was called up on May 15 and lost by a great majority. This resolution with the preamble was in terms so clear, concise, and conclusive, that it should have convinced the body and secured its purpose; but other experiments, some of them impracticable, were yet to be tried before the one rational and equalizing method could be enacted and put in operation. In the Baltimore Conference, held in March, 1806, "it was recommended to the Annual Conferences to consider on the propriety of having a select, delegated Conference : the Eastern, Western, and Southern Conferences were counseled to take such measures as they, in their wisdom, might see best, to produce a more equal representation from their several bodies to the General Conference."^ A PECULIAR SCHEME The New York Conference assembled May 16, 1806. Bishop Whatcoat was rapidly approaching the end of his laborious life. Coke was in Europe, and the entire ^Aahury'a Journal, vol. iii, pp. 217, 218. 96 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY burden of the Superintendency was about to fall upon Asbury, far advanced in years. Aslury's Journal notes : A paper was read, setting forth the uncertain state of the Superintendency, and proposing the election of seven elders, from each of the seven Conferences, to meet at Baltimore, July 4, 1807, for the sole purpose of establishing the American Su- perintendency on a sure foundation: this subject will be sub- mitted to the consideration of all the Conferences.* Bangs says that they were to have "power to elect one Bishop or more, and also to provide for a future delegated General Conference, whose powers should be defined and limited by constitutional restrictions."^ Bangs was a member of the New York Conference ; but he did not pub- lish his history of Methodism for more than thirty years after these events. It is probable that he recalled some of the remarks made in debate and considered them a part of the "plan." But Bishop Paine, the friend and biographer of Bishop McKendree, states^ that he pos- sessed the original document as issued by the New York Conference, and that it provided that the electors should assemble in Baltimore "with full powers to elect, organize, and establish a permanent Superintendency, and for no other purpose." To the original document were attached the following statements: The New England Conference concurs with the proposal made by the New York Conference, for calling a delegated General Conference on July 4, 1807, for the express purpose of strengthen- ing the Superintendency. Yeas, 28; nays, 15. Tho. Branch, Sec'y. The Western Conference concurs with the proposal made by the. . . . Unanimity. Wm. Burke, Sec'y. The South Carolina Conference concurs. . . . Two members only excepted. Lewis Myers, Sec'y. ■Vol. iii. p. 224. ^History of the Methodist Episopal Church, vol. ii, p. 177. 'Life and Times of Bishop McKendree, vol. i, p. 185. EQUITABLE METHODS OP LEGLISLATION 97 AN EFFECTUAL BLOCKADE Virginia Conference, Newbern, Feb. 6, 1807. — The New York Conference having written a circular letter to the several Annual Conferences, proposing a plan to strengthen the Superin- tendency, the letter was read in this Conference yesterday, and a vote taken — "Shall we consider the subject?" Only seven were in favor of the motion. The subject was called up again to-day, and a second vote was taken: fourteen were in favor of it. It is therefore the decision of Conference not to be concerned in it. Signed in and by order of the Conference. P. Bruce, Jesse Lee, Thomas L. Douglass, Se&y. There were 34 memhers at the Conference; 33 were present when the vote was taken, and the absent member said he would have voted for it if he had been in the room. Thos. L. Douglass, Sec'y. A paper is also extant, dated "Newbern, North Caro- lina, February 8, 1807, expressing the dissent of Philip Bruce, Stith Mead, Thomas L. Douglass, and John Buxton to the action of the Virginia Conference in refusing to take into consideration the circular of the New York Con- ference." Thej inotested on the ground that it was in- judicious and impolitic to refuse hearing a debate on anything of such importance. They then attempt to ex- plain the course pursued by the Conference by attributing it "to the state of our Conference, being composed of more than one third young men, and the vehement outcries of 'Rebellion' — 'Worse than Burr' — 'Of foreswearing' — 'Di- viding the connection' ! etc., raised by two of our elder brethren (J. Lee and D. Hall), which so alarmed the young men that they were afraid to hear or see the letters, or submit to the debate upon the address from New York." This is a singular method of discrediting an action. It implies that nearly two thirds were not young men, and they must have been in a strange state of mind if they could be overawed by cries of that kind. 98 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Lee had extraordinary gifts as an orator. He opposed the plan on the ground, that it was an unwarrantable measure "to meet a contingency which did not occur be- fore the meeting of the body which had the legal control of the question, and might have been a dangerous prece- dent." Bishop Paine justly says: "And it may well be feared that if this evident necessity for General Con- ference action had been anticipated in 1807, the attempt to introduce the representative principle in 1808, and to impose a constitutional check both upon the Annual and General Conferences, might not have been successful." lee's position Lee is entitled to be heard for himself. He disposes of the question in his usual sententious manner: "In the course of the year 1806 there was a plan laid which would have overset and destroyed the rules and regulations of the Methodists, respecting the election and ordination of Bishops. It was said that the plan originated in the New York Conference, which was as follows."^ Here he gives an account of the plan, and says that it was adopted by four of the Conferences, who had taken for granted that it would succeed, and delegates were chosen. He accounts for the refusal to take it under con- sideration by its "being pointedly in opposition to all the rules of our Church. The Bishop labored hard to carry the point, but in vain : and the whole business of that dangerous plan was overset by the Virginia Conference. The inventors and defenders of that project might have meant well ; but they certainly erred in judgment." As it was understood that unless all the Conferences concurred in the expediency of this measure, no attempts should be made to carry it into effect, the refusal of the ^History of the Methodists, p. 344. EQUITABLE METHODS OF LEGLISLATION 99 Virginia Conference to consider it was a deathblow to the enterprise. PROMPT ACTION OP NEW YORK CONFERENCE This scheme having failed, to the humiliation of the New York Conference, in which it took shape, and, ac- cording to Bangs, to "the great grief"' of Asbiuy, that Conference, with its characteristic energy, and with praiseworthy devotion to the interests of the entire Church, sent out, in less than three months after the over- throw of its previous plan, a unanimously adopted and signed memorial to the Conferences, expressing its thor- ough conviction that "a representative or delegated Gen- eral Conference, composed of a si)eciflc number, on prin- ciples of equal representation, from the several Annual Conferences, would be much more conducive to the pros- perity and general unity of the whole body, than the present indefinite and numerous body of ministers, col- lected together unequally from the various Conferences, to the great inconvenience of the ministry and injury of the work of God." They invited the brethren of the several Annual Con- ferences, which were to sit between them and the General Conference, to join and unite with them "in the subject matter of this memorial." This was adopted without a dissenting vote in the New York Conference, and sent out to the other Conferences under the date May 7, 1807. In the interval between that and the time fixed for the Gen- eral Conference of 1808 it was submitted to the New England, Ohio, and South Carolina Conferences, and con- curred in by them. The ministry of the Church were re- quested that "as full a representation as practicable should attend the session of the General Conference, that a full expression of the voice of the several Annual Con- ferences should be heard in regard to the measure." 100 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY It was under these circumstances, and with this weighty project before them, that the members of the General Conference of 1808 convened in Baltimore, already be- come the historic center of American Methodist eccle- siastical organization, and destined now to see perfected the work begun in the convention which, in 1784, gave to the world a new and independent Church. CHAPTER XIV The Last Nondelegated General Conference Sad indeed was the situation when on May 1, 1808, the General Conference assembled. Bishop Whatcoat had finished his course, Dr. Coke was in Europe, and upon Asbury, wayworn and weary, rested the weight of the entire denomination, and the sole responsibility of pre- siding over the Conference. The times were out of joint; dissatisfaction and a seuse of uncertainty were rife. All expected that important changes would be made; but none could forecast the temper in which they would be attempted, the length of the deliberations, or the char- acter of the debates necessary for their elucidation and adoption. Twenty-four years had passed since the INIethodist Epis- copal Church was organized — a period suilicient to develop orators, wise men, parliamentarians, and masterly leaders. great leaders From the New York Conference came nineteen mem- bers; among them Freeborn Garrettson, Ezekiel Cooper, and Nathan Bangs. The New England was represented by seven members, the greatest in influence, then and afterward, being George Pickering, Joshua Soule, and Elijah Hedding; of the Western Conference there were eleven, all forceful and fervent, the most notable being William McKendree. South Carolina also sent eleven, useful, and most of them locally honored ; but not con- spicuous in the proceedings of the Conference. There were eighteen delegates from Virginia, two of whom can never pass from remembrance while Methodists read the 101 102 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY history of their own communion — Philip Bruce and Jesse Lee. When the roll was called, thirty-one members of the Baltimore Conference responded, among them Stephen G. Roszel, Nelson Reed, Asa Shinn, Enoch George, and Robert R. Roberts. Only one Conference exceeded that number, the Philadelphia, which had thirty-two. Here also were remarkable men — Thomas Ware, John Mc- Claskey, Henry Boehm (who lived more than a century, and was an encyclopaedia of early Methodist facts and traditions), and William P. Chandler, the last named being chosen secretary of the General Conference. The appointments of all these (except Cooper, who had been elected editor and General Book Steward) were absolutely dependent upon the will of Asbury. The Conference being ready for business, Asbury moved, and it was determined, that a Committee of Review and Inspection be appointed consisting of seven members, "one to be taken from each Annual Conference by the members present from each Conference respectively." To this committee were referred various questions of im- portance. Those chosen were Samuel Coate, of the New York Conference; Martin Ruter, of the New England; William McKendree, of the Western; James H. Mellard, of the South Carolina ; Jesse Lee, of the Virginia ; Nelson Reed, of the Baltimore; and Thomas Ware, of the Phila- delphia. There was also a Conunittee of Three on Corre- spondence. On the afternoon of Monday, May 9, the most important measure, since the organization of the Church in 1784, was launched upon an ocean of discussion. It was thus introduced : Brother William Phoebus moved, and was seconded by Brother Daniel Hall, that the Conference now go Into the business rela- tive to regulating and perpetuating General Conferences in future. The subject to be taken up to-morrow morning. LAST NONDELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE 103 MEMORIAL FROM NEW YORK CONFERENCE The memorial, a part of which was necessarily incor- porated in the preyious chapter, now sent to the General Conference by the New York Conference, was read. After an introduction describing the rapid growth and wide distribution of the denomination, the memorial thus proceeds : When we take a serious and impartial view of this important subject, and consider the extent of our connection, the number of our preachers, the great inconvenience, expense, and loss of time that must necessarily result from our present regula- tions, relative to our General Conference, we are deeply im- pressed with a thorough conviction that a representative or delegated General Conference, composed of a specific number on principles of equal representation from the several Annual Conferences, would be much more conducive to the prosperity and general unity of the whole body than the present indefinite and numerous body of ministers, collected together unequally from the various Conferences, to the great Inconvenience of the ministry, and injury of the work of God. We therefore present unto you this memorial, requesting that you will adopt the principle of an equal representation from the Annual Confer- ences, to form, in future, a delegated General Conference, and that you will establish such rules and regulations as are neces- sary to carry the same into effect.^ INDORSEMENTS This was signed by the respective secretaries of three Conferences : The Eastern Conference unanimously voted to concur with the New York Conference in the subject matter of the above memorial. Thomas Bbanch, Secretary. Boston Conference, June 3, 1807. The Western Conference unanimously voted to concur with the New York Conference in the subject matter of the above memorial. William Bubke, Secretary. Chillicothe, O., September 16, 1807. ^Journal, 1808. p. 77. 104 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The South Carolina Conference, with the exception of five members, concur with the New York Conference in the above memorial. Lewis Myeks, Secretary. January 2, 1808. From the absence of certificates from the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Virginia Conferences it is inferred that they did not concur, though L. M. Lee declares that it was brought before the Virginia Conference of 1808, and adopted with great unanimity, and that "it is believed that all the Conferences adopted this memorial." Tigert holds that this is clearly wrong, "as it is not credible that when the memorial was read in General Conference, with the official certificates of the concurrence of the New England, AVestern, and South Carolina Conferences at- tached, the delegates of the other three Conferences should have failed to inquire why ;.he ofiicial indorsement of their own bodies was omitted." It is barely possible that while the three Conferences had not formally voted, the members present — a very large number — might have expressed a general approval. This would account for the absence of certificates, and also for the tradition that all the Conferences agreed; but as the memorial was probably laid before those Conferences at their sessions in 1808, and as no reference to their sentiments is made in the Journal in connection with later events, they may have concluded to await develop- ments. The next morning, "Bishop Asbury having called for the mind of the Conference, whether any further regula- tion in the order of the General Conference be necessary, the question was put, and carried in the aflflrmative." COMMITTEE TO FRAME REGULATIONS It was moved by Stephen G. Roszel and seconded by William Burke that "a committee be appointed to draw LAST NONDELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE 105 up such regulations as they may think best, . . . and re- port the same to the Conference." The motion prevailed, as also did a resolution moved by Bishop Asbury, "that the committee be formed from an equal number from each of the Annual Conferences." Another that there should "be Uvo from each Conference to be chosen by their re- spective Conferences" was carried. The following were elected : From the New York: Ezekiel Cooper, John Wilson. From the New England: George Pickering, Joshua Soule. From the Western: William McKendree, William Burke. From the South Carolina: William Phoebus, Josias Randle. From the Virginia: Philip Bruce, Jesse Lee. From the Baltimore: Stephen G. Roszel, Nelson Reed. From the Philadelphia: John McClaskey, Thomas Ware. After the committee was organized it appointed a sub- committee consisting of Cooper, Soule, and Bruce to draft a report to be submitted later for approval, alteration, or rejection. It was agreed that each of the three should prepare a scheme to be considered at the next meeting of the subcommittee. Cooper and Soule appeared with papers, but Bruce had committed nothing to writing. Cooper and Soule read their plans, and Bruce agreed with the main points presented by Soule, Cooper in the end concurring. The whole committee was then called together; both plans were put before it, and after a few minor changes suggested by others had been made, the system of Soule was adopted. COMMITTER PRESENTS PLAN At the morning session of the General Conference on Monday, May 16, the report of the committee "relative to regulating and perpetuating General Conferences" was presented and read. It was as follows : Whereas, It Is of the greatest importance that the doctrines. 106 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY form of government, and general rules of the United States societies in America be preserved sacred and inviolable; and, Whereas, Every prudent measure should be taken to pre- serve, strengthen, and perpetuate the union of the connection; Therefore, your committee, upon the maturest deliberation, have thought it advisable that the third section of the Form of Discipline shall be as follows, viz.: Section III. — Of the General Conference 1st. The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the Annual Conferences. 2d. The delegates shall be chosen by ballot, without debate, in the Annual Conferences respectively, in the last meeting of the Conference previous to the meeting of the General Confer- ence. 3d. Each Annual Conference respectively shall have a right to send seven elders, members of their Conference, as delegates to the General Conference. 4th. Each Annual Conference shall have a right to send one delegate, in addition to the seven, for every ten members be- longing to such Conference over and above fifty: so that if there be sixty members, they shall send eight; if seventy, they shall send nine; and so on in proportion. 5th. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twelve; and thenceforward on the first day of May once in four years per- petually, at such place or places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time. 6th. At all times, when the General Conference is met, it shall take two thirds of the whole number of delegates to form a quorum. 7th. One of the original Superintendents shall preside in the General Conference; but in case no General Superintendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a president pro tern. 8th. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules, regulations, and canons for our Church, under the follow- ing limitations and restrictions, viz.: The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards of doctrine. They shall not lessen the number of seven delegates from each Annual Conference, nor allow of a greater number from any LAST XONDELEOxATED GENERAL CONFERENCE 107 Annual Conference than is provided in the fourth paragraph of this section. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our gov- ernment, so as to do away episcopacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency. They shall not revoke or change the general rules of the united societies. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal; neither shall they do away the privileges of our members, of trial before the society, or by a committee of an appeal. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern or of the Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, superannuated, supernumerary, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions. DISCUSSION Immediately on its presentation the Conference voted to proceed to a discussion of tlie subject. According to Bangs, it was debated for a full day, when Cooper, seconded by Wells, moved ''to postpone the present ques- tion to make room for the consideration of a new resolu- tion, as preparatory to the minds of the brethren to de- termine on the present subject." This being carried, the same persons moved : Resolved, That in the fifth section of Discipline, after the Question, "By whom shall the presiding elders be chosen?" the answer shall be — "Answer 1st. Each Annual Conference respec- tively, without debate, shall annually choose, by ballot, its own presiding elders." This debate was continued, on the next day, when an attempt was made by Soule and seconded by Oliver Beale to tenninate the discussion and take the vote. The mo- tion was lost: nays, 61; ayes, 5.S. On the afternoon of the same day it was moved by Samuel Draper, of New 108 CONSTITUTIONAL, AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY York, seconded by Elijah Hedding, of New England, that "the vote be taken immediately," but it did not prevail. Later a similar motion was made by Thomas Sargeant, of Baltimore, and seconded by James Smith, of the same Conference, and nearly prevailed, the nays being 59 and the ayes 5G. To bring the question to a vote, another attempt was made by Soule and Pickering, but it was de- feated by so large a majority that no count was taken. THE TWO MOTIONS LOST There were late evening and early morning conversa- tions, and when the Conference convened an attempt was made by Sargeant and seconded by Francis Ward to eject the motion from the Conference by moving that "the motion for electing presiding elders be postponed until the fifteenth of August next." It did not carry, and debate was resumed. Finally Elijah R. Sabin, of New England, moved, and Soule seconded, that "the vote be taken with- out further debate." And it was carried. Immediately Garrettson, of New York, moved and Robert Sparks, of Philadelphia, seconded, that "this vote be taken by ballot." The vote being taken on the resolution for electing pre- siding elders, it was lost, the ayes being 52 and the nays 73. On the same day it was moved by McClaskey, and seconded by Daniel Ostrander, of New York, that "the vote on the first resolution of the report of the committee of fourteen (on regulating General Conferences, etc.) be taken by ballot." The motion was carried. The first resolution was as follows: "The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the Annual Conferences." It was lost; ayes, 57 ; nays, 64. DEFEAT CAUSES GREAT PERPLEXITY This result produced consternation, those defeated be- ing on the verge of desperation, and the victorious shrink- LAST NONDELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE 109 ing from the possible, and even probable consequences, for this was equivalent to a rejection of the entire report, and left future General Conferences to be formed by the original, outworn, and odious method which assumed that all ministers of the legally qualified class were to assemble. In the manuscript Journal (which was the basis of Stevens's Life of Bangs) Bangs writes: I suppose some voted against it from a fear that, if adopted, they could never attend another General Conference; and others were jealous of their rights, fearing to intrust the affairs of the Church to so few hands; while some opposed it from opposition to Bishop Asbury, with whom it was a favorite measure, for, notwithstanding his great merits, he had his enemies.* Jesse Lee, who had formerly been in favor of a delegated General Conference, was opposed to this report. Bishop Paine says that "Mr. Lee is understood to have opposed the whole thing upon the plea of Conference rights, lead- ing to electioneering," etc. Probably no speaker had a greater influence on the floor of the Conference than Lee. The Rev. John Kobler, a member of the Conference, says of him that '"he was a man of great penetration and could see through circumstances and read men well. He was the best speaker in the Conference."- FOR A TIME DESPAIR The defeat of the plan for a delegated General Confer- ence boded no good for the Methodist Episcopal Church. Many of the preachers from remote Conferences began preparations to return home, and Bishop Hedding states that, had they left at this crisis, it would probably have been the last General Conference ever held. Bishop Clai'k says of Hedding that "all the members from the New Eng- land Conference, except himself [Hedding], were making arrangements to depart. In this emergency he entreated ^Life and Times of Nathan Bangs. P- 171. ^Life and Times of Jesse Lee. by Dr. Le Roy M. Lee. pp. 327, 328. 110 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY them to reuiain, and declared his own determination to remain until the close of the Conference, whatever might happen."^ Bishop Asbury also appealed to them, and to members of the other Conferences, who were about to leave. The delegates from the central Conferences, who had largely voted against the report of the committee, now saw that something must be done. RECONCILIATION AND AGREEMENT REACHED Much consultation ensued, the warring elements were reconciled, and on Monday, May 23, it was moved by Philip Bruce, of Virginia Conference, and seconded by Thomas Branch, of New York, that "the report of the Committee of Review lie on the table until we determine when and where the next General Conference shall be held." This being carried, Leonard Cassel moved, and Roszel seconded, that the motion for "considering when and where the next Conference shall be" should lie over until "it be determined who shall compose the General Conference." This prevailed. Enoch George then moved, and Roszel (both of Balti- more) seconded, "that the General Conference shall be composed of one member for every five members of each Annual Conference." The Journal entry is, "Carried by a very large majority." Soule, seconded by Pickering, moved "that each Annual Conference should have the power of sending their proportionate number of members to the General Conference, either by seniority or choice, as they shall think best." This motion was not voted upon until the afternoon session. The introduction of the phrase "or seniority" disarmed Lee, who had been afraid of "electioneering," etc. The scene is graphically de- scribed in Lee's Life of Jesse Lee: iLife and Times of Elijah Hedding, by D. W. Clark, p. 173. LAST NONDELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE 111 Lee was a powerful advocate of independent rights of Con- ferences, also of this condition of seniority. By means of Soule's amendment the independence of the Conference was maintained, and to the custody of that independence was committed the very condition he defended as the proper basis of representation. Lee said "that though he felt that he had lost a victory, he submitted." He walked up to his friend and whis- pered, "Brother Soule, you have played me a Yankee trick Roszel moved that the next General Conference be held on May 1, 1812. This was carried, as was the motion that it be held in New York. This prevailed by a majority of eight. The next motion was made by Roszel, and seconded by Lee: "That it shall take two thirds of the representa- tives of all the Annual Conferences to form a quorum for business in the General Conference." This essential rule prevailed by a majority of only seven. Without it the General Conference could by a majority of whatever number might be present enact any legislation, not prohibited by the restrictions, however trifling or de- structive it might be. On the next day Lee moved, and Burke seconded, that "the next General Conference shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do away epis- copacy or to destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency." This prevailed. On motion of Roszel, seconded by Pickering, it was enacted that "one of the Superintendents shall preside in the General Conference; but in case of the absence of a Superintendent the Conference shall elect a president pro tern." Then followed a series of motions moved by Roszel, and seconded by Reed, namely: The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, under the following restrictions, viz.: 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change 112 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and estab- lished standards of doctrine. Carried. 2. They shall not allow of more than one representative for every five members of the Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every seven. Carried. At this point it was moved by Daniel Hitt, of Baltimore, and seconded by Samuel Coate, of New York, that "a com- mittee of three be appointed to modify certain exceptional expressions in the General Rules," but the motion was lost. The series of restrictions, moved by Roszel and seconded by Reed, was taken up where it had been left and the third, "They shall not revoke or change" the "General Rules of the United Societies," was passed. The fourth restriction was also enacted : 4. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal; neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal. The fifth restriction was carried : 5. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Con- cern, or of the Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. The sixth restriction as proposed and adopted was: Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suflSce to alter any of the above restrictions. At the afternoon session, Ostrander moved, and Cooper seconded, that "The General Superintendents, with or by the advice of all the Annual Conferences, respectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, if they judge it necessary." This prevailed. The next entry in the Journal is: ''Moved from the LAST NOXDELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE 113 chair, that the General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, once in four years perpetually, at such place or places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time. Carried." The last enactment on this subject, immediately before the final adjournment, was made by Joseph Totten, and seconded by Roszel : "That no preacher shall be sent as a representative to the General Conference until he has traveled at least four full calendar years from the time that he was received on trial by an Annual Conference, and is in full connection at the time of holding the Con- ference." These were the provisions made by the General Confer- ence of 1808 for the "regulating and perpetuating Gen- eral Conference in future." CHAPTER XV Comments on Preceding Chapter In considering the momentous transactions detailed in the preceding chapter it should be noted that the pro- visions finally adopted were moved and seconded on a pre-formed plan to include, in the work of constitution- making, leaders from as many Conferences as possible, and also to demonstrate to the rank and file of the Gen- eral Conference that substantial imanimity had been reached. It should also be noted that important changes had been made in the original draft reported by the committee. The report of the committee, as first presented to the Con- ference for its action, ju-ovided that each Annual Con- ference respectively should "have the right to send seven elders, members of their Conference, as delegates to the General Conference," and that each Annual Conference should "have the right to send one delegate, in addition to the seven, for every ten members belonging to such Con- ference over and above fifty; so that if there be sixty members, they shall send eight; if seventy, they shall send nine; and so on in proportion"; whereas, as adopted, each Conference was allowed to send one delegate for every five members thereof, and no more ; either to be appointed by "seniority or choice at the discretion of such Annual Conference," and that only those representatives could be eligible who had traveled at least four full calendar years from the time when they were received on trial by an Annual Conference, and were in full connection at the time of holding the Conference. The original draft provided that one of the original Superintendents should preside in the General Conference. 114 COMMENTS ON PRECEDING CHAPTER 115 This would have restricted the presidency to Asbury aud Coke, so long as they lived and were present in the Con- ference. As first presented, there was no provision made for the calling of a special General Conference. The provision concerning the powers of the General Conference read as follows: "The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules, regulations, and canons for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions, viz." As finally adopted, "and canons'' was stricken out, and "and" inserted between "rules" and "regulations." There were also changes in the restric- tions. In the original form, the first was, "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards of doctrine." This was changed so as to read as follows: "Nor estab- lish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doc- trine." A margin was introduced into the restriction con- cerning the number of members, so as to provide that, "They shall not allow of more than one representative for every five members of the Annual Conference, nor allow a less number than one for every seven." These were important alterations and additions. In his Constitutional History of American Episcopal Meth- odism/' Tigert states that the word "original," in the rule concerning the presiding officers, is probably a clerical error or misprint for "general." This is wholly improb- able. In the year 1800, McClaskey, of the Philadelphia Conference, moved : Whereas, By vote of the Conference It is determined that an- other Bishop shall be elected, Resolved, That the Conference determine, before the votes be canvassed, the powers of the new Bishops, whether he shall be equal to Bishop Asbury, or subordinate to him. 116 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY This was withdrawn. Later, a motion was made "that the Bishops shall have full and equal jurisdiction in all and every respect whatsoever. That each and every Bishop shall attend each and every Conference, and then and there mutually preside, and station the preachers." To this was added a provision : "In case they should un- avoidably be prevented from all attending, the Bishops then present shall be competent to discharge the duties of the ofldce as fully and effectually, in every respect, as if they were all present." This motion was put to vote and negatived. Nothing is more probable than that Bishop Asbury felt that he had a just claim to prominence and weight of influence among the Bishops. It is improbable that John McClintock, the eminent scholar and author, to whom was intrusted the publication of the Journals, would allow so great a mistake as "original" for "gen- eral," or that it would have so long been left uncorrected. Pending the deliberations on the formation of a dele- gated Conference by the committee of fourteen, the regular proceedings continued. The question whether the present General Superin- tendency needed strengthening was debated and voted upon ; and a motion was made that one person be elected and ordained as "Joint Superintendent or Bishop with Bishop Asbury." It was moved by Ostrander, and sec- onded by Soule, that two be elected. McClaskey moved and Cooper seconded that seven Bishops be added to the Superintendency. Bangs speaks of this as follows. Before the motion for the election and consecration of an addi- tional Bishoj) had passed, a motion for the election of seven additional Bishops, one for each Annual Conference, with Bishop Asbury at their head, was largely and ably discussed by some of the leading members of the Conference on each side. Those who were in favor of this COMMENTS ON PRECEDING CHAPTER 117 motion were also in favor of either abolishing or greatly re- stricting the office of presiding elder, and making the episcopacy so large as in a great measure to supersede the necessity of that office. But as it was finally settled by a large majority of the Conference that this officer should he continued in the Church, and likewise continue to he appointed hy the Bishop, so the mo- tion for adding seven additional Bishops, notwithstanding the plausibility with which the measure was urged upon the Con- ference, was finally rejected by a strong vote.' The Conference finally decided to elect one Bishop; the choice to be by ballot. One hundred and twenty-eight votes were cast, and of these William McKendree received ninety-five, a choice which meant more to the Church than could possibly have been anticipated. 'Bangs, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 235. THE CREATION OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION CHAPTER XVI The Word "Constitution" To prevent confusion of thought, the word "constitu- tion" must be carefully considered. One of its definitions is, "A particuJar law, ordinance, or regulation, made by the authority of any superior, civil or ecclesiastical ; spe- cifically, in Roman law, what an emperor enacted, either by decree, edict, or letter, and without the interposition of any constitutional assembly: as, the Constitution of Justinian." This defines the relation of Wesley to the British Con- ference. During the greater part of his career there was no constitutional assembly which could, in any degree, restrain or direct his will. Gradually there grew up a moral power which took on the form of a legislative assembly and exerted marked influence; nevertheless abso- lute power theoretically inhered in Wesley to the last. The early Methodist Conferences in North America sub- mitted to Wesley, whose will was first exercised over them through Asbury, then by Rankin, Asbury being subordi- nate to him. After a period of struggle, power similar to that held by Rankin was given to Asbury ; and this prac- tically endured until the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1784. The word "constitutionally" was used in this sense by Asbury, in a letter which he sent to England in 1797 : "We have to lament that our Superintendency is so weak and that it cannot constitutionally be strengthened until the ensuing General Conference." In that sense he meant that there was no means of securing an election of Bishops, the ultimate decision being with the General 121 122 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Conference. In the same letter Asbury observes: "We have but one grand responsive body, which is our General Conference. ... No yearly Conference, no oflScial character dare assume to answer for that grand federal body," In this case the General Conference had all the power of Justinian or Wesle}-. Asbury speaks of traveling with an Assistant "who does everything for me he constitu- tionally can, but the ordaining and stationing of preachers can only be performed by myself in the Doctor's [Coke] absence." These observations rest upon the principle that the Discipline, then simply a series of mandates, must be observed. Tigert justly remarks, "It must not be forgotten, however, that, notwithstanding the unlim- ited powers of the General Conference, and the subordi- nate position of the yearly bodies, no hard-and-fast line had yet been drawn, in the mind of the Church, between the action of the ministry assembled in General Confer- ence and the action of the ministry generally in the Annual Conferences."^ The second and commonly accepted significance of the word "constitution" is, "A system of fundamental principles, maxims, laws, or rules embodied in written documents or established by prescriptive usage for the government of a nation, state, society, corporation, or association." The preceding account of the formation of the Church is sufficient to clarify this point. Assuming the power, by the implied consent and at the suggestion of Wesley, the preachers, in convention as- sembled, organized themselves into the Methodist Episco- pal Church, selected Superintendents, ordained elders and deacons, and enacted a system of laws defining with more or less fullness the duties of all members and officers ^Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism, Revised Edition, p. 284. THE WORD "CONSTITUTION" 123 composing the societies, implying in part and expressing in part their rights and privileges. They accepted and adopted doctrinal standards and liturgical forms, the power of government being invested entirely in the preachers. The preachers who had not been present and the laity subsequently acquiesced in this action. Xo provision was made at that time for a democratic assembly of all the preachers at one time and place, but the subsequent proceedings were in harmony with the assumption that absolute authority inhered in the preachers. The diffi- culty of enacting rules for the government of the Church has been described, and also the futile experiment of the council and the establishment of General Confer- ences. Each of these General Conferences was all powerful. They limited themselves only by parliamentary niles, which, however, they had power to change. From 178-'f to and including the General Conference of 1808 they had the power to depose a Bishop without trial, to transform the government into a strictly Presbyterian organization, or to resolve it into separate congregations ; to modify or abolish every rule or custom, and to change the doctrinal basis, or to dissolve the General Conferences and resume the tedious method of submitting the busi- ness to the successive Annual Conferences. In short, they had the power to revol-e anything that had teen done, either J)y any preceding General Conference, by the Annual Conferences, or by the convention tchich organ- ized the Church. The official record of their proceedings demonstrates that they were fully conscious of absolute control. In his work on The Umcritten Constitution of the United States, Christopher G. Tiedeman, professor of law in the University of Missouri, thus describes the 122 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Conference. In the same letter Asbury observes: "We have but one grand responsive body, which is our General Conference. . . . No yearly Conference, no official character dare assume to answer for that grand federal body." In this case the General Conference had all the power of Justinian or Wesley. Asbury speaks of traveling with an Assistant "who does everything for me he constitu- tionally can, but the ordaining and stationing of preachers can only be performed by myself in the Doctor's [Coke] absence." These observations rest upon the principle that the Discipline, then simply a series of mandates, must be observed. Tigert justly remarks, "It must not be forgotten, however, that, notwithstanding the unlim- ited powers of the General Conference, and the subordi- nate position of the yearly bodies, no hard-and-fast line had yet been drawn, in the mind of the Church, between the action of the ministry assembled in General Confer- ence and the action of the ministry generally in the Annual Conferences."* The second and commonly accepted significance of the word "constitution" is, "A system of fundamental principles, maxims, laws, or rules embodied in written documents or established by prescriptive usage for the government of a nation, state, society, corporation, or association." The preceding account of the formation of the Church is sufficient to clarify this point. Assuming the power, by the implied consent and at the suggestion of Wesley, the preachers, in convention as- sembled, organized themselves into the Methodist Episco- pal Church, selected Superintendents, ordained elders and deacons, and enacted a system of laws defining with more or less fullness the duties of all members and officers ^Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism, Revised Edition, p. 284. THE WORD "CONSTITUTION" 123 composing the societies, implying in part and expressing in part tlieir riglits and privileges. They accepted and adopted doctrinal standards and liturgical forms, the power of government being invested entirely in the preachers. The preachers who had not been present and the laity subsequently acquiesced in this action. No provision was made at that time for a democratic assembly of all the preachers at one time and place, but the subsequent proceedings were in harmonj^ with the assumption that absolute authority inhered in the preachers. The diffi- culty of enacting rules for the government of the Church has been described, and also the futile experiment of the council and the establishment of General Confer- ences. Each of these General Conferences was all powerful. They limited themselves only by parliamentary rales, which, however, they had power to change. From 178-^ to and including the General Conference of 1808 they had the power to depose a Bishop without trial, to transform the government into a strictly Presbyterian organization, or to resolve it into separate congregations ; to modify or abolish every rule or custom, and to change the doctrinal basis, or to dissolve the General Conferences and resume the tedious method of submitting the busi- ness to the successive Annual Conferences. In short, they had the poicer to revoke anything that had heen done, either hy any preceding General Conference, by the Annual Conferences, or by the convention which organ- ized the Church. The official record of their proceedings demonstrates that they were fully conscious of absolute control. In his work on The Unwritten Constitution of the United States, Christopher G. Tiedeman, professor of law in the University of Missouri, thus describes the 124 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY British Constitution : "The British Constitution, ieing unwritten, reflects accurately and promptly the muta- tions of public opinion ; for Parliament, being subject to no limitation, with its hand constantly on the public pulse, in every case of permanent and effective legisla- tion simply records the decree of the people; and if that decree involves the adoption of a new fundamental prin- ciple, a change is thus wrought in the British Constitu- tion." This was the nature of the Constitution existing between 1784 (^nd the close of the General Conference of 1808. But the one formed by that body was a written Constitution. In this particular only it resembles that of the United States and those of the respective States. EVERY ELEMENT OF A CONSTITUTION As at various times the question has been raised whether the Church has a Constitution, it is necessary to give the subject a more detailed consideration. When not brought forward in the interest of some proposal plainly unconstitutional, or the constitutionality of which is open to reasonable doubt, this question is the result of a lack of acquaintance with the history of the Church. As we have seen, prior to 1808 the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church was in the hands of an oligarchy of ministers. The Discipline was the book of laws, no distinction being made in the Conference between constitutional and legislative provisions and enactments. Nevertheless, Bishops Asbury and Coke, with their "Notes on the Discipline," prepared by request of the General Conference of 1796, and published for a time with the Discipline, by order of the General Conference, under the title "General and Yearly Conference," refer- ring to the unwisdom of holding a General Conference oftener than once in four years, said, "Nor do we think, THE WORD "CONSTITUTION" 125 that the nature of a religious constitution renders it necessary to revise more frequently the regulations by which it is governed." Again : as "The Bishops are bound to obey and suhinit to the General Conference, so the preachers are bound to obey and submit to the General Conference; and also to the yearly Conference in every- thing except the stationing of them for their respective districts and circuits, and in this respect they are bound to obey and submit to the episcopacy." They reaflBrm these statements thus : "This is the order of our Church : and as the New Testament is silent as to the Constitu- tion of states, so is it in a great measure as to the Con- stitution of Churches; . . . this does not in any degree prevent the due reformation of the Constitutions of Churches any more than of states." When the General Conference met in 1808 the Church had this species of Constitution, and all power to change or repeal any part of it. Having absolute control, it could also arrange for "tJie perpetuation and regulation of General Conferences;" and this it did. Since no question of constitutionality could arise — previous to the establishment of a delegated General Conference with restricted powers — we do not find the word "constitution" either in the Journals of previous General Conferences or in the Minutes of Annual Con- ferences. But in the second delegated Conference a committee, to which the addresses of the Bishops were referred for examination, reported in favor of the appointment of a "Committee of Review and Revision." This committee was to be instructed that if "any rules and regulations made by the General Conference should be deemed unconstitutional, they should report the grounds of their objections to the General Conference in writing." This resolution, however, was not adopted, but the Minutes 126 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY also record that "the legality and unconstitutionality" of the proceedings of the Philadelphia Conference were called in question. The General Conference of 1820 instructed the Com- mittee on Rights and Privileges to inquire into the "con- stitutionality of the location of traveling preachers without their consent." In the General Conference of 1824, Peter Cartwright declared that "the majority of the Annual Conferences adjudged certain resolutions unconstitutional." The General Conference of 1828 dis- cussed an important question from the point of view of "constitutionality." The General Conference of 1832 declared that "consti- tutional difficulties" were in the way of settling with the Canadian brethren on the division of the Book Concern profits and property without its being submitted "to three fourths of the members of all the several Annual Conferences." The great debates of 1844 were largely constitutional discussions wherein both sides assumed the existence of a "Constitution," and discussed its meanings, implica- tions, and applications. Prior to the consummation of the present Consti- tution by the final vote of the ministry and laity in the Annual Conferences, occasionally persons asserted that "no one knows what the Constitution is." The fact is, that there had been some dispute as to whether certain passages relating to the General Conference, but not in or referred to by the Restrictive Rules, belonged to the Constitution: such as whether the language of the Dis- cipline which provides for a General Conference is a part of tJw Constitution. There were also questions as to whether one or two changes which had been made in the Constitution had been legally accomplished. Although proposals were made and votes taken, as if the General THE WORD "CONSTITUTION" 127 Conference had supreme power over those provisions, the question, what the Constitution was, was never defi- nitely and dcnoiiiinationaUy raised and discussed from the time of the promulgation of the Constitution in 1808 until 1868. But from 1868 the Church without dissent has acted upon the assumption that those parts of the Discipline which declare that there shall be a General Conference; which establish the quorum ; and the ratio of representa- tion ; the necessity of a Hishop's presiding, if there be one present, and if otherwise provide that the Conference shall elect a presiding officer pro tempore; the rule for meeting once in four years, and the date of opening, and the defining of the powers of the General Conference, are a part of the Covstifntioji and are alterable only by the method provided for cJiaiifiing the Restrictive Rules. Any apparent exceptions will receive due attention. CHAPTER XVII The "Constitution of the General Conference" Some confusion arose in the Church from the peculiar use of the phrase "constitution of the General Confer- ence." Such a phrase cannot be found in the Journals of the General Conference for the first thirty years, except in one place, where it is used as it might be of the con- stitution of a Quarterly Conference, the Leaders and Stewards' Meeting, or, the constitution of "anything that ever was made." This is the reference: In the General Conference of 1816 a memorial from local preachers asked "that they may have representatives in the Gen- eral Conference." This was referred to the Committee on "the State of the Local Preachers," which reported that the proposal is "inconsistent with the present con- stitution of the General Conference.'^ The committee based its report upon the proposition that the "Consti- tution of the Church" provided that the General Con- ference should be composed only of members of Annual Conferences. The word "constitution" in this statement is used in two different and distinct senses, for the General Con- ference is formed or constituted a part of the "Consti- tution of the Methodist Episcopal Church." The Constitution of the Church consists of and includes all laws or provisions made by the said Church which the General Conference alone has no power to repeal or change, whereas the constitution of the General Confer- ence consists entirely of rules determining the qualifica- tions of its members, its mode of organization, and its powers and limitations. It must be emphasized that the Constitution of the 128 "CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE" 129 Church includes the so-called constitution of the Gen- eral Conference and all laws or declarations of the Church which the General Conference, acting alone, has no legal power to repeal or alter. LITTLE GROUND FOR DISSATISFACTION During 1820-1832 in the controversies between the Church and seceders the question was raised whether the General Conference of 1808 had power to compel the whole Church to obev its behests concerning future Gen- eral Conferences. Could it have prevented another non- delegated General Conference, or an immediate call for a convention of all ministers and could it have prevented such a convention from denouncing the Constitution, or the Annual Conferences from repudiating the acts of other delegated General Conferences? The answer to these natural inquiries is : All power was exercised by the itudrlegatcd Ocneral Conferences, but each acted for itself, and for itself only. The undele- gated General Conference was theoretically the sum of all the votes of the ordained ministry. If the Annual Conferences had refused by majorities to accept the Constitution of 1808, and had acted in har- mony with their refusal, no delegated Conference could have been elected. What then? The ministers might have convened, as they had done in 1808, but if the jeal- ousy of the extraordinary power exercised by the two central Conferences and the distance prevented the Con- ferences from assembling with them, then the forever tedious method of carrying the business from one Annual Conference to another, might have been resumed; or the solidarity of the Church would have given place to the splitting off of ecclesiastical asteroids forming their own orbits, and Methodism would have lived "at a poor, dying rate," or gradually disappeared. 130 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY But there was very little dissatisfaction ; none, indeed, of a permanent type. Bangs says: "The lively satisfaction too with which this act of the Conference was received generally, both by ministers and people, abundantly proves the wisdom which presided in that council which devised these reso- lutions, and applauds the prudence and caution with which they were cordially adopted." He also character- izes the previous situation in a single sentence: "Before this, each General Conference felt itself at full liberty, not being prohibited by any standing laws, to make what- ever alterations it might see fit, or to introduce any new doctrine or item in the Discipline, which their fancy, inclination, discretion, or indiscretion might dictate."* Notwithstanding the heavy debates in which Jesse Lee, the "Great Commoner of the Infant Church," participated, and his disappointment in some particulars, he observes in his History of MetJiodists (page 351), published in 1810 — one of the frankest histories in the world : "There was a good deal of peace and union among the preachers of that General Conference; and there were one hundred and thirty members of that Conference. . . . Most of the preachers returned from that Conference well satis- fied with what was done while we were together." THE DISSENTING ARGUMENT OF SNETHEN Nevertheless, the really great Nicholas Snethen, who later seceded from the denomination and became one of the founders of the Methodist Protestant Church — who was a member of the General Conference in 1800 and 1812, but not of 1808 — when he was advocating the abo- lition of the episcopacy and the presiding eldership in 1822, denied that the Conference of 1808 could make a Constitution. His argument was as follows: ^History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii. p. 234. "CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE" 131 What is a constitution? According to the opinion of the most approved writers on the subject, it is an instrument that cannot be altered or abrogated by a legislative power; but by the united consent and authority of the whole community. The United States and each individual State of the Union have a written Constitution from which the legislative authority is derived. In other countries, where the form of government can be traced to any common act, the choice of the people, much pains has been taken and great learning displayed to prove that a constitution may exist without such choice or consent. Americans, however, think otherwise and act accordingly. In the Methodist Epis- copal Church, no instrument was ever dignified with the name of a constitution; but in that year, 1808, six articles were framed under a denomination of limitations and restrictions, . . . but the word "Constitution" is not found in the Book of Discipline. And if we may be permitted to think and speak as Americans, neither the General Conference, nor any body among us, was ever or- ganized, or endowed with prerogatives, to make a constitution. The General Conference of ISOS might signify its opinion or wish to its successors, but the most that can be said of its limit- ing and restricting enactments is that their laws have no more binding authority upon its successors than legislative enact- ments. It is to be hoped that every preacher will admit that the General Conference of 1808 had none of the attributes or powers of constitution-makers, as all are infinitely interested in disavowing such a precedent and in having the origin and nature of a constitution clearly and distinctly defined. The destructive diflQculty with regard to Snethen's definition, in its application to the acts of the General Conference of 1808, is that the whole Church had heen prepared for such a work ty preceding conditions and discussions. The delegates, with few exceptions, perhaps with none, went to that Conference convinced that some- thing was necessary to the preservation of the solidarity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It must, however, be admitted that the General Confer- ence of 1808 had no more sovereign authority to dictate en- actments to be forcTer binding upon its successors than the General Conference of 1804 had to bind that of 1808. 132 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY But Snethen became illogical when he said, "By a parity of reasoning, it was under no sovereignty that would disbar the General Conference of 1812 from disannulling what it did as a lawmaking body." The General Conference of 1812 was not such a body as were those of 1804 and 1808 ; it did not consist of the whole ministry (except such as were generally deemed to have not possessed suflflcient experience), but of a small part who were delegated under the acts of 1808. The inexpugnable fact is that the authority of the General Conference of 1808 icas never questioned. After searching all accessible records, the author has been unable to find any protest of importance against the action of that body — until the Restrictive Rules ob- structed the aims of those who were proposing funda- mental changes. The result was determined by the fact that every Annual Conference elected delegates to the General Conference of 1812 under the conditions prescribed in the plan for "regulating and perpetuating the General Con- ference in the future." CHAPTER XVIII Radical Differences Between the Constitution of THE Methodist Episcopal Church and that OF the United States The Constitution of the United States begins thus : Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Article 10 is as follows, the italics being added: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Upon its promulgation the Constitution of the United States did not give entire satisfaction. On the contrary, various States disliked it as a form of government, and others disfavored its provisions for maintaining such a government. Some ratified it with conditions. In it all the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial divisions of the government are expressly named. The Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church declares, that "The General Conference shall have full power to make rules and regulations for our Church under the following limitations and restrictions." The people of the United States substantially said to the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President, "What ice have specified in the Constitution you may do; all this but nothing more." The Methodist Episcopal Church, through its ministers — then the only rulers — created the General Conference 133 134 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY and said to it, "You may do all things, except what we liei'ewitli restrict you from doing." BISHOPS HARRIS AND MERRILL ON THE CONSTITUTION William L. Harris (afterward Bishop), in The Con- stitutional Powers of the General Conference, states that it has been held by the highest judicial tribunal of the Church as well as the Supreme Court of the United States that "all powers not expressly reserved or excepted are delegated to the General Conference." This is self-evident. Harris further says (page 21), "The powers couched in the granting clause are great enough to have the restrictions carved out of them ; they would have embraced everything covered by the restric- tions if the restrictions had not been imposed," and on pages 35, 3G he adds : "That is, if there is a necessity for the exception it is a proof that the rule would extend to the excei)ted cases if the exception did not exist." Bishop Merrill, in his Digest of Methodist Law (pages 14, 15), presents the case with great lucidity. When the General Conference is convened and organized under this Constitution it is empowered to make "rules and regulations" for the Methodist Episcopal Church, subject only to the limitations in the six restrictions. Its grant of power is in general terms, and the limitations are specific. In this respect, it differs from the Constitution of the United States. In the latter the grants of power to the general government are spe- cific, and the reserve power is with the several States and the people; but here the general grant covers all the ground of legislation, with the particular exceptions noted. To this may be added the fact that the General Confer- ence of 1808, as well as its predecessors, claimed and exer- cised the power to make any rule or regulation and to change or to repeal any regulation without any "limita- tion or restriction." Therefore the difference between the non-delegated and the delegated General Conferences is, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO CONSTITUTIONS 135 that the former were absolute in power, while those pro- vided bj the Constitution are supreme; that is, absolute except as limited by the restrictions.^ 'The Bishops establish a firm foundation for these statements in their Address to the General Conference of 1840 (General Conference Journal, vol. ii, pp. 138, 139). "The Government of the Methodist Episcopal Church is peculiarly con- structed. It is widely different from our civil organization. The General Confer- ence is the only legislative body recognized in oar ecclesiastical system, and from it originates the authority of the entire executive administration." Speaking of complaints against the Bishops' administration, they say: "In all such cases we have given the most unequivocal assurances that we should, with unfeigned satis- faction and the kindest feelings, submit the whole matter in controversy, with all ofiBcial acts in the premises, to the enlightened deliberation and final judgment of this constitutional tribunal." INTERPRETATION OF THE SEPARATE PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION CHAPTER XIX Essentials op a Constitutional General Conference The provisions for constituting a General Conference involve : 1. The qualifications for a seat therein. 2. The number of representatives to which the Annual Conferences respectively shall be entitled. 3. The frequency with which regular sessions shall be held. 4. The month and the day of the month on which the body shall convene. 5. The number necessary for a quorum. 6. A "President." 7. Measures for calling a special General Conference. 8. Rules of Order. As published in the Journal of the General Conference of 1808, the qualifications for membership in the General Conference were : The General Conference shall be composed of one memher for every five members of each Annual Conference, to be appointed either by seniority or choice at the discretion of such Annual Con- ference; yet so that such representatives shall have traveled at least four full calendar years from the time that they are re- ceived on trial by an Annual Conference, and are in full con- nection at the time of holding the Conference. The fundamental fact in this provision of the Constitu- tion is that its terms absolutely excluded the Bishops and the laity from memhership in the General Conference. In connection with this rule it is necessary to consider the second restriction : "They shall not allow of more than one representative for every five members of the Annual 139 140 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every seven."^ The Restrictive Rule gave the General Conference of 1812 power to decide whether the next Conference should consist of one delegate for every five, six, or seven mem- bers in each Annual Conference. VARIOUS CHANGES IN THE RATIO OP REPRESENTATION In the Conference of 1816 the ratio was changed to one in seven by the adoption of the following resolution : Resolved, That the next General Conference shall be composed of one member for every seven instead of one for every six of each Annual Conference. The conclusion from the form of this resolution is that the General Conference of 1812 had changed the number from five to six, though the Journal does not record such change. By 1824 the number of delegates had so increased that the General Conference of that year felt it to be burden- some both to themselves and others for so many to assemble together every fourth year. Therefore a recom- mendation had been sent the rounds of the Annual Con- ferences requesting them to empower the General Con- ference to diminish the number of delegates. At the ratio of one in seven, the New York Conference had fifteen, the New England fourteen, and several thirteen. A Con- ference of twenty-seven was represented by three delegates. This measure was defeated ; but the manner of the defeat was the cause of creating a great change in the method of altering the Rules. The General Conference of 1832 passed and sent down to the several Annual Conferences for their concurrence the following resolutions: iln the revision of the Constitution this subject was placed in another part of the Constitution, and the Second Rule at present relates to the organization of Annual Conferences. A CONSTITUTIONAL GENERAL CONFERENCE 141 Resolved, 1. That this General Conference recommend to the several Annual Conferences, for their concurrence and adoption, as provided in the Sixth Article of the Restrictive Rules, the following resolution to amend the Second Article of the said Restrictive Rules: Resolved, 2. That the Second Article of the Restrictive Rules be so altered as to read: "They shall not allow of more than one representative for every fourteen members of the Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every thirty; provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be, in any Annual Conference, a fraction of two thirds of the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, such Annual Conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such fraction; and provided, also, that no Conference shall be de- prived of the privilege of two delegates." Resolved, 3. That the secretary furnish each of the Bishops with a copy of those resolutions, and they are hereby respect- fully requested to present the same to their several Annual Con- ferences, or cause them to be presented, at their next session for their concurrence; and when the Bishops, or any two of the Bishops, shall have ascertained that three fourths of all the members of the several Annual Conferences, voting in the case, have concurred with this General Conference, they shall certify the same, and cause such certificate to be printed in the Minutes, and published three successive weeks in The Christian Advocate and Journal. Resolved, 4. That the ratio of representation for the next • General Conference be one for every fourteen, provided the Annual Conferences concur in the alteration as above recom- mended by this Conference, and that the Discipline, in Section Three, Answer One, to Question Two, on page nineteen, shall thereupon be so altered as to read: "The General Conference shall be composed of one member for every fourteen members of each Annual Conference," etc.^ This amendment having been ratified by the Annual Conferences, the Discipline issued in 1836 was altered in harmony therewith, and from that day the fractional representation has been legal. In the General Conference of 1836 the following reso- 'General Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 402. 142 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY lution was passed: "That the ratio of delegates for the next General Conference be fixed at one delegate for 21 members of each Annual Conference." This being allow- able under the sliding scale, did not need to be submitted to the Annual Conferences. In 1856 the Bishops directed attention to the propriety of reducing the ratio of representation. This part of the Episcopal Address was referred to the Committee on Revisals, which reported to the General Conference a Resolution inserting "27" instead of "21."^ The same committee recommended the alteration of the Second Restrictive Rule, so as to insert, "One for every 45 in place of one for every 30." The adoption of the change from 21 to 27 required only a majority, but the propo- sition to change the Second Restrictive Rule required two thirds of all the members of the General Conference, and also a vote of three fourths of all the ministers present and voting in the Annual Conferences. This in both cases was secured ; but the Bishops, in their address to the General Conference of 1860, failed to report the submission. The body referred the subject to the Committee on Itinerancy, which reported that it was unable to make a correct report, as many of the Journals could not be examined, the delegates having sent them home. They, therefore, reported that the Bishops be authorized to make the report, so that the alteration might be made in the forthcoming Discipline. And the Discipline of 1860 shows that this was done; the rule reading "not allowing a less number than one for every forty-five." The General Conference of 1860, by resolution, also changed the ratio of representation from 27 to 30. After the alteration in 1832-6, every Conference, how- ever small, had at least two delegates. •General Conference Journal, 1856, vol. iii, p. 193. A CONSTITUTIONAL GENERAL CONFERENCE 143 On May 24, 1864, the report of the Committee on Itin- erancy contained a proposition to change the Restrictive Rule, and insert "one delegate," so that it might read, "provided, also, that no Conference shall be denied the privilege of one delegate." The proposition received the necessary two thirds and the action was approved by the Annual Conferences. The Bishops failed to mention the confirmation of the proposition by the Annual Conferences, so that the im- portant change did not appear in the Discipline until 1868. In the Revised Constitution of 1900-1904, Abticlb II, ministerial delegates, is as follows: EJach Annual Conference shall be entitled to at least one ministerial delegate. The General Conference shall not allow more than one ministerial delegate for every fourteen members of an Annual Conference nor less than one for every forty-five; but for a fraction of two thirds or more of the number fixed by the General Conference as the ratio of representation, an Annual Conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate. No change has been made in the original rule in the Methodist Episcopal Church requiring that the repre- sentatives "shall have traveled at least four calendar years from the time that they were received on trial by an Annual Conference, and are in full connection at the time of holding the Conference," but the section in the Revised Constitution reads as follows: Such delegates shall be elders, at least twenty-five years of age, and shall have been members of an Annual Conference four consecutive years, and at the time of their election, and at the time of the session of the General Conference, shall be members of the Annual Conference which elected them. The General Conference of 1872 enacted that a trans- ferred preacher shall not be counted twice in the same year as the basis of the election of delegates to the Gen- eral Conference, nor vote for delegates to the General 144 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Conference in any Annual Conference where he is not counted as a part of the basis of representation, nor vote twice in the same year on any constitutional question. THE QUESTION OP "SENIORITY" The original Article allowed each delegate "to be appointed either by seniority or choice at the discretion of such Annual Conference." In the General Conference of 1812, on the 8th of May, Lee "moved that the members of the next General Con- ference come by seniority, and that the supernumerary and superannuated preachers shall not be included among the senior preachers ; also that one for every six members shall come to the next General Conference, and in case there are two or more preachers of equal standing, then the first named shall have the preference. And in case any one of the above preachers shall fail by sickness or otherwise to attend the General Conference, then the next senior preacher shall come in his place." This resolution was brought up several times, and dis- cussion postponed; when the question was put to vote on the first paragraph, "That the members of the next General Conference come by seniority," it did not prevail. As the Constitution permitted members of Annual Conferences to choose whether their delegates should come by "seniority or choice," had this motion prevailed, it would have been a deadly blow to the Constitution. No delegate has ever been sent to the General Confer- ence by seniority; nor could such a scheme have suc- ceeded ; for while the senior in a Conference may be its ablest and most devout member, it is obvious that he might be neither, or possess one quality and not the other. Also the difference between the actually chronological senior and the next in age might be but a day; or if determined by the years in actual ministerial service, A CONSTITUTIONAL GENERAL CONFERENCE 145 there might be a year only of difference according to the calendar and a practical difference of more than a decade in wisdom, intellect, and fitness for participation in the deliberations of the body. Yet the phrase "by seni- ority or choice" j^ersisted in the Constitution until lf)00. REVISED CONSTITUTION ON MINISTERIAL DELEGATES In the Revised Constitution all that relates to minis- terial delegates is as follows, under "Organization and Government," Paragraph 38: Article II § 1. Each Annual Conference shall be entitled to at least one ministerial delegate. The General Conference shall not allow more than one ministerial delegate for every fourteen members of an Annual Conference, nor less than one for every forty-five; but for a fraction of two thirds or more of the number fixed by the General Conference as the ratio of representation an Annual Conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate. § 2. The ministerial delegates shall be elected by ballot by the members of the Annual Conference at its session immediately preceding the General Conference. Such delegates shall be elders, at least twenty-five years of age, and shall have been members of an Annual Conference four successive years, and at the time of their election and at the time of the session of the General Conference shall be members of the Annual Conference which elected them. An Annual Conference may elect reserve delegates, not exceeding three in number, and not exceeding the number of its delegates. § 3. No minister shall be counted twice in the same year in the basis for the election of delegates to the General Conference, nor vote in such election where he is not counted, nor vote in two Conferences in the same year on a constitutional question.* In all these references to the ratio of representation, the General Conference alone has the right to make any change not below the minimum nor above the maximum. To alter either of these numbers the vote must be taken as for other modifications of the Constitution. ^Discipline, 1908, p. CHAPTER XX Dates of Regular General Conferences and Methods OF Convening Them The provision for the meeting of General Conferences as enacted in 1808 was : The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 1812 in the city of New York, and thence- forward on the first day of May once in four years perpetually, in such place or places as shall be fixed on by the General Con- ference from time to time: but the General Superintendents, with or by the advice of all the Annual Conferences, or if there be no General Superintendent, all the Annual Conferences re- spectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, if they judge it necessary, at any time. General Conferences prior to 1808 met quadrennially, and this having proved satisfactory, there was entire agreement in continuing it. Occasionally propositions have been made to substitute eight or six years, but they have obtained little support. It is apparent that evils might arise and additional legislation be required in less than eight or even six years. Were the term fixed at either of these periods, the result might be disastrous to the peace or the growth of the Church. This might necessitate frequent convening of extra sessions for a special purjiose, at great expense, and often under excitement. Yet, if the General Con- ference were to assemble yearly — as is the case with the Presbyterian General Assembly, which has limited legis- lative powers, all important enactments requiring the votes of a majority of the Presbyteries before taking effect — the expense would be intolerable, and, the Gen- eral Conference being the sole legislative body, the Church would be continually agitated, and any or every law 146 GENERAL CONFERENCE DATES AND METHODS 147 become a battle center for the defeated party in the hope of speedy repeal or radical modification. The present rule is the golden mean between the extremes of useless or harmful frequency and a hazardous length of interval. SUITABILITY OF MAY FOR THE CONFERENCE QUESTIONED The fitness of the month of May was questioned in 1832, when on the 25th day of that month Daniel Ostrander, of Kew York, seconded by William Winans of Mississippi, oflfered this preamble and resolution : Whereas, Great inconveniences have been experienced, and always must be experienced, when the General Conference com- mences its session on the first day of May, on account of many of the delegates, especially from the North and East, having to start in a season when the winter is just breaking up, and the roads very bad, and when the navigation is still obstructed by ice; and. Whereas, It is believed that it is perfectly within the province of this Conference to vary the time of its meeting, therefore. Resolved, That the next General Conference will commence its session on the first day of June instead of the first day of May.' The resolutions were tabled. Either the Conference was not dissatisfied with May, or believed that it had no right to make any change in the constitutional provision without the concurrence of the ministers in the Annual Conferences. The presumption is that both elements were involved, for Ostrander and Winans were influential. The former had been in every Conference from, and in- cluding, that of 1808. Winans had been in the Conference of 1828, and in this Conference was the leader of his delegation. A resolution proposed by such men would not have been disposed of so cavalierly without some obstacle other than that "the resolution was in the way of other business." The month is the best that could possibly be selected, •General Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 413. 148 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY following the harshness of spring and preceding the languorous heat of summer, and, with respect to the sessions of the Annual Conferences, immediately after the spring and not too near the fall. The provision fixing the first da}' of May for the open- ing of the General Conference remained undisturbed until the West Wisconsin Conference, in the interval between the General Conferences of 1892 and 189G, passed the following resolution : Resolved, That the Bishops presiding in the several Annual Conferences during the year 1894 are hereby respectfully re- quested to submit to all the Annual Conferences the following proposition, namely: To amend Paragraph 63 of the Discipline of 1892 so that it shall read as follows, to wit: "H 63. The General Conference shall meet on the first Wednes- day of May, in the year of our Lord 1900, and thenceforward on the first Wednesday in May once in four years perpetually, at such hour and in such place in the United States as the General Conference may from time to time direct; but the General Su- perintendents, or a majority of them, by and with the advice of two thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have power to call an extra session of the General Conference, to be constituted in the usual way. But if there shall be no General Superin- tendent, then two thirds of the Annual Conferences shall have power to call such extra session." The resolution was duly submitted by the Bishop, with the result that 8,663 votes were cast in favor of the amend- ment and 167 against it. On the 13th day of May, in the General Conference of 1896, the report on the action of the Annual Conferences was acted upon, and the change in the Constitution adopted by a vote of 397 ayes to 19 nays. METHOD OF CALLING SPECIAL GENERAL CONFERENCES •The constitutional provision was: The General Superintendents, with or by the advice of all the Annual Conferences, or if there be no General Superintendent, GENERAL CONFERENCE DATES AND METHODS 149 all the Annual Conferences respectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, if they judge necessary, at any time. This provision remained until the General Conference of 1856. At the opening of that session the Bishops in their quadrennial Address to the Conference thus spoke concerning this rule: The rule requiring the concurrent advice of all the Annual Conferences to authorize the Bishops to call an extra session of the General Conference, we think unnecessarily restrictive. We have now thirty-eight Annual Conferences, and a probability of more; yet any one of them, though the least of all, might defeat the wishes of all the others in regard to an extra session, what- ever might be the necessity for it. We respectfully suggest that any state of affairs which would satisfy three fourths or even two thirds of the Annual Conferences, and the Bishops, that an extra session of the General Conference was really necessary, should be deemed a suflScient reason for calling it.' This passage was referred to the Committee on Revis- als and Unfinished Business, which reported as follows: The committee having duly considered that part of the Bishops' Address which relates to the call of an extra session of the General Conference, recommend the insertion of the fol- lowing in Part 1, Chapter iii. Section 2, Answer 2, in place of our present provision for calling an extra session of the General Conference: "But the General Superintendents, or a majority of them, with the advice of two thirds of all the Annual Conferences, or, if there be no General Superintendent, two thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have power to call an extra session of the General Conference at any time, to be constituted in the usual way.'" There is no evidence that this change was submitted to the Annual Conferences. It was, therefore, clearly a usurpation of power by the Conference to enact it and an imposition upon the Church to change its Discipline without authority.^ 'General Conference Journal, 1856, vol. iii, 193. ^General Conference Journal, 1856, vol. iii. p. 153. 'Through neglect, no report of the discussion of this subject appears in the DaUy Advocate for 1856. 150 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY This rule, as thus unconstitutionally amended, re- mained with only verbal changes until the revision of the entire Constitution. REVISED CONSTITUTION ON TIMES AND CALLING OF GENERAL CONFERENCES As found in the Discipline, all the regulations concern- ing the times and calling of sessions of the General Confer- ences, regular or extra, in force at the present time are comprised in the three sections of Paragraph 41, Part 2 of Division 3 of the Constitution, entitled "Articles of Organization and Government." Article V. Sessions If 41, § 1. The General Conference shall meet at 10 o'clock on the morning of the first Wednesday in the month of May, in every fourth year from the date of the first Delegated General Conference — namely, the year of our Lord 1812 — and at such place in the United States of America as shall have been deter- mined by the preceding General Conference, or by a Commission to be appointed quadrennially by the General Conference, and acting under its authority; which Commission shall have power also in case of emergency to change the place for the meeting of the General Conference, a majority of the General Superin- tendents concurring in such change. § 2. The General Superintendents, or a majority of them, by and with the advice of two thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have the power to call an extra session of the General Con- ference at any time, constituted in the usual way; such session to be held at such time and place as a majority of the General Sup- erintendents, and also of the above Commission, shall designate. § 3. In case of a great emergency two thirds of the General Superintendents may call special sessions of the Annual Con- ferences, at such time and place as they may think wise, to determine the question of an extra session of the General Con- ference, or to elect delegates thereto. They may also, in such cases, call extra sessions of the Lay Electoral Conferences for the purpose of electing Lay Delegates to the General Conference. The provision has been omitted which formerly existed, "in case there be no General Superintendent." CHAPTER XXI The General Conference Ready for Business For many years, the method of organizing a General Conference was simplicity itself. The senior Bishop con- ducted religious worship. The Journal of the last undelegated Conference of 1808 thus describes the opening: "Conference met at half -past eight o'clock. Francis Asbury, President. Members present as follows : . . ." As all preachers except ''novices" could attend, there was no trouble concerning credentials. The record of the opening of the first dele- gated Conference is: "The delegated General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America assembled in the city of New York, agreeably to a resolution of the General Conference of 1808. Bishop Asbury opened Conference. William M. Kennedy was ap- pointed Secretary pro tern. The forenoon was occupied in calling for and reading the certificates of the delegates from the several Annual Conferences." In the afternoon the record of the session is: "Conference met, agreeably to adjournment, and resumed the further examination of certificates of the delegates, in order to organize them- selves." Not till 1832 was the secretary of the last General Con- ference "requested by the chair to call the list of the delegates present." This has been the method until the present time. Prior to the revision of 1900-04, there was no constitutional prescription concerning organiza- tion. The order now is, Aeticle VII. Organization If 43. When the time for opening the General Conference arrives the presiding officer shall take the chair, and direct the 151 152 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY secretary of the preceding General Conference, or in his abseace one of his assistants, to call the roll of the delegates-elect. Those •who have been duly returned shall be recognized as members, their certificates of election being prima facie evidence of their right to membership; provided, however, that in case of a chal- lenge of any person thus enrolled, such challenge being signed by at least six delegates from the territory of as many different Annual Conferences, three such delegates being ministers, and three laymen, the person so challenged shall not participate in the proceedings of the General Conference, except to speak on his own case, until the question of his right shall have been decided. The General Conference shall be the judge of the elec- tion, returns, and qualifications of its own members.^ The calling of the roll being ended, the Bishop announces a quorum present, and the Conference is ready for busi- ness. "powers" and quorum The body thus organized is not bound except by the Constitution. All that its predecessors have done in legis- lating, except in constitution-making^ it has power to repeal. And this unique body, which, like its forerunners, must speedily die and have no resurrection, can enact all imaginable "rules and regulations" not forbidden in the organic law. "Full power" is so capacious a phrase that it certainly requires "limitations" and "restrictions" competent to maintain the solidity of the foundations of the Church, but not so narrowing as to destroy or diminish the true liberty of Christian men. To these salutary checks close attention must be given by legislators, and also by all interpreters. For a false interpretation may make a good law of none effect, or transform a reasonable limitation into an instrument of intolerable oppression. The original regulation for the quorum reads: At all times, when the General Conference is met, it shall ^Discipline, 1908, pp. 43, 44. GENERAL CONFERENCE READY FOR BUSINESS 153 take two thirds of the representatives of all the Annual Con- ferences to make a quorum for transacting business. This rule remained intact until the revision of the Con- stitution. Its present form is (italics added) : Article VIII f 44. When the General Conference is in session it shall re- quire the presence of two thirds of the whole number of dele- gates to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; but a less number may take a recess or adjourn from day to day in order to secure a quorum, and at the final session may approve the Journal, order the record of the roll call, and adjourn sine die} In every legislative body at least two thirds of all elected should be necessary to a quorum. Were a less number allowed, a small minority might greatly wrong their constituents by neglect, folly, or the intentional making of disastrous changes. Even under this rule a majority equal to one third of the delegates plus one could bind the Church for four years. General practice justifies what is allowed to a less number than a quorum, and there is a reason for each of the additions. The record of the roll call is a premium on fidelity and an individual indorsement of the integ- rity of the Journal. PRESIDENCY The Constitution, as first formed, provided for the presi- dency by the following direction: "One of the General Superintendents shall preside in the General Conference; but in case no General Superintendent be present the General Conference shall choose a president pro tempore." No change was made or proposed in this provision, which appears in the Discipline of 1900 precisely as in the origi- nal. In the revision of the Constitution the same prin- ^DiacipUne. 1908, p. 44. 154 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ciple remains untouched, but two important additions are made. The Revised Constitution on this important point is in three sections : Article VI. Presiding Officers \ 42, § 1. The General Conference shall elect by ballot from among the traveling elders as many General Superintendents as it may deem necessary. § 2. The General Superintendents shall preside in the Gen- eral Conference in such order as they may determine; but if no General Superintendent be present, the General Conference shall elect one of its members to preside pro tempore. § 3. The presiding officer of the General Conference shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the General Conference; but questions of law shall be decided by the General Conference.* The provision that the Bishops shall preside "in such order as they may determine" is very useful, as it enables them, in a time of excitement or the discussion of intri- cate questions, to choose the one best qualified to pre- side. The third paragraph is a valuable addition to the organic law, though no new principle or practice is in- volved. It teaches the Conference its rights and duty and the presiding officer his powers and limitations. The prerogative of presiding does not inhere in the office of Bishop. As the Vice-President of the United States does not preside in the Senate by virtue of the fact that he is the Vice-President, but because the Constitu- tion so provides, so the Bishop presides in the General Conference because the Constitution expressly declares that "a General Superintendent, if present, shall preside." Before the Constitution was formed the successive Gen- eral Conferences had the power to elect their own presi- dents. Hence this provision, incapable of being mis- understood, was imbedded in the very foundation of the i Discipline, 1908. p. 43. GENERAL CONFERENCE DATES AND METHODS 155 legislative, executive, and judicial "power house" which the architects of 1808 were constructing. That a Bishop shall preside is a wise measure. Had the election of a president been left to the action of suc- cessive Conferences, the session would begin with a struggle for the office, which might be protracted and incendiary, and the member elected might, and doubtless often would be, the representative of a party. Whereas, under the existing system, the Conference proceeds at once with a composure and dignity similar to that with which the Senate of the United States is opened. The hot contests in the House of Representatives, which elects one of its members Speaker, illustrate the difficulties with which the Conference would have to deal; for it has taken a longer time to elect one of the Speakers of the House of Representatives than the General Conference consumes in its entire session. The fact that the Bishops in their turn, when present, are the only constitutional presiding officers of the body develops and maintains a generation of parliamentarians. Some have natural gifts superior to others, but consul- tation and harmony of views and decisions, with only occasional differences, result. The rule, that in case no General Superintendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a president pro tempore, involves more than is at first glance per- ceived. Suppose the day and hour for opening a regular or special General Conference arrives, and a constitu- tional quorum is present, but no Bishop; without this provision no organization could be effected, no business transacted. But under this rule a president could be elected, who would have all the powers possessed by a Bishop until one should come. Should none appear, the proceedings could continue until, in the judgment of the Conference, all the necessary business should have been 156 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY transacted, and the Conference finally adjourned. The one elected, as a member of the Conference, in case of a tie, would have the right to give the casting vote. It will be observed that, as originally framed, in the letter of this law there is no specification, that the one elected pro tempore should be a member of the body. For this reason the Constitution was changed at the time of revision so as to read : "but if no General Superintendent be present, the General Conference shall elect one of its members to preside pro tempore'^ CHAPTER XXII The First Restrictive Rule doctrines "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, nor change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine." This rule is of the greatest importance, and therefore was the first enacted. For it is the sole protection of the Gospel as interpreted by the founders of Methodism, and preached with unction and effect almost equaling that of the apostles. The "Articles of Religion,'' therein refered to, were prepared and sent to this continent by John Wesley at the time when his societies were transformed into the Methodist Episcopal Church. Several he took without change from the thirty-nine "Articles of Religion" of the Church of England, of which he was a presbyter until his death; some he took only in part, some he altered, and nearly a third he omitted. The Articles entitled "Of Faith in the Holy Trinity," "Of the Word or Son of God, who was made very Man," "Of the Resurrection of Christ," "Of the Holy Ghost," "Of the Old Testament," "Of Free Will," "Of the Justification of Man," "Of Good Works," "Of Works of Supererogation," "Of Sin after Justification," "Of Purgatory," "Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understand," "Of the Sacra- ments," "Of the Lord's Supper," "Of both Kinds," "Of the one Oblation of Christ, finished upon the Cross," "Of the Marriage of Ministers," "Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches," "Of Christian Men's 157 158 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Goods," and "Of a Christian Man's Oath" were adopted, with slight verbal changes and minor omissions. The Articles entitled "Of the Sufflciency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation," "Of Original or Birth Sin," "Of the Church," and "Of Baptism" were retained with considerable omissions. The following were rejected: "Of the Going down of Christ into Hell," "Of the Three Creeds," "Of Works before Justification," "Of Christ alone without Sin," "Of Predestination and Election," "Of Obtaining External Salvation only by the Name of Christ," "Of the Authority of the Church," "Of the Authority of General Councils," "Of Ministering in the Congregation," "Of the Unworthi- ness of the Ministers which Hinders not the Effect of the Sacraments," "Of the Wicked which Eat not the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord's Supper," "Of Excom- municate Persons, how they are to be avoided," "Of the Homilies," "Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers," "Of the Civil Magistrates." Wesley inserted in the Liturgy which he prepared for the American Methodists, a Prayer "For the Supreme Rulers of the United States" in the Order for Morning Prayer, which comes after the Third Collect : Then these Prayers following are to be read. A Prayer for the Supreme Rulers. "O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the only ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; we most heartily beseech thee, with thy favor to behold the Supreme Rulers of these United States, and so replenish them with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that they may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way; through Jesus Christ our Lord." This was printed before the adoption of the Constitu- tion of the United States ; but at the time that the Church was organized an Article suited to the new situation was adopted. THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE RULE 159 The Prayer Book sent over by Wesley was printed in England, but in the next edition, which appeared in 178G, the Article entitled "Of the Rulers of the United States of America" was as follows: The Congress, the General Assemblies, the Governors and the Councils of State, as the Delegates of the People, are the Rulers of the United States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the General Act of Confederation and by the Constitutions of their respective States. And the said States ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. The following Note was added : As far as it respects civil affairs, we believe it the duty of Christians, and especially of all Christian ministers, to be sub- ject to the supreme authority of the country where they may reside, and to use all laudable means to enjoin obedience to the powers that be, and therefore it is expected that all our preachers and people, who may be under British or any other government, will behave themselves as peaceable and orderly subjects. After the adoption of the Constitution of the United States the words "The President" were placed before the words "the Congress," and the "Constitution of the United States" was substituted for "the General Act of Confederation." A comparison between the thirty-nine and the twenty- five Articles is instructive. The object of Wesley was to expurgate the leaven of ritualism, Calvinism, and Romanism. The dictum of Bishop Harris that the Articles of Religion "are specially and strictly Armin- ian in all points which distinguish evangelical Arminian- ism from Calvinism" is sustained by the radical changes and the significant omissions. "Wesley's opinions on the specific virtue of the sacra- ments, and especially on 'Baptismal Regeneration,' have," says Stevens, "been pronounced vague, if not contradic- tory." He adds: His early intimations on these subjects are favorable to the views of High Churchmen; his later, unfavorable to them. It 160 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY must be remembered that he began bis career a strenuous High Churchman, and, though he manfully broke away from many of his early errors, yet on the questions of baptismal regenera- tion and the consequent condition of baptized infants, it has been supposed that he remained ambiguous to the last.' The changes he made in the Articles of Religion nega- tively, as Stevens remarks, decide this question. Num- ber 25 of the English Articles declares the sacraments to "be certain, sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us." Wesley eliminated "sure" and "effectual." The 27th Article declares baptism to be "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth, whcrehy as 'by an imtrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Eoly Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; and faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God." All after the "new birth" was stricken out. The 16th Anglican Article is entitled "Of Sin after Baptism." Wesley changed it to "Of Sin after Justification." The Article reads, "Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism," etc. From this Wesley removed "baptism" and inserted "justification." The Article declares that "the grace of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism." Wesley again substituted "justi- fication" for "baptism." These changes could not have been made by one who held to baptismal regeneration, or by any who believed that one could not be "justified" without baptism. The twenty-five Articles of Religion certainly connect the Methodist Episcopal Church with that chain of funda- mentals, which from the earliest times, though heavily strained, has not broken. They affirm the Trinity in Unity, the Union in Christ of God and Man, His Cruci- ^History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 207. THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE RULE 161 fixion, Death and Burial, and the Vital Relation of his Sufferings and Death to Forgiveness of Sins. They affirm his Resurrection and Ascension as objective facts; and prophesy the Judgment of all Men at the Last Day. They declare the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salva- tion, and name the Canonical Books. They maintain that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to sal- vation, and defend the Old Testament from denial or desecration. They teach the Inability of Man, without the aid of the Spirit, to keep the law of God,, and his consequent Need of Regeneration. They contain the doc- trine of Justification by Faith only; and avoid Antino- mian license by implying that without good works there is no proof of a lively faith. They justify the Reforma- tion by denying the existence of works of supereroga- tion. They offer hope to every repentant sinner, even though after justification he has fallen into sin. They do not justify those who say ''they can no more sin as long as they live here," or those who deny forgiveness to such as truly repent. They affirm that the congrega- tions "of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance," whatever the sign or name, to be the visible Church of Christ. They repel the doctrine of Purgatory; disapprove the administering of the sacra- ments and the offering of prayers in the Church in a tongue not understood by the people. They accept the two sacraments ordained of Christ, but not the five humanly appointed alleged sacraments. They speak clearly against the superstitious worshiping of them. Baptism is ordained for adults and children. They reject transubstantiation, but revere the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, teaching that the means whereby Christ's body is received and eaten in the Supper is faith, and that it is partaken of only "after a heavenly and 162 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY spiritual manner." They affirm that the refusal of the cup to lay people is without scriptural authority. Also they maintain that the "sacrifice of masses is a dangerous deceit." The marriage of ministers is justified, but not commanded. In dealing with Christian men's goods and Christian men's oaths and the rites and ceremonies of the Church, the Articles of Religion protect the individual and society. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that they do not contain special reference to some of the most precious doctrines held by the Founder of Methodism and by the Churches that derive their existence from the preaching, teaching, and example of those whom he instructed. The Restrictive Rule provides not only that the General Conference shall not revoke, alter, nor change our Articles of Religion, but that it "shall not establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing established standards of doctrine." THE STANDARDS The vital question is: What are those Standards? The first Conference held in the United States, after declaring that the authority of Wesley and the English Conference extended to the preachers and people in America, affirmed that "the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists, as contained in the Minutes," was to be the "sole rule of the Methodist preachers who labored in the connection with Mr. Wesley in America." At the Conference of 1780 an order was given to the Assistant "that all the deeds be drawn in substance after that in the printed Minutes. The deed contained in these English or "printed" Minutes especially named "Wesley's four volumes of Sermons" and his Notes on the New Testament as the doctrinal Standards of Methodism. And this trust deed has been in existence since 1763. THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE RULE 163 In the Conference of 1781, the first question is, "What preachers are now determined, after matiire considera- tion, close observation, and earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doctrine, and strictly enforce the discipline, as contained in the Notes, Sermons, and Minutes pub- lished by Mr. Wesley, so far as they respect both preach- ers and people, according to the knowledge we have of them, and the ability of God shall give . . . ?" The thirty-nine preachers assembled in the Conference sub- scribed their names to an aflBrmative answer. In 1784, at the Conference held previous to the forma- tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the twenty-first question is this: "How shall we conduct ourselves toward European preachers?" The answer was: '"If they are recommended by Mr. Wesley, will be subject to the Ameri- can Conference, preach the doctrine taught in the four volumes of Scnnons and Xotcs on the Xew Testament, . . ." (the rest of the answer refers to the DiseipUne) , "we will receive them, but if they walk contrary to the above direction, no ancient rite or appointment shall prevent their being excluded from our connection." In the latter part of the year 1784 and the early part of 1785 the societies were organized into the Methodist Episcopal Church, and a Form of Discipline for the government of the Church was adopted. This was sub- stantially the same as the Large Minutes of the Confer- ence of Wesley, the chief alterations being such as were needful to the situation in America. There were various indirect references to the Standards of doctrine in the Discipline issued after the foundation of the Church. In the year 1789 the fifth edition was pub- lished. Appended to it were the Articles of Religion and Doctrinal Tracts. The Doctrinal Tracts were severally entitled : "Scripture Doctrine of Predestination, Election, and Reprobation," by the Rev. John Wesley; "Serious 164 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Thoughts on the Infallible, Unconditional Perseverance of all that have experienced Faith in Christ"; "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection," as believed and taught by the Rev. John Wesley, from the year 1725 to the year 1765. These tracts were inserted in the subsequent edi- tions of the Discipline, except that of 1796, until 1812, after which they were omitted. The question has arisen whether these Doctrinal Tracts were included in the other existing Standards. But as they were not recognized as Standards by Wesley or by the Wesleyan body, and as the Sermons of Wesley were specified, and also his Notes; and the Conference of 1808 kncAv this to be the fact, and as they also knew that Wesley had sent over the Articles of Religion and said nothing whatever about the Doctrinal Tracts, the most natural conclusion is that it was not intended to regard them as Standards. Nevertheless, like the "Notes" written by Asbury and Coke, they were valuable "advices" so far as they discussed subjects harmonious with and explanatory of the general doctrines and principles of Methodism. This seems the more reasonable as little or no proof can be adduced that they were ever regarded as official Standards. The London edition of Wesley's Sermons was published in two volumes, under the editorial supervision of Dr. Jabez Bunting, and republished by the Book Concern in New York. In that edition, the Sermons referred to are the first fifty-three of the first volume, beginning with the discourse on "Salvation by Faith" and concluding with the sermon on "the death of Mr. Whitefield." Further light may be thrown upon these questions by the following facts: On February 28, 1874, a deed was "enrolled in chancery under the hand and seal of the said John Wesley, and specified by name therein," that the trustees of Methodist chapels, while he, Wesley, lived THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE RULE 1G5 and after his decease should "at all times forever" "per- mit such persons and no others as shall be appointed at the yearly Conference of the people called Methodists . . . to have and to enjoy the said premises for the purposes aforesaid : provided always, that the persons preach no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wes- ley's Kotes on the New Testament, and four volumes of Sermons." This deed has been modified by the Wesleyan Church, but contains this provision: "No person or persons who- soever shall at any time hereafter be permitted to preach or expound God's Holy Word, or to perform any of the general acts of religious worship in the building or any part of the premises, nor in or upon the appurtenances thereunto belonging, . . . who shall maintain, promul- gate, or teach any doctrine or practice, contrary to what is contained in Xotcs on the Xew Testament commonly reputed to be the Notes of the said John Wesley, and in the first four volumes of Sermons commonly reputed to be written and published by him." Various discrepancies have been pointed out with respect to the number of these Sermons. The Wesleyan Methodist Church of England and the Methodist Episco- pal Church recognize fifty-three; the Methodist Chiirch of Canada and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, recognize but fifty-two, omitting the fifty-third, which was upon the death of George Whitefield, for the reason that at the time (1763) when the four volumes were in- serted, by name, in the Model Deed, Whitefield was liv- ing. Further, R. J. Cooke (on the basis of the fact that after Wesley inserted the four volumes, in the deed, as above stated, he added ten sermons to the books) assumes that only the preceding forty-three should be included in the Standards. Concerning the Sermons, Wesley himself, when intro- 166 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ducing them to the public, said : "The following Sermons contain the substance of what I have been preaching for eight or nine years past. During that time I have fre- quently si)oken in public on every subject in the ensu- ing collection, and I am not conscious that there is any one point of doctrine, on which I am accustomed to speak in public, which is not incidentally if not professedly laid before every Christian reader. Every serious man who peruses these will, therefore, see in the clearest manner what these doctrines are which I embrace and teach as the essentials of true religion." And it was for this pur- pose that Wesley made these Sermons so large and so vital a part of his doctrinal Standards The question of the number of sermons might be of more importance were not Wesley's Notes on the New Testament included in the Standards. As it is, all the essential truths of the system of doctrine on which Meth- odism depends are discussed in the forty-three discourses ; and nothing additional of doctrinal value is contained in the appended nine or ten In addition to the basal doctrines of Christianity, the distinctive features of Methodism, and its peculiar emphasis, are suggested by the titles of these sermons: "Salvation by Faith," "The Almost Christian," "Awake Thou that Sleepest," "Scriptural Christianity," "Justifi- cation by Faith," "The Righteousness of Faith," "The Way of the Kingdom," "The First Fruits of the Spirit," "The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption"; two sermons on "The Witness of the Spirit" ; one on "The Witness of Our Own Spirit," "Of Sin in Believers," "On Repentance of Believers," "The Judgment," The "Means of Grace," "The Circumcision of the Heart," "The Mar)is of the New Birth," "The Great Privilege of Those that Are Born of God," "The Lord Our Righteousness"; thirteen sermons on "The Sermon on the Mount" (the third being on THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE RULE 167 "Blessed Are the Pure in Heart"), "The Original Nature, Properties and Use of the Law"; two sermons on "The Law"'; three on "Faith," The "Nature of Enthusiasm"; A "Caution against Bigotry"; two sermons on "The Catho- lic Spirit"; the fortieth sermon is on "Christian Per- fection"; the forty-first on "Wandering Thoughts"; the forty-second on "Satan's Devices"; the forty-third on "The Scriptural Way of Salvation." The ten that follow treat respectively "Original Sin," "The New Birth," the "Wilderness State," "Heaviness through Manifold Temp- tations," "Self-Denial," the "Cure of Evil-Speakiug," "Use of Money," "The Good Steward," the "Reformation of Manners" ; the fifty-third is "On the Death of the Rev. George Whitefield." It is to be observed that these other establisned Standards supplement the Articles of Religion and gx» to make a great body of evangelical and Arminian doctrine. The distinction between the Articles of Religion and the other existing established Standards is nowhere more clearly stated than by Dr. Burwash, professor of Theology in Victoria College, in his Introduction to Wesley's Doc- trinal Standards: The relation in which Methodism stood to the Established Church in England during Mr. Wesley's life, provided for the doctrinal unity of Methodism with the Protestant Reformation. When, in the United States of America, Methodism became an independent Church, the same provision was made by the abridged and amended Articles of Religion. But the introduction of the Sermons and Notes, as the standard of preaching, into every trust deed of a chapel or church in the connection, as- sured, so far as human means can do so, an Arminian evan- gelical preaching and exposition of God's Word for all time. To interpret these Standards, or apply them after the manner of Articles of Religion, or creeds, or confessions of faith, which categorically define the doctrines to be professed or believed, would be contrary to their very nature. It is to the spirit 1G8 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY aud type of this preaching that our obligations bind us. There may be in the Tslotes and Sermons many things, accidental and personal, to which no Methodist minister or layman would feel bound to profess assent. But Methodism demands that in all our pulpits we should preach this gospel, and expound the Word of God according to this analogy of faith.* THE FAITH OP METHODISTS All who acknowledge Wesley as their denominational father have reason to rejoice that he imposed no formal creed upon his converts and followers — no creed such as those formed and required by the Roman and Greek Churches, and by several Protestant communities, which broke from the Roman Churches by nations or races. Since the time of Wesley the Christian world has never found any difficulty in ascertaining the faith of Method- ists. The Articles of Religion, so far as they go, contain only the faiths of universal Protestant and evangelical Ckristendom, and the "other existing and established Standards" contain, in addition, those Methodist teach- ings which in substance or mode of statement are not universal among Protestant evangelical Churches. As set forth in the Notes and Sermons of Wesley, they do not constitute an iron band which might enchain the mind, padlock the lips, or break the hearts of those who, on nonessentials, diverge from the common view, while they are sufficiently significant to maintain substantial unity of faith and teaching, and to serve as bulwarks of doctrine when the foundations are attacked. Had Wesley prepared a written statement of doctrine, consisting of minute distinctions, it is reasonable to be- lieve that long before this period it would have driven away many of the most intelligent, independent, and sensitive minds, and also would have been neutralized by glosses and fanciful interpretations. The nonexist- UnlToduclion to Wesley's Doctrinal Standards. Part i. THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE RULE 169 ence of a mechanically precise creed, though not the sole, is the chief explanation of the fact that the Methodist Episcopal Church, and those which have the same or similar Standards of doctrine, have had, for the past hundred years, so few trials for heresy, and no secession on doctrinal grounds. It also goes far to explain the fact that nearly every Methodist minister, who withdraws for the purpose of entering another communion, assigns other reasons than doctrine for the change. There must be Standards, but those of Wesleyan Methodism, while conserving "substan- tial unity," allow for "circumstantial variety." CHAPTER XXIII The Third Restrictive Rule^ "The General Conference shall not change nor alter any part or rule of our government so as to do away episcopacy, nor destroy the plan of our Itinerant Gen- eral Superintendency." Without this restriction it could legally abolish the episcopacy, or change it into a form of papacy, and by a majority of one blot out the whole system of Superintendency, and, as a quorum re- quires only two thirds of the whole body, the General Conference could abolish the episcopacy by a vote of one third and one of the whole membership. The only method by which episcopacy could be "done away," or essentially modified, or the "plan" of our itinerant Superintendency "destroyed" is by a change of the Constitution requii'ing the combined action of the ministry and laity, in their respective Conferences, and confirmed by the General Conference; or, in the case of origination in the General Conference, it must be con- firmed by the ministry and laity. While this Restrictive Rule exists the episcopacy is sacredly protected in its fundamental nature and essen- tial powers. As the words "episcopacy," "plan of our itinerant General Superintendency," "part or rule of our govern- ment" are not defined in the Constitution, their meaning must be found in the Discipline of 1908, in which is not only the Constitution, but the characterization of "episco- pacy" and every "part or rule of our government" necessary to "the plan of our itinerant General Superin- tendency." •The Second Restrictive Rule was treated in Chapter XX. 170 THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 171 THE EPISCOPACY OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH What is that "episcopacy" which the General Confer- ence must not "do away"? Is the episcopacy referred to a distinct order or an "office grafted upon the order of elder" or presbyter? To settle all questions raised by the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent, assembled by the Roman Catholic Church, thus fulminated concerning Bishops, presbyters, and deacons: "If anyone denies that there is in the Church a hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance which consists of Bishops, presbyters, and ministers, let him be anathema." And, again : "If any- one affirm that Bishops are not superior to presbyters, or that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining, or that the power which they have is common to presbyters also, let him be anathema."^ Upon this deliverance of the Council, a Catholic authority, approved by the hierarchy, observes: The Anglican Church did not, at least formally, cast off be- lief in the divine institution of episcopacy, and learned Anglican divines, among whom Pearson is the most celebrated, have strenuously vindicated the episcopal authority. With most of the Protestant bodies it has been otherwise. Tiiey do not pretend to have Bishops, or if they have Superin- tendents u-hom they call hy that name, they attribute to them no authority except such as has hcen bestowed upon them by the Church. They deny, in other words, that the episcopate is of divine institution, and directly impugn the definitions of Trent on this subject. They admit, of course, that Bishops {epis- copoi) are frequently mentioned in the New Testament, but they urge that, in the Acts and the Epistles, Bishop and presbyter are two names for the same office. They suppose that, origi- nally, there were three grades in the hierarchy, viz., the apos- tles, whose office ended with their lifetime, and left no succes- sors; the Bishops or presbyters, corresponding to the ministers or clergymen of the present day; and deacons. •Council. Trident. Sess. xxiii. Can. 6. 7. 172 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The Roman Catholic authority quoted acknowledges that perhaps the Church of England did not cast off the "divine institution of episcopacy" in spirit; otherwise there would be no significance in the phrase "at least, formally, cast off," etc. But a minority, approximating a majority, did positively reject it, and made public decla- ration to this effect. At the close of the Revolution, a large majority of ministers and members of the Church of England in the United States held one of two "moderate views" of episcopacy: One of these is that an episcopal form of government is good, but rests on the ground of human expediency and not on divine appointment. The other went further, and considered Bishops as a superior order to presbyters or elders, which they declared to be sanc- tioned by apostolic example, and that it was the duty of all Churches to imitate the example; but they did not consider it necessary to the existence of the Church, hence those who accepted either of these "moderate" views acknowledged as true Churches those communions who do not adopt episcopacy. But a minority in the United States, with the excep- tion of a few, "at first cautiously and occasionally asserted the High-Church theory, developed an exclusive feeling harmonious with pride natural to certain types of mind," and their numbers rapidly increased. A large proportion of the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which claims to be the only legitimate daughter of the Church of England, sympathize with the prevalent tendencies in that country concerning the episcopacy as a third "order, in direct succession to the apostles." The advocates of exclusion have become more bold, until it has come to pass that no Church puts forth more exclu- sive claims to apostolic succession than the Protestant Episcopal. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 173 METHODIST EPISCOPACY DERIVED FROM JOHN WESLEY That the American Weslejan Methodist body derived its episcopacy from John Wesley none doubt. Nor do any question that the Methodist lay preachers, assembled in Baltimore in 1784, accepted Wesley's defense of the ordination of Thomas Coke as Superintendent, and the ordination of other elders as described in the account of the organization of the Church. This defense is fully stated in the letter which Wesley addressed to '"Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America."^ TVrO CONFIRM IXG LETTERS Within a few years two letters have come to light, the originals of which are now the property of John F. Goucher. president emeritus of Goucher College, Balti- more. The recipient of these was Stephen Donaldson, of Leesburg, a prominent layman. The writer was Adam Fonerden, an active member of the Methodist Society in Baltimore and a local preacher. Concise, clear, and com- i"Bristol, Sept. 10th, 1784. "To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury. and our Brethren in North America: "2. Lord King's .\ccount of the Primitive Church convinced me, many yeara ago, that Bishops and presbyters 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 traveling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined, as UttLe as possible to violate the established order of the national Church, to which I be- longed. "3. But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are Bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In .\merica there are none, and but few psirish ministers; so that for some hundred miles together there none either to baptize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end: and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order and invade no man's right, hy appointir^g and sending laborers into the harvest. "4. I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Franci* A-buo'. to be joint Superintendents over our brethren in North .-Vmerica. .\s til-o Richard \\'hatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and ministering the Lord's Supper. "John WESMnr.' 174 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY prehensive, they are invaluable, for they reveal exactly what the founders of American Methodism meant and what they did. The first was written three weeks after Coke arrived in New York. The first paragraph related to personal and commercial business; the rest is as follows : To Mr. Stephen Donaldson, Leesburg. Baltimore Nov'r 28tli-1784. much Esteemed friend We have three English preachers arriv'd their names — Dr. Coke, Mr. Whatcoat, & Mr. Vasey. These three are ordain'd a presbytry by Mr. Wesley & his Clergy, who together with a new form of Church Government, Suggested by Mr. Wesley, are to Organize us as a Church, to have a Liturgy & administration of ordinances. But as this is not to be forc'd upon us, but left to our Choice — if we approve of it, they Stay and exercise their new functions — otherwise matters are left as they are at present, & after a little Stay they depart again for England. Mr. Asbury & Dr. Coke are Constituted Joint Superintendents, & as Mr. Asbury would not in a matter of such Importance do (anything) by himself, He has Call'd a Conference to deliberate thereon, which is to meet here on Christmas day. I hope if you can make it convenient you will be here at that time, mean while I hope you Still believe me to be with my kind Love to your Spouse Y'r Sincere & affectionate friend & B'r. Ad'm Fonerden. Two weeks later Coke, who had been traveling in Dela- ware, Maryland, and elsewhere, appeared at Perry Hall, a few miles from Baltimore, to open the convention which founded the Methodist Episcopal Church. Donaldson not being able to attend, Fonerden wrote an account of what had been done in the Conference up to the date of his letter. The great value of the second letter is much enhanced by its date. Its terms also show that certain lay mem- bers were admitted to the proceedings, and that all the principal facts and changes were public. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 175 To Mr. Stephen Donaldson, Leesburg. Baltimore Decem'r 30th-17S4. much Esteemed friend We have at this Conference agreeable to Mr. Wesley's ad- vice & direction, handed to us by that Worthy Man Dr. Coke form'd ourselves unanimously into an Independant Church under the title of the Methodist Episcopal Church. To be gov- ern'd by Superintendent, Elders & Deacons, with a Liturgy Little diflfering from the Church of England. The Itinerant plan Still to be continued, & by the Church Government Adopted, some- what Strengthened. Which will be printed Shortly. Mr. Asbury was Ordained Superintendent Last Sunday by the Dr. & the two Elders who came over with Him, which power of ordination being conveyed to them by three presbyters of the Church of Eng- land, Mr. Wesley being one, we think as Valid as any ordination whatever. It being now well known that in primitive times the Office of presbyter or Elder which are Synonimous Terms, & Byshop were one and the Same, with only this Small difference that the Chief or prime presbyter was sometimes called a Byshop. With us, The Superintendent answers to Byshop, Who is to have the Oversight of all & we think it a better name, because modern Byshops by being Lords are Generally devourers of the flock, & a curse to the people. & the very Name conveys a disagreeable Savour. Our Elders answers to presbyter which are the same in office. And Deacons are to assist the Elders in administering the Lords Supper, & may baptise in the Elders Absence. About 15 Elders will be Ordained before Conference breaks up, & Several Deacons. The Greatest Caution will be used in future in admitting of preachers into Connection, & any Elder who Lo- quates himself, is no Longer to Exercise the peculiar functions of his Office, without Consent of Conference, under the penalty of Expulsion. . . . Enclosed I have sent you Mr. Wesley's Circular Letter — and for want of Time must Subscribe myself Y'r Sincere & affec'e friend & B'r Ad'm Fonerden. This letter demonstrates that the General Superintendency or "episcopacy," received from Wesley, through Coke, was not an "order" in the sense in which Wesley con- sidered the eldership to be an "order," but an "office" filled by an elder, chosen and "set apart" for the purpose. 176 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY There is no dispute as to the meaning of the word "order" as applied by Wesley and Coke to elders or pres- byters. It is a sacred rank of divine origin, a solemn setting apart, from laymen, however wise or good, of those "called of God" to the work of the ministry. The oflSce of Bishop in this sense was not of "divine origin." coke's testimony Such was the belief of Wesley, and the words of Coke in his sermon at the ordination of Asbury were in har- mony with this. (Extract from Dr. Coke's sermon at the ordination of Bishop Ashury.) "But what right have you to ordain?" The same right as most of the reformed Churches in Christendom: our ordination, in its lowest view, being equal to any of the Presbyterian, as originating with three presbyters of the Church of England. "But what right have you to exercise the episcopal office?" To me the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to raise up in America and Europe a numerous society, well known by the name of Methodists. The whole body has invariably esteemed this man as their chief pastor, under Christ. He has constantly appointed all their religious officers from the highest to the lowest, by himself or his delegate. And we are fully persuaded there is no Church office which he judges expedient for the welfare of the people intrusted to his charge, but, as essential to his station, he has a power to ordain. After long deliberation he saw it his duty to form his society in America into an independent Church; but he loved the most excellent Liturgy of the Church of England, he loved its rites and ceremonies, and therefore adopted them in most instances for the present case. Besides, in addition to this, we have every qualification for an episcopal Church which that at Alexandria (a Church of no small note in the primitive times) possessed for two hundred years, our Bishops, or Superintendents (as we call them), having been elected or received by the suffrages of the whole body of our ministers through the continent, assembled in General Con- ference. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 177 "But don't you break the succession?" The uninterrupted succession of Bishops is a point that has been long given up by the ablest Protestant defender of episcopacy. Bishop Hoadley. ... He grants the authenticity of the anecdote given us by Saint Jerome, which informs us that the Church of Alexandria, mentioned above, had no regular succession from the line of Saint Mark, the evangelist, the first Bishop of that Church, to the time of Dionysius, a space of two hundred years: but the college of presbyters, on the death of a Bishop elected another in his stead. . . . And from the epistle of Saint Polycarp to the Church of Philippi,' written in the year of our Lord 116, we also find that the Christian Philippians were then governed only by a college of presbyters. So that the primitive Christians were so far from esteeming the regular succession as essential to the constitution of the Christian Church, that in some instances episcopacy itself was wholly omitted. But of all the forms of Church government, we think a moderate episcopacy is the best. The executive power being lodged in the hands of one, or at least a few, vigor and activity are given to the resolves of the body, and those two essential requisites for any grand undertaking are sweetly united — calm- ness and wisdom in deliberating; and in the executive depart- ment, expedition and force. Wesley's own views The history of the evolution of Wesley from extreme High Church views to the principles on which the episco- pacy of Methodism rests, overthrows the charge that he was overpersuaded in age and weakness, and that his real views were contrary to his conduct in ordaining. In his Journal for September 1, 1784, he records "being now clear in mine own mind, I took a step which I had long weighed in my mind and appointed Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey to go and serve the desolate sheep in America." Thirty-eight years before the ordination of Coke, on Monday, January 20, 1746, Wesley wrote: I set out for Bristol. On the road I read over Lord King's •Polycarp. ad Philip. Salutat.. Sec. v. vi, is. pp. 186, 188, 189. 178 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY account of the primitive Church. In spite of the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe that this was a fair and impartial draft; but if so, it would follow that Bishops and presbyters are (essentially) of one order, and that origi- nally every Christian congregation was a Church independent of all others! In a letter to the Rev. Thomas Adams, under date of London, October 31, 1755, Wesley says : It is not clear to us, that presbyters, so circumstanced as we are, may appoint or ordain others; but it is, that we may direct, as well as suffer, them to do what we conceive they are moved to by the Holy Ghost. . . . Dear sir, coolly and impartially con- sider this, and you will see on which side the difficulty lies. I do assure you, this at present is my chief embarrassment. That I have not gone too far yet, I know; but whether I have gone far enough I am extremely doubtful. I see those running whom God hath not sent; destroying their own souls, and those that hear them; perverting the right ways of the Lord, and blas- pheming the truth as it is in Jesus. . . . Soul-damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul-saving laymen!' In a letter to the Rev. Mr. Clarke, written July 3, 1756, he says: As to my own judgment, I still believe "the episcopal form of Church government to be scriptural and apostolical"; I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicon. I think he has unanswerably proved that "neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any particular form of Church government; and that the plea of divine right for diocesan episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Church."^ OPPOSITION OF CHARLES WESLEY After the ordination of Asbury various controversies arose between John and Charles Wesley. On April 28, 1785, Charles Wesley addressed a long letter to Dr. Wesley's Works, vol. vi, p. 282. nbid., vol. vii, p. 284. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 179 Chandler, a clergAman of the Church of Enjjlancl, who was about to embark for America. Referring to his brother John, he said : After our having continued friends for above seventy years, and fellow laborers for above fifty, can anything but death part us? I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his eighty-second year, my brother, my old, intimate friend and companion, should have assumed the episcopal character, ordained elders, consecrated a Bishop, and sent him to ordain our lay preachers in America! I was then in Bristol, at his elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention. How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly persuaded himself that it was right. Lord Mansfield told me last year that ordination was separa- tion. This my brother does not and will not see; or that he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life; that he has acted contrary to all his declarations, protestations, and writings; robbed his friends of their boasting, and left an in- delible blot on his name, as long as it shall be remembered! . . . What will become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a separation from the Church of England, which their preachers and they no more intended than the Methodists here! Had they had patience a little longer they would have seen a real Bishop in America, consecrated by three Scotch Bishops, who have their consecration from the English Bishops, and are acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. . . . But what are your poor Methodists now? Only a new sect of Presbyterians. And, after my brother's death, which is now so near, what will be their end? They will lose all their influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, like other sects of Dissenters, come to nothing.* On August 1, of the same year John Wesley set apart three preachers to minister in Scotland, and the next year two more; he also ordained one for Antigua, and another for Newfoundland. A year later five others were ordained, and in 1788 Wesley, being in Scotland, ordained two more; and at iTyerman. Life and Times of Wesley, vol. iii, pp. 439, 440. 180 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY the next Conference seven, including Alexander Mather, who was ordained to the office, as were the others, not only of deacon and elder, but of Superintendent; and in 1789 he ordained Henry More and Thomas Rankin. Wesley's defense of "Separation" was published in the Methodist Magazine in 1786. Therein, with respect to those ordained for Scotland, he says that, to prevent their falling away, I, at length, consented to take the same step with regard to Scotland, which I had done with regard to America. But this is not a separation from the Church at all. Not from the Church of Scotland, for we were never connected therewith, any further than we are now: nor from the Church of England, for this is not concerned in the steps which are taken in Scotland. What- ever, then, is done in America or Scotland is no separation from the Church of England. John Pawson, one of the most influential Wesleyans, said on this subject that "Wesley foresaw that the Meth- odists would soon become a distinct body. He was deeply prejudiced against presbyterian, and as much in favor of episcopal, government. In order, therefore, to pre- serve among the Methodists all that is valuable in the Church of England, he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke, Bishops." INTENSE FEELING ELICITED August 14, 1785, Charles Wesley wrote his brother, beginning by a reference to John Wesley's "Reasons against a Separation," printed in 1758, and proceeding: I intreat you, in the name of God, and for Christ's sake, to read them again yourself, with previous prayer, and stop, and proceed no farther, till you receive an answer to your inquiry, "Lord, what woulds't Thou have me to do?" . . . Near thirty years, since then, you have stood against the importunate solicitations of your preachers, who have scarcely at last prevailed. I was your natural ally, and faithful friend; and, while you continued faithful to yourself, we two could chase a thousand. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 181 But when you once began ordaining in America I linew, and you knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you ordained them. You told me, they would separate by and by. The doctor tells us the same. His Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist Episcopal Church here. . . . He concluded pathetically : So much, I think, you owe to my father, to my brother, and to me, as to stay till I am taken from the evil. I am on the brink of the grave. Do not push me in, or embitter my last moments. . . . Five days later, August 19, 1785, Wesley replied: Dear Brother: I will tell you my thoughts with all sim- plicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with me, well; if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree to disagree. For these forty years I have been in doubt concerning that question. What obedience is due to "Heathenish priests and mitered infidels?"' I have, from time to time, proposed my doubts to the most pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no satisfaction. Rather, they seemed to be puzzled as well as me. Obedience I always paid to the Bishops, in obedience to the laws of the land. But I cannot see that I am under any obliga- tion to obey them further than those laws require. It is in obedience to these laws that I have never exercised In England the power, which, I believe, God has given me. I firmly believe, I am a scriptural episcopos, as much as any man in England, or in Europe, for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable which no man ever did or can prove. . . . After arguing the question, What is the Church of England? he closes his letter thus: I walk still by the same rule T have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high day of my blood is over. If you will go hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me, if you will not help. Per- haps if you had kept close to me, I might have done better. 'This was Charles Wesley's owq line. 182 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY However, with or without help, I creep on; and as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be. Your affectionate friend and brother, , , , J. ,„ , . , John Wesley. The letter of Cbarles in reply says: That juvenile line of mine, "Heathenish priests, and mitered infidels," I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more than one "mitered infidel," and for him I took Mr. Law's word. . . . That you are a scriptural episcopos, or overseer, I do not dispute. And so is every minister who has the cure of souls. Neither need we dispute whether the unin- terrupted succession be fabulous, as you believe; or real, as I believe; or whether Lord King be right or wrong. ... If I could prove your actual separation, I would not, neither wish to see it proved by any other. But do you not allow that the Doctor has separated? . . . Have you seen his ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? Does he do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself the author of all his actions? ... I thank you for your intention to remain my friend; herein my heart is as your heart; whom God hath joined let not man put asunder. We have taken each other for better for worse, till death do us — part? No; but unite eternally. Therefore, in the love which never faileth, I am your affectionate friend and brother, In five days Wesley replied: Charles Wesley. Dear Brother: I see no use of you and me disputing together; for neither of us is likely to convince the other. . . . Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England than you do; and I find few exceptions to it. I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetous- ness. He has done nothing rashly that I know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. To publish, as his present thoughts, what he had before retracted, was not fair play. ... I am, etc. John Wesley. These letters show that John Wesley was cognizant of what had been done in the United States, and unques- tionably did not intend Coke to be called Bishop, but Superintendent. The word "Bishop," as spoken by Adam Fonerden, meant a professed divine order, and stood in popular opinion for "the mitered infidels." Consequently, when the American Methodists used the word "Bishop," THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 183 Wesley wrote with severity to Asbury, under date of Sep- tember 20, 1788 : But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school; you a college; nay, and call it after your own names. O, beware; do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and "Christ be all in all!" One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content, but they shall never, by my consent, call me Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. The reference to the Presbyterians derives its meaning from the fact that every Presbyterian, "teaching elder" styles himself a Bishop. This is their statement: The pastoral office is the first in the Church both for dignity and usefulness. The person who fills this office hath in the Scripture obtained different names expressive of his various duties. As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed Bishop. As he feeds them with spiritual food, he is termed pastor. As he serves Christ in his Church, he is termed minister. As it is his duty to be grave and prudent, and an example of the flock, and to govern well in the house and king- dom of Christ, he is termed presbyter or elder.^ The Presbyterians entitle their chapter on the pastoral relation and office, "Of Bishops and Pastors," and empha- size the use of the word "Bishop" by the following: As the office and character of the gospel ministers is particu- larly and fully described in the Holy Scriptures under the title of "Bishop," and as this term is peculiarly expressive of his duty as an overseer of the flock, it ought not to be rejected. They have no office corresponding to "General Superin- tendent," the name given to Thomas Coke and used by Wesley of Asbury. 'Tyerman, lAfe and Times of Wesley, vol. iii, p. 438. CHAPTER XXIV The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) Having shown by Wesley's words, and by those of Thomas Coke, that Wesley, as respects the question of "order," based his right to ordain wholly on the fact that he was a presbyter or elder in the Church of England; and that he relied on his peculiar relation to American Methodists, and their emergent situation, for the pro- priety of exercising the power inherent in the eldership to confer upon other elders a function or office which made them, in the exercise of power, "the first among equals," it is now in order to present in broad outlines the dis- putations to which his ordinations gave rise. Writers in the Church of England, including Dr. Whitehead, Wesley's physician and biographer, perplexed themselves and others by reiterating that "if Wesley, who was merely a presbyter, could make a Bishop, then the greater was blessed of the less," and Wesley's own brother, Charles, wrote: So easily are Bishops made, By man or woman's whim; Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, But who laid hands on him? They begged the question, for the type of Bishop, that Wesley proposed to make, was not inherently greater in "order," but was superior only in special functions specially conferred. DEFENSE OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY BY WATSON AND DICKINS Richard Watson, who came upon the scene before the death of Wesley, published in 1831 An Apology for the 184 THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 185 People Called Methodists, in which he vindicated the attitude of Methodism as respects its relation to the National Church. He thus states the case: Wesley did not pretend to ordain Bishops in the modern sense, but only according to his view of primitive episcopacy, . . . founded upon the principle of Bishops and presbyters being of the same degree, a more extended office only being assigned to the former, as in the primitive Church. For, though nothing can be more obvious than that the primitive pastors are called Bishops or presbyters indiscriminately in the New Testament, yet at an early period those presbyters were, by way of dis- tinction, denominated Bishops, who presided in the meetings of presbyters, and were finally invested with the government of several churches, with their respective presbyteries; so that two offices were then, as in this case, grafted upon the same order. It has already been shown that the American Method- ists accepted this view and distinctly avowed it. In answer to attacks, John Dickins, the first preacher whom Coke consulted after his arrival in America, and who proposed the name Methodist Episcopal Church, had forced upon him the necessity of defending it. Others had desired simply the name, "Methodist Church"; but the proposition of Dickins was accepted upon the ground that the having of Superintendents, etc., was a "species of episcopacy." In replying to the charges of William Hammett, Dickins wrote: Now, whoever said the superiority of the Bishops was by virtue of a separate ordination? If this gave them their su- periority, how came they to be removable by the Conference? If, then, what you there plead for, will "sap the foundation of all arbitrary power," it has been sapped in our connection from the first establishment of our constitution. Again he remarks, "We all know Mr. Asbury derived his oflBcial power from the Conference, and therefore his ofiBce is at their disposal." He declares that the supe- riority of our Bishops is derived not from their "separate ordination" but from "the suffrages of the body of 186 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ministers," and exclaims, "Pray wlien was it otherwise, and how can the Conference have power to remove Mr. Asbury and ordain another to fill his place if they see it necessary on other grounds?" CONCISE STATEMENTS The testimony, written in his earlier years, of Joshua Soule, author of the plan for a delegated General Con- ference, is most definitely to the point. It is here quoted from a manuscript in the writing of Soule, the original of which is in the possession of the family of Dr. Tigert, who quotes the same in his A Coiistitittional History of American Episcopal Methodism (revised edition, page 212) : Dr. Coke was ordained Superintendent by Mr. Wesley and sent to America to act in Mr. Wesley's place and [he], conse- quently, vested him with ample powers to superintend and do the work of an evangelist in organizing the Church, and this he did on the plan recommended by Mr. Wesley, which was on the episcopal plan; consequently, no material change was made in the system first introduced. An episcopacy being recom- mended and appointed by Mr. Wesley, his recommendation was approved of and his appointment confirmed by the American preachers; and, in organizing the Church, they admitted of two orders in the ministry, elders and deacons. When Nathan Bangs was charged with believing in and setting forth in his Methodist Episcopacy "three orders," he denied that he used the word "Bishops" in a prelatical sense, and said if anyone chooses "to say that we acknowl- edge two orders only and a superior minister, possessing a delegated jurisdiction chiefly of an executive character, he has my full consent; I will not dispute about words." Bishop John Emory, in The Defense of Our Fathers, says, "In whatever sense distinct ordinations constitute distinct orders, in the same sense Mr. Wesley certainly intended that we should have three orders, for he undeui- THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 187 ably instituted three distinct ordinations." Yet he immediately adds: "At the same time we maintain that a third degree of ordination is perfectly compatible with the doctrine of two orders, if the term 'order' be used as implying divine right." That is to say, if the word "order" be used as Wesley used it. Elsewhere he says, "The idea that equals cannot from among themselves constitute an officer who as an officer shall be superior to any of those b}' whom he was constituted is contra- dicted by all experience and history, both civil and ecclesi- astical, and equally so by common sense." Perhaps the best summing up of the subject by any American writer is found in the History of Methodism, by Bishop McTyeire (page 394) : No case can be better made out before a competent tribunal than that John Wesley, upon maturest deliberation and counsel, purposed and took all formal measures to establish and per- petuate an episcopacy for American Methodism, upon a presby- terial basis. Men, according to their notions, may differ and dispute about the sufficiency or the insufficiency of that basis, the scripturalness or the unscripturalness of that transaction; but there can be no reasonable doubt as to what was intended and done. John Wesley belonged to that class of Episcopalians who believed that episcopacy is not a distinct "order," but a distinct office, in the ministry; that Bishops and presbyters, or elders, are of the same "order," and have essentially the same prerogatives; but that, for convenience, some of this "order" may be raised to the episcopal office, and functions originally pertaining to the whole order — as ordination, for example — may be confined to them. The presbyter thus elevated is but primus inter pares — the first among equals. In the eyes of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, and the High Church branch of the Church of England, and of the Protestant Episcopal Church, our "succession" is contemptible; but with John Wesley and our fathers we reject their hierarchical pre- tensions, attach no value to them, and have no sympathy 188 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY with them. Wesley, indeed, maintained his connection with the Church of England, but constantly avowed his Bishops to be only of the same "order" with himself. He certainly intended the General Superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church to be ordained by the English Church formula, yet lie opposed the name ''Bishop/' lest it should he taken to justify the unfounded claim of an uninterrupted succession from the apostles by a third order instead of a Superintendent elected by the elders. This is conclusively proved by the fact that to harmonize the English Ritual with his principles he changed the title of the ordination service to "The Form and Manner of Making and Ordaining of Superintendents, Elders, and Deacons." Similar changes were made throughout, everywhere substituting the word "Super- intendent" for "Bishop." DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JIETIIODIST EPISCOPACY AND THAT OP THOSE CLAIMING A "THIUD OUDER" It is said by some that the "question is reduced to mere words, since Bishoi^s in the Methodist Episcopal Church have all the privileges and functions which they would have were the episcopacy a third order, namely, life tenure, exclusive power to ordain others, and a third ordination themselves." This is a palpable and inexcusable error, for there are many and grave differences. In tbe Methodist Episcopal Church the Bishops do not constitute a compact organi- zation, with the power of vetoing all legislation. They cannot boast descent in a continuous line (of Bishops) from the apostles, nor claim to be their suc- cessors; nor can they claim any essential superiority over the elders. They have not the exclusive power of confirming con- verts, nor can one Methodist General Superintendent THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 189 exercise complete, sole, and permanent authority in any section exclusively. Without any violation of the law of God, episcopacy could be abolished by a two-thirds vote of the ministry and laity voting separately, and a vote of two thirds of the members of the next succeeding General Conference; and episcopacy might be retained, yet the life tenure be removed by constitutional process. There is also another important difference: Methodist Bishops are relieved from temptation to the exactions, eccentricities, and various forms of oppression which ecclesiastical history records of a hierarchy boasting "exclusive divine right." The consciousness of being of a superior ^'divine order/' of having the possession of the sole power of ordination, the sole control of a diocese, and in cooperation with other Bishops, the power of preventing the enactment of laws restricting their authority, privileges, or emoluments, and thus assuring a life lease of all these distinctions and unparalleled prerogatives, form a congeries of temp- tations to vanity and indifference to public opinion unequaled except by hereditary royalty. Yet it must not be suposed that the governments of the Presbyterian and the Methodist Episcopal Church are the same. They are indeed alike with respect to the "order" of elder and in denying that there is "of divine right" such an "order," of Bishops. It is on this ground that Presbyterian ministerial orders are recognized by the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the orders of the Methodist Episcopal Church are recognized by the Pres- byterian Church. But the "orders" of neither are recog- nized as valid by the Koman Catholic Church, the Church of England, or the Protestant Episcopal Church. Should the Presbyterian Church by its constitutional methods enact that there be one or more presbyters elected 190 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY as General Superintendents who should hold office for life or good behavior, and to them should be committed the power of ordaining; prescribing also that certain elders should assist, and that if by reason of death or other cause there should be no Superintendent, the Gen- eral Assembly should elect one or more Superintendents and that the Presbytery ordain them, their system, so far as "orders" are concerned, would be similar to our own, except that the Presbyterian Church considers the deaconate a function of the laity ; and ordains laymen as "ruling elders," and ministers as "teaching elders." When Bishop McTyeire declared that our episcopacy rests on "a presbyterial basis" he meant that the office of Bishop is grafted on the order of elder or presbyter by the votes of the presbyters. It was in the same sense that Bishop Levi Scott, at the closing session of the Indiana Conference in 1871, on ris- ing to read the appointments, thus addressed tlie Confer- ence: "Brother Presbyters, I rise as a presbyter-Bishop to give you your work for a year."^ Wesley much preferred episcopacy to Presbyterianism as possessing far more executive and cohesive force; but he based his right to ordain on the fact that he was a presbyter. And Bishop Scott meant that he was what Wesley himself was to American Methodists — a presbyter- General Superintendent. A small minority of the Church have at intervals essayed to prove that the Methodist episcopacy is an "order" distinct from that of elders, and not merely a function conferred chiefly for executive purposes on certain elders. In the General Conference of 1830 the following reso- lution was adopted : Resolved, That the Bishops ie requested to select some suit- iJames Mitchell, D.D., Life and Times of Levi Scott. D.D. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 191 able and competent person to prepare for publication a vindica- tion of our episcopal ordination. THE OPINION OF THE BISHOPS The Bishops themselves took the subject under advise- ment, and discussed it in their Address to the General Conference of 1844. What they said was both a testi- mony and an exposition: Without entering minutely into the details of what is involved in the Superintendency, as it is constituted in our Church, it is sufficient for our present design to notice its several depart- ments: 1. Confirming orders, by ordaining Deacons and Elders. We say confirming, because the orders are conferred by another body, which is independent of the episcopal office, both in its organiza- tion and action. This confii-mation of orders, or ordination, is not by virtue of a distinct and higher order. For, with our great founder, we are convinced that Bishops and presbyters are the same order in the Christian ministry. And this has been the sentiment of the Wes- leyan Methodists from the beginning. But it is by virtue of an office constituted by the body of pres- byters, for the better order of discipline, for the preservation of the unity of the Church, and for carrying on the work of God in the most effectual manner. The execution of this office is subject to two important re- strictions, which would be very irrelevant to prelacy, or dioc- esan episcopacy, constituted on the basis of a distinct and superior order. The latter involves independent action in con- ferring orders, by virtue of authority inherent in, and exclusively appertaining to, the episcopacy. But the former is a delegated authority to confirm orders, the exercise of which is dependent upon another body. The Bishop can ordain neither a deacon nor an elder, without the election of the candidate by an Annual Conference: and in case of such election he has no discre- tional authority; but is under obligation to ordain the person elected, whatever may be his own judgment of his qualifications. These are the two restrictions previously alluded to. This is certainly a wise and safe provision, and should never be changed or modified so as to authorize the Bishops to ordain without the authority of the ministry. With these facts in view, 192 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY it is presumed that it will be admitted by all well-informed and candid men, that, so far as the constitution of the ministry la concerned, ours is a "moderate episcopacy." The italics in the foregoing were so placed by the Bishops. The entire Board approved the deliverance and signed it. They were Joshua Soule, who knew Asbury and Coke and all the fathers, and who wrote this Episco- pal Address; Elijah Hedding, who was a member of the Conference which formed the Constitution, and also knew Coke and Asbury ; Beverly Waugh, James O. Andrew, and Thomas A. Morris. To this '^moderate episcopacy" American MctJiodism owes in largest part its solidarity and homogeneousness. CHAPTER XXV The Third Rkstrictive Rule (Continued) "tue plan op oue itinerant general superintendency'^ This Rule speaks of the episcopacy as the equivalent of a General Superintendency. While the General Conference cannot "do away episco- pacy," it is also forbidden to destroy "the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency." This plan, together with the Constitution then formed and adopted, was set forth by the General Conference of 1808 in the Discipline. To ascertain the meaning, we must compre- hend its separate parts so far as they relate to the pre- rogatives and duties of the General Superintendent. The following questions and answers reveal its contents: Question 3. Of the Yearly Conferences. "Who shall attend the yearly Conferences? Answer. All the traveling preachers who are In full connec- tion and those who are to be received into full connection. Question Who shall appoint the times of holding the yearly Conferences? Answer. The Bishops, but they shall allow the Annual Con- ferences to sit a week at least. Question 4 was introduced into the Discipline in the General Conference of 1792, and the answer was then simply, "The Bishops." (In 1872, this part was so ex- tended as to read : "The Bishops shall appoint the times of holding the Annual Conferences.") In 1804, after twelve years of "hurried" Conferences, the Bishop often arriving but a few minutes before the time for the beginning of the session, and mounting his horse immediately after the benediction, having in the meantime reduced discussion to a minimum as nearly as 193 194 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY possible, the General Conference being determined to limit his power to adjourn the body, added, "But they shall allow each Conference to sit a week at least." It should be remembered, that, in those early days, there were neither railroads nor steamboats, and except in the vicinity of county seats, few roads worthy of the name. Asbury's rides on horseback of three thousand miles per annum were performed under every form of hardship. Nevertheless, it is true that Asbury was impatient of discussion and desired as little voting as possible, unless he was the proposer or approver of the question. These facts account for the mandatory addition. The rule persists to this date, and should never be repealed; as it is, though the Bishop may adjourn a Conference at the end of one week, should he essay to do so before that time and depart without the consent of the Conference, that body could legally remain in session and avail itself of the rule for the presidency of an Annual Conference in the absence of a Bishop. However, should the Conference attempt to adjourn before the Bishop had flnislied the work imposed upon him by the Constitution or the General Conference, he could refuse to put a motion to adjourn, however long the body had been in session. It is obvious that this power is essential to the working of the "plan" of General Super- intendency; for could the Conference adjourn at will, it could prevent the performance of any or all of the duties imposed upon the Bishop by the "plan." Question 5. Who shall appoint the places of holding the Annual Conferences? Answer. Each Annual Conference shall appoint the place of its own sitting. The foregoing rules are self-explanatory and self- defending. The Bishops alone can determine the days when they can arrive, and the Conference alone can de- THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 195 cide where it may be best accommodated, and where its sessions will be the most useful in promoting the interests of the denomination. Question 6 concerns the method of conducting Annual Conferences. The answer shows that the Bishop shall, in the presence of the Conference, inquire what preachers are "admitted on trial"'; who "remain on trial"; who "are admitted into full connection"; who are the "deacons"; who are the "elders" ; who "have been located during the year"; who "have died in the preceding year"; who are the "supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers"; whether all are "blameless in life, in con- versation" ; who are "expelled from the connection" ; what "numbers are in the society"; where "the preachers are stationed this year." THE DUTIES OF A BISHOP In the next section the Discipline of 1808 enumerates the "Duties of a Bishop." These are "to preside in our Conferences, to fix the appointments of the preachers for the several circuits," etc., and in the intervals of the Conferences, "to change, receive, and suspend preachers as necessity may require and as the Discipline directs." In addition to this it requires the Bishop "to travel throughout the connection at large." This law has been unnecessarily mystified; and what the Bishops were then doing, and at the present time do to a considerable degree, reveals fully the meaning of the requisition. They are to attend and preside in the Conferences, and lohen not so engaged are not to remain exclusively in or near their residences until another li.«t of Conferences demands their presence, but are expected to itinerate among the Churches, examining, instructing, and preaching. The Bishop is the judge of how he employs his time and strength, if he does so in the interest of the Church ; 196 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY but otherwise he is in danger of official censure from the General Conference. His influence depends upon his devotion to the "connection at large" and his fidelity in fulfilling the duties required in the answer, "To oversee the spiritual and temporal business of the societies." This phrase, "business of the societies," appears first in 1787, and was altered several times until it was adopted many years ago, as it now exists : "To oversee the spiritual and temporal business of our Church." The Discipline of 1808 contained this question of great import : Question. If a Bishop cease from traveliag at large among the people, shall he still exercise his episcopal office among us in any degree? Answer. If he cease from traveling without the consent of the General Conference, he shall not thereafter exercise the epis- copal office in our Church. In 1792, the answer was made more severe, the conse- quence of disobeying being "he shall not thereafter exer- cise any ministerial functions whatsoever in our Church." This was changed in 1804 to "in any degree the episcopal office in our Church." The penalty is still attached to such legal neglect. This is a stern but righteous decree. An indolent, unin- terested Bishop is hardly endurable under a diocesan episcopacy, but in an itinerant General Superintendency he would impose additional labors upon his colleagues, and would be an incubus upon the episcopacy in the region where he resided. In 1804 a time limit was for the first time placed upon the appointment of pastors to stations and circuits. It was in force in 1808, and was as follows: To fix the appointments for the several circuits, provided he shall not allow any preacher to remain in the same station more than two years successively; except the presiding elders, the editors and general book steward, the assistant editors and THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 197 assistant book steward, the supernumerary, superannuated, and ■worn-out preachers. Another rule prevented the Bishop from allowing an elder to preside in the same district more than "four years successively." The foregoing questions and answers include the sub- stance of "the plan of our Itinerant General Superin- tendency." Unless the Bishop, presiding in the Annual Conferences, possessed the authority to lix the appointments of pastors and district superintendents, the Superintendency could not be complete, and neither pastors nor Churches could be constrained, the former to proceed to the Churches assigned to them, and the latter to receive the appointees. The restriction of the time of a pastorate arose from the eagerness of certain Churches to retain pastors and of certain pastors to be returned indefinitely. Although such instances were few, the clamor they made, the jeal- ousy of others, the annoyance of Bishop Asbury, and the probability that the unity of the denomination would be jeoparded led to the limit of two years being imposed. The restrictions of the term of the presiding eldership in one district grew largely out of the evil results of the protracted term of James O'Kelly, who had been presid- ing elder in the southern part of Virginia since the organization of the Church, and who had been stationed there continuously for several years before. The time limit respecting pastors has been changed several times; beginning with two years in 1804, it was increased to three in 1804, to five in 1888, and in 1900 was removed entirely. Similar changes, though not so numer- ous, have been made in the time limit of district super- intendents. However, these time limits have no connection with the Constitution. They are wholly in the jurisdic- tion of the General Conference. 198 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY With the growth of the Church, new responsibilities have fallen upon the Bishops in connection with the various denominational societies that have been founded. The General Conference has constituted them ex officio members of the General Committee of Foreign Missions and of the Board of Managers, of the Board of Home Missions and Church Extension, and of other connectional societies. It has established the Judicial Conference, in which a Bishop must preside and decide all questions of law arising in its proceedings, subject to an appeal to the General Conference. They are also sent to countries of which the fathers were ignorant, and on journeys which the apostles of Christ never conceived possible. Bishop Bowman, when asked what portion of the year he was able to spend with his family, after a moment's reflection, responded, "At the most, not more than three months." To their specially assigned work, which includes the general care for a large number of Conferences for successive periods of six months, and to their necessary semiannual meetings, must be added the many demands for the services of the Bishop in dedicating churches. This is a custom of incomparable value, since it impresses the Church and the community, where the dedication is performed, with the solidarity of Methodism, with its Liturgy and with the regard which its pastors and people entertain for their chief officers. The Bishops, however, are unable to perform all dedications, but there is no law nor reason why district superintendents or other minis- ters should not perform this fimction for the Churches. All functions conferred by the General Conference on Bishops outside of the duties of the episcopacy, and all others that are now specially connected with the work of Bishops, could be changed, added to, or re- pealed. But as the General Conference cannot consti- tutionally so load down the Bishops, that they could not THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 199 properly perform their normal duties, so the Bishops cannot constitutionally assume functions, which from their nature would divert them from the performance of their episcopal duties without coming under the censure of the General Conference. The Thii'd Restrictive Rule does not prohibit the Gen- eral Conference from legislating upon the episcopacy as it deems best; provided, it does not enact any rule or system of rules, which would do away that episcopacy which existed when the Constitution was adopted or prevent the exercise of its functions, or counterwork the effect of the same. It can legislate concerning ''the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency," provided, the principle or the operation of such enactments would not destroy, or tend to destroy, that "plan." From the beginning the General Conference has re- served to itself the power of electing members of Annual Conferences to certain positions in the Church, not pas- toral, such as the corresponding and assistant secretaries of our connectional societies, the editors of the Church periodicals. These are registered with the appointments by the presiding Bishop of tlie Conference to which they belong. Also tlie editor of Zion's Herald, chaplains of prisons, and the army and navy, and various sanitary or charitable institutions, secretaries and superintendents of city missions and the principals of institutions of learning, which are under our care, though not elected by the General Conference, are appointed and registered in a similar manner. In addition, the General Conference has enacted that a Bishop may, // requested hij an Annual Conference, appoint an agent to distribute tracts, an agent or agents to promote temperance, an agent or agents for the benefit of institutions of learning, an agent for the German Publishing Fund, and agents for other 200 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY benevolent institutions, and also instructors in institu- tions of learning not under our care. He may also, if requested, appoint editors of unofficial papers or maga- zines, published in the interest of the Methodist Episco- pal Church, and one or more members of an Annual Con- ference to do evangelistic work on charges. At first glance the power exercised by the General Con- ference in connection with the foregoing appointments, especially those witb which the Bishop cannot deal with- out being requested to do so by the Annual Conference, would seem to be an invasion of the constitutional rights of the Bishops; but it does not tend "to do away the episcopacy" or destroy "the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency" ; and as it is often a relief to the Bishop, it comes under the "full power" to make rules and regulations for the Church, conferred by the Constitution on the General Conference. CHAPTER XXVI The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) POWERS OF THE BISHOP WHEN PRESIDING IN GENERAL CONFERENCE For a full interpretation of this important question, an account of the original relation of the Bishops to the Conference is necessary. Early in the history of the Church the prerogatives of a Bishop became a matter of dispute. In 1797 Asbury had passed through the Annual Conferences, nominating Lee, Poythress, and Whatcoat for Assistant Bishops. It was moved in the General Conference of 1800 by a prominent member: Whereas, By a vote of the Conference it is determined that another Bishop shall be elected, Resolved, That the Conference determine, before the vote be canvassed, the powers of the new Bishop, whether he shall be equal to Bishop Asbury, or subordinate to him.' Bishop Asbury was strongly inclined to the idea that the new Bishop should be in some sense subordinate to him. Several motions of this nature were made. Asbury — one of the best of the men — fasted and prayed before he was ordained, and hoped that he would "not be exalted above measure." Nevertheless, he icas greatly "exalted" by the honor, and in less than one month after he was ordained, he assumed full canonicals — gown, cassock, and bands ; but this was so strongly opposed by preachers and people that he was soon compelled to resume his ordinary attire. In 1805 Bishop Coke proposed that the seven Confer- ences should be so arranged that for the first year he ■General Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 35. 201 202 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY should have four, and Asbury three, and the next year, he three and Asbury four. Whatcoat was not mentioned, and the only reason ever assigned for the omission is, that "though he was legally equal, he was expected simply to assist the older Bishops." In the General Conference of 1808, and in all preceding ones, the Bishops had the same right to speak, make motions, and enter into debates as had any person present. For Bishop Asbury, the patriarch, to recognize any restriction on this right was not easy. This was seen in the opening of the General Conference of 1812. Bishop Paine, after eulogizing the integrity and sagacity of Asbury, says, that he "had heretofore exer- cised rather the prei'Ogatives of a father than the office of a president, and had never been rcmarkahle for conduct- ing husiness according to the strict Rules of Order."^ May 15, 1812, after calling the list, Bishop Asbury arose and requested leave "to address Bishop McKendree in the presence of the Conference." Leave was granted, and Bishop Asbury then proceeded to speak. Afterward Bishop McKendree was allowed to reply. The Rev. Henry Smith, of the Baltimore Conference, who was present, writing to Bishop Paine, described the scene as follows: As soon as Bishop McKendree had finished reading the plan of business which he had drawn up, Bishop Asbury rose to his feet and addressed the junior Bishop to the following effect: "I have something to say to you before the Conference." The junior also rose to his feet, and they stood face to face. Bishop Asbury went on to say: "This is a new thing. I never did busi- ness in this way, and why is this new thing introduced?" The junior Bishop promptly replied: "You are our father, we are your sons; you never have had need of it. I am only a brother, and have need of it." Bishop Asbury said no more, but sat down with a smile on his face.- The statement that ''he never did business in this way" >Paine'a Life of McKendree, vol. i, p. 263. 21bid.. vol. i. p. 264. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 203 illustrates the ruling power that he had exercised. That the recognition of Asbury by the new incumbent as "father" pacified him, uncovered in him a common ti*ait of human nature. In the same Conference Bishop McKendree asked "if the Conference thought he had authority to give the secre- tary orders to change some phrases in journalizing, provided there are no changes of the sense." It was voted that "he be allowed to give the secretary orders," In 1840 the New York Conference, by resolution, requested the president of the next session of that body to deliver a discourse before the Conference on the adminis- tration of the Discipline. This devolved upon Bishop Hedding. The Providence, New England, and Maine Conferences afterward asked that the same discourse might be delivered before them, and all these desired it published. It was received and generally approved throughout the Church. The Notes of Bishop Hedding are of great value. As a member of the General Con- ference of 1808, he was one of the founders of the dele- gated General Conference, and was elected Bishop in 1824. He heard all the discussions, attended every General Conference, and passed through the troublesome times from 1820 to 1848. His exposition of the Constitution and of the legislation of the Church clarified them as they had not been before. Bishop Osmon C. Baker entered the ministry in 1839, and was elected to the episcopacy in 1852. He wrote extensively upon the Discipline, and his work is still regarded as an authority. In this he states that a "Bishop sustains the relation of moderator to the General Confer- ence. He represents no section or interest of the Church ; he can claim no right to introduce motions, to make speeches, or to cast votes on any question. As president, he can neither form rules nor decide law questions in the 204 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY General Conference; and, on mere questions of order, there is an appeal from his decision to the deliberative body."^ Bishop Baker refers for his authority to his own experience and his conversations with the "fathers," to the writings of Bishop Hedding, and especially to the Address of the Bishops to the General Conference of 1844. Bishop Merrill, in his Digest of Methodist Law (pages 72, 73), correctly gives the relation of the Bishop to the General Conference in these words: But in presiding in the General Conference the Bishops do not decide questions of law. That body is supreme in its sphere, with only the limitations of its Constitution upon it, and as it enacts the rules and regulations of the Church, it puts its own Interpretation upon them. The Bishop in the chair decides ques- tions of order, subject, of course, to appeal, but he strenuously refrains from any ruling that involves a construction of the law. ... As the constitutional president, while the Bishop may not participate in debates, he may lawfully suggest what is expedient in the order of business, in the interest of regularity, consistency, or economy of time. To this judicious and judicial statement Bishop Merrill adds a paragraph, which is contrary to the Constitution and contrary to the previous statement, and contains a doctrine which, if attempted to be carried out by any Bishop, would make a breach between the episcopacy and the General Conference, introduce irremediable confusion, and jeopardize the unity of the entire denomination. This is the passage: Yet if action were proposed which, in his [the Bishop's] judg- ment, involved a violation of the law without a formal modifica- tion of it, or a breach of the limitations of power imposed by the Constitution, it would be his duty to call attention to the supposed infraction, and restrain the action of the Conference if possible. Indeed, a condition of things is supposable in which 'Baker on the Discipline, p. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 205 it would be the duty of the Bishop to refuse to entertain a mo- tion, and decline having any part in the transaction of the body. If action should be proposed which is contrary to the Con- stitution, or violative of vested rights protected thereby, the Bishop is bound to object, and use all the power of his office to preserve the organic law in its integrity. He has the right to assume that the proposed action has been hastily introduced, and to insist upon more careful investigation, and finally to protest against it in the interest of law and consistency. If over- ruled, his right to be heard, and have his protest entered on the Journal, could not be denied without the most flagrant departure from justice, such as is not conceivable. Although not a member of the General Conference, technically speaking, the Bishop is its lawful president, with rights superior in that position to a mere acting chairman, and he may not be displaced or deprived of his rights without formal action suspending him or deposing him from his office. Such a conflict has never occurred, and probably will never occur, and yet it is supposable, and the con- sideration of its bearing is not improper in the study of the legal rights and duties of the parties under the Discipline of the Church.^ But he would not have the right "to call attention to the supposed infraction" without the consent of the Con- ference. If he had that right or power, it is clear that by exercising it he would practically enter into debate and his protest would involve a "construction of the law," which, according to the Address of the Bishops to the General Conference of 1844, is not within his sphere of authority. It would be indeed his privilege to ask the Conference to allow him to make a statement; or he could communi- cate his feelings to a member of the body, who would have the right to move, that the Bishop "be requested to give his views." This motion has frequently been made, and usually the Conference has imanimously invited the Bishop to make a nonpartisan representation. The expression, that it would be his duty to "restrain ^Digest of Methodist Law. pp. 72, 73. 206 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY the action of the Conference if possible" is unfortunate. If it mean anything more than accepting the courtesy of the Conference, after it had given its consent for him to spealj, it involves an attempt at usurpation. The statement that "a condition of things is supposable in which it would be the duty of the Bishop to refuse to entertain a motion" is to assume for the Bishop a power that he has not. The implied warning that he might "decline having any part in the transactions of the body" must have been made without the recognition of the fact that, if he refused to continue in the chair, one of the other Bishops could take his place. Were all the Bishops successively to refuse to take the chair, the Constitution directs the General Conference, in the absence of a Bishop, to elect from its own number a president pro tempore. "All the power of his [episcopal] ofSce," when acting as president, is limited to the right to preside, and to leave the Conference to put its own interpretations upon its actions. Had not the Constitution required a Bishop, if present, to preside, the office of Bishop would not have given him the right to preside. The powers which he has as a Bishop, in the absence of such a separate requisition, cannot be applied to the presidency. As a presiding ofiScer in the General Conference he may think that "the proposed action has been hastily introduced," but he has no right "to insist upon more careful investigation," and no right "to protest against it in the interest of law and consistency," except the Conference hy vote ask Mm to express his views. The declaration that "if overruled, his right to be heard, and have his protest entered on the Journal, could not be denied without the most flagrant departure from justice" is incongruous with the Constitution. The additional statement, that "although not a member of the General THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 207 Conference, technically speaking, the Bishop is its law- ful president," is without bearing upon the claim made. The Bishop, when presiding, is "a lawful president," and also a minister or a lav member would be a "lawful presi- dent" if elected by the General Conference in the absence of a Bishop. The futility of such an assumption may be seen in the fact that a presiding officer, attempting to restrain or constrain a General Conference, would leave the chair at the adjournment of the session. He might be succeeded by a Bishop wholly out of sympathy with his views, and the very measures that he had denounced might immedi- ately be passed. Furthermore, if a Bishop were to be so unreasonable as to attempt such usurjiations, he could be at once suspended and put upon trial, and this method could be taken with his successors in the chair, if they pursued a similar course. In concluding his remarks Bishop Merrill says. ''Such a conflict has never occurred, and prohahlij tciU never occur." But this is a serious error, for, as is hereafter shown, such a conflict did occur, and came within a hair- breadth of disrupting the Church. The only constitutional way that a Bishop can be actively connected with the proceedings of the General Conference is by presiding. When not acting in that capacity, he is an interested spectator, ready to take the chair when it is assigned to him by his colleagues. Never- theless, such is, and should forever be, the veneration of the Church for its General Superintendents that a mes- sage from the Board of Bishops is respectfully received at any time ; and a motion to invite one of them to address the Conference on a subject of importance to the episco- pacy or the General Conference would not be voted down, except in such rare cases as to make it plainly obvious to a majority of the members of the Conference that. 208 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY either in time or substance, such an address would not promote reverence for the episcopacy or the welfare of the Church. The immovable foundation for the foregoing exposition of the "Powers of the Bishop when presiding in the Gen- eral Conference" is constructed from the history of the Church, and the following united episcopal utterance in the Address of the Bishops to the General Conference of 1844: Presiding in General and Annual Conferences There is a marked difference in the relations the president sustains to these two bodies. The General Conference, being the highest judicatory of the Church, is not subject to the official direction and control of the president any further than the order of business and the preservation of decorum are concerned; and even this is subject to rules originating in the body. The right to transact business, with respect to matter, mode, and order of time, is vested in the Conference, and limited only by constitu- tional provisions; and of these provisions, so far as their official acts are concerned, the Conference, and not the president, must be the judge.' 'General Conference JourTioi, 1844, vol. ii, p. 155. CHAPTER XXVII The Third Restrictive Rule (Continued) THE AMENABILITY OF BISHOPS The Bishop's amenabilitj to the General Conference for his conduct is protected by this Restrictive Rule. Trial and acquittal, or reproof, suspension, and deposi- tion or expulsion, come within the scope of the "full power" given to the General Conference. But it would be unconstitutional to suspend, to depose, or to expel a Bishop without a trial, upon a charge of improper con- duct, and conviction for the same. Unless properly guarded and vigilantly watched, the oflSce of a Bishop — as in the case with a life tenure in the state — is as dangerous in the hands of the unwise, uncon- scientious, or tyrannical as it is beneficial when possessed by discreet and good men, who use their power wholly for the advantage of the Church or the nation ; for, in all ages, there have been occasional instances, arising from the growth of years, of exaggerated individual peculiari- ties; and under all forms of episcopacy, some Bishops have been tyrannical and some have substituted personal government for official, thus manifesting obstinacy rather than genuine episcopal firmness. Hence, only self-con- trolled, sympathetic, spiritual, and well-tried men should be intrusted with so great an office. Their administra- tion should conform strictly to the laws of the Church, not only for consistency's sake, but as an example to the clergy and laity; and should a Bishop become heretical in vital points, immoral, or neglectful of his work — dis- agreeable as it is — for self-protection, charges should be made and minutely examined, and if found true, such 209 210 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Bishop should be convicted and reproved, suspended or deposed. Therefore the Discipline of 1808 contained the following : Question 4, § 4. To whom is the Bishop amenable for his conduct? Answer. To the General Conference, who have power to expel him for improper conduct if they see it necessary. In 1872 the answer was altered by striking out after the words, "who shall have power" the words "to expel him for improper conduct if they see it necessary" and inserting "to order the manner of his trial." The original answer was retained for more than eighty years; but from the Discipline of 1908 the question is omitted, and under title "The Trial and Appeal of Bishops," the first paragraph is "A Bishop is answerable for his conduct to the General Conference, which shall have power to order the manner of his trial." The preliminary steps to the trial of a Bishop are, in substance, as follows: When a Bishop is accused of im- moral conduct, the district superintendent within whose district the said immorality is alleged to have been com- mitted, should call to his aid four traveling elders, who shall carefully inquire into the case, and if they, or a majority of them, should conclude that there is reasonable ground for such accusation, they, or a majority of them, shall prepare and sign the proper charge and notify the Bishop of the same, and shall give notice thereof to another of the Bishops. Said Bishop, so notified, shall convene a Judicial Conference, which shall have full power to try the accused and suspend him from the func- tions of his office, depose him from the ministry, or expel him from the Church, as they may deem the offense requires. One of the Bishops shall preside at the trial. In the case of imprudent conduct, the district super- intendent within whose district the alleged offense occurred, must take with him two traveling elders and THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 211 admonish the offending Bishop. In the case of a second offense, one of the Bishops, together with three traveling elders shall call upon him and reprehend and admonish him; or, if he still persists in his imprudence, he shall then be tried in the manner ordered above. If it is alleged that immorality or imprudence has been committed without the bounds of any district, the district superintendent within whose district the Bishop resides shall proceed as hereinbefore specified. When a Bishop disseminates, publicly or privately, doc- trines contrary to the Articles of Religion and other Standards, the same process is to be observed. A com- plaint against the administration of a Bishop may be forwarded to the General Conference, and entertained there, provided that, in its judgment, the Bishop has had due notice that such complaint would be made. The Discipline also provides that: If charges of immoral conduct are made against a Missionary- Bishop during the interval between the sessions of the General Conference, the Board of Foreign Missions shall appoint eleven of their number, being ministers, to investigate the case. A General Superintendent shall preside over the Committee of Investiga- tion, and shall cause a correct record of the charges, specifica- tions, proceedings, vote, and judgment in the investigation to be kept and transmitted to the next General Conference. If the Committee of Investigation find the charges sustained, they may suspend the accused Missionary Bishop until the meeting of the next General Conference.' The foregoing conditions and manner of the trial, not being in the Constitution, are determinable by the Gen- eral Conference, and therefore are matters of legislation. The Address of the Bishops to the General Conference of 1844 contains the following: There are several points in this system which are of primary importance, and on that account should be clearly understood. The office of a Bishop or Superintendent, according to our eccle- ^Discipline, 1908, pp. 227. 228. 212 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY siastical system, is almost exclusively executive; wisely limited in its powers, and guarded by such checks and responsibilities as can scarcely fail to secure the ministry and membership against any oppressive measures, even should these officers so far forget the sacred duties and obligations of their holy vocation as to aspire to be lords over God's heritage. So far from being irresponsible in their office, they are amen- able to the General Conference, not only for their moral conduct, and for the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful ad- ministration of the government of the Church, according to the provisions of the Discipline, and for all decisions which they ma,ke on questions of ecclesiastical law. In all these cases this body [the General Conference] has original jurisdiction, and may prosecute to final issue in expulsion, from which decision there is no appeal.^ It is a notable fact that during the one hundred and twenty-eiglit years of the existence of the Methodist episcopacy, the trial of a Bishop has not been found necessary. RESIGNATION OF BISHOPS The first to propose the resignation of his episcopal oflSce was Bishop Asbury. In his Journal Asbury wrote as follows: I must confess I never felt so great a resolution to resign the General Superintendency as I do now; and if matters do not work more to my mind, it is highly probable I shall: my prayers and counsel will be turned this way until next General Con- ference.^ Jesse Lee, so far as he goes, is fully as reliable as the Journals of that early time, and frequently where he differs from them in the descriptive aspect of complicated business, he is suported by other leaders of Methodist legislation. In his History of the Metliodists (page 265) he says : Some time previous to the meeting of the preachers in that Conference [the third regular General Conference, which began 'General Conference Journal, 1844, vol. ii, p. 154. nbid., vol. ii, p. 416. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 213 in Baltimore on the 6th of May, 1800, and continued until the 20th] Mr. Asbury had said that when they met he would resign his office as Superintendent of the Methodist connection, and would take his seat in the Conference on a level with the elders. He wrote to several of the preachers in different parts of the connection, and informed them of his intention, and engaged other preachers to write to their brethren in the ministry, and to inform them of his intention to resign. Withal he wrote his resignation with an intention to deliver it in to the Conference as soon as they met, and to have it read in their first meeting. He said he was so weak and feeble both in body and mind, that he was not able to go through the fatigues of his office. When Conference met and proceeded to business, they first took up Mr. Asbury's case thus: "Q. Whereas, Mr. Asbury has signified his intention of re- signing his official station in our Church on account of his weak- ness of body, what is the sense of the Conference on this occasion? "A. 1. The General Conference consider themselves under many and great obligations to Mr. Asbury for the many and great services which he has rendered to this connection. "2. This Conference do earnestly entreat Mr. Asbury for a continuation of his services as one of the General Superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church as far as his strength will permit." Mr. Asbury told the Conference that he was still feeble both in body and mind, but was much better than he had been for some time before; and, notwithstanding he had been inclined to resign his office, he now felt willing to do anything he could to serve the connection, and that the Conference might require of him. The record in the Journal of the General Conference of 1800 differs from the report in Lee's History, but does not conflict with it, the former having more particulars. In the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church but one elder, elected and ordained to the episcopacy, has resigned the office. Joshua Soule, having been elected in 1820, declined ordination. Wilbur Fisk and James R. Day also declined ordination and remained elders in their respective Conferences. 214 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY On the tenth of May, in the General Conference of 1852, three of the General Superintendents — Beverly Waugh, Thomas A. Morris, and Edmund S. Janes — presented a communication from Bishop Hamline tendering his resig- nation of the episcopal office. This was read to the Con- ference, as was a letter from his physician. His parch- ment of ordination to the episcopacy was also presented. The Conference referred the communication to the Com- mittee on the episcopacy, which on the following day, reported : Whereas, It has pleased Almighty God deeply to afflict our beloved Bishop Hamline; and, Whereas, He has been laid aside from active service thereby; therefore, Resolved, 1. That we sincerely sympathize with our beloved Superintendent in his afflictions. Resolved, 2. That, having fully examined his administration for the last four years, his administration and character be, and hereby are, approved. Whereas, Bishop Hamline has tendered his resignation in the following language, to wit: "And now I think that the circum- stances warrant my declining the office. Eight years ago, I felt that the Divine Spirit had strangely called me to the office. I now feel that the same Providence permits me to retire. I there- fore tender my resignation, and request to be released from my official responsibilities, as soon as the way is prepared by the Episcopal Committee;" therefore. Resolved, 3, That the resignation of Bishop Hamline of his office as a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, be, and the same hereby is accepted.' The first and second resolutions were unanimously adopted. While the third resolution was pending J. A. Collins submitted the following, as a substitute for the said resolution : Resolved, By the delegates of the several Annual Conferences, in General Conference assembled, that the Bishops be, and they hereby are, requested to return to Bishop Hamline his parchment. 'General Conference Journal, 1852, vol. iii, pp. 41, 42. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 215 accompanied by a communication informing him tliat tliis Gen- eral Conference declines accepting his resignation as a Superin- tendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and grants him un- restricted permission, and advises him to adopt and pursue such a course for the restoration of his health as his judgment may dictate.' This resolution, after the yeas and nays had been called, and ordered, by a vote of 161 yeas to 10 nays, was laid on the table. In the debate on the third resolution important speeches were made by men of greatest ability and experience. Nathan Bangs said that no man had a higher respect for Bishop Hamline and the episcopal ofBce than he, but he had other reasons than those assigned by the chairman of the Committee for approving the report. He thought that the present was a fair opportunity to set a prece- dent; and that he did "not consider the doctrine once a Bishop, always a Bishop our doctrine." Durbin finished his remarks thus: "Bishop Hamline is competent to resign, and the Conference is competent to accept his resignation." After the third resolution was adopted, the report was amended by appending the following resolution, sub- mitted by J. A. Collins, and adopted by the Conference: Resolved, By the delegates of the several Annual Conferences, in General Conference assembled, that the Bishops be, and hereby are, respectfully requested to convey to Bishop Hamline the ac- ceptance of his resignation as a Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by the General Conference, accompanied with a communication expressing the profound regard of this body, that the condition of his health, has, in his judgment rendered it proper for him to relinquish his official position; and assure him also of our continued confidence and affection, and that our fervent prayers will be offered to the throne of grace that his health may be restored and his life prolonged to the Church.- 'General Conference Journal, 1852, vol. iii, p. 42. 2Ibid., vol. iii, p. 43. 216 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Bishops Waugh, Morris, and Janes closed the letter which they sent, together with a certified extract from the Journal of the General Conference, setting forth the acceptance of the resignation from his episcopal oflSce, in these words : "Be assured, Rev. and dear Brother, that in retiring from the episcopacy, you bear with you our high esteem, our warm fraternal affections, and our best wishes for your future welfare." His resignation divested Leonidas Lent Hamline of the title and authority of General Superintendent, and as he had lost his membershinp in the Ohio Conference when he was ordained Bishop, he now became simply a local preacher, and so described himself, a short time after his resignation, in a letter to a friend, which was made public. At his own request, and without formality, he was readmitted in 1852 to the Ohio Conference, and his name was placed in the answer to the question : "Who are the superannuated or worn-out preachers?" THE LIFE TENURE OP BISHOPS When the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized Wesley's imperial power was transformed into influence; his will was no longer regarded as the edict of a sovereign but as the advice of a venerated father. Thereafter, abso- lute power inhering in the Conferences which met annu- ally, they could at any time have suspended, deposed, or removed either Coke or Asbury. But in the absence of any such action it was assumed that the General Super- intendents, or Bishops, would continue to hold oflice; and there were no annual reelections of Bishops and no propositions -for such. This being the common under- standing, no distinct reference was made to the subject in the Discipline. But at the request of the General Con- ference of 1796 Bishops Coke and Asbury appended Explanatory Notes to the Discipline of that year. These THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 217 also had the sanction of the General Confei'ence of 1800. They saj that "The Bishops are obliged to travel till the General Conference pronounces them worn out or super- annuated," and add : If an episcopacy has neither the dignity which arises from these worldly trappings [referring to those who "endeavor to preserve their dignity by large salaries, splendid dresses, and other appendages of pomp and splendor"], nor that infinitely su- perior dignity which is the attendant of labor, of suffering, and enduring hardship for the cause of Christ, and of a venerable old age, the concluding scene of a life devoted to the service of God, it instantly becomes the disgrace of a Church and the just ridi- cule of the world. Those who established the Methodist Protestant Church recognized that this was the claim of the Methodist Episcopal Church. A large part of their contention was that they were opposed to the life tenure and to the theory of the episcopacy which the Church imbedded in the Constitution. Nicholas Snethen, one of the most capable men of uni- versal Methodism, in speaking of Asbury, says: "When- ever he was accused of partiality his standing reply was, *I am set for the defense of the gospel,' meaning the trav- eling plan; but it so happened that this defense was identical with the defense of the unlimited poivcr which he held for life." A passage fi'om the speech of Leonidas L. Hamline, in the General Conference of 1S44, as to the relation of the episcopacy to the powers of the General Conference will not bear close inspection. His words are: Our Church Constitution recognizes the episcopacy as an ab- straction, and leaves this body to work it into a concrete form in any hundred or more ways we may be able to invent. We may make one, five, or twenty Bishops; and, if we please one for each Conference. We may refuse to elect another until all die or resign; and then, to maintain the episcopacy, which we are 218 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY bound to do, we must elect one at least. As to his term, we may limit it at pleasure, or leave it undetermined. But in this case is it undeterminable? Certainly not. The power which elected may then displace. In all civil constitutions, as far as I know, not to fix an officer's term is to suspend it on the will of the appointing power. Cabinet ministers and secretaries are ex- amples. No officer, as such, can claim incumbency for life, unlesa such a term be authoritatively and expressly fixed upon.' This was plausible, and being delivered with the ora- torical power of a Webster, produced a great effect; but on testing it by the whole of the Third Restrictive Rule, it will appear that the assertions greatly exaggerate the powers of the General Conference. Hamline rested upon only one branch of the Rule. The General Confer- ence "shall not change nor alter any part of our govern- ment so as to do away episcopacy." The Methodist Episcopacy is not an "abstraction" but concrete and well defined. It can, indeed, be constitu- tionally "worked out" in any one of a possible hundred ways; but only if they he such as not to ''do away episcopacy.'' The second part of the rule confirms and elaborates the first. By it the word "episcopacy" is made equivalent to "General Superintendency," and to protect this from any vandal hand, the restriction adds "or the plan of our Itinerant General Superintendency." To limit a Bishop to "each Conference" would destroy the existing "plan of our Itinerant General Superin- tendency." To refuse to elect a Bishop "till all have resigned or died," and then to "elect but one" would surely defeat the operation of the Itinerant General Sui>erintendeucy of the Church, The analogy drawn between the method of determining the duration of the term of office in civil constitutions 'General Conference Journal, 1844, vol. ii, pp. 129, 130 THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 219 and that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is fatally defective. For, from the time the episcopal office was instituted, the life tenure was assumed, and there was no more need to specify it in the Restrictive Rule than for specifying the separate parts of the plan. It is taken for granted, although not definitely stated in any law of the Church, that a "traveling" preacher retains his member- ship in the Annual Conference until death, or until he withdraws, locates, or is located, deposed, or expelled. An attempt to exclude him, without trial or an oppor- tunity to defend himself, would be contrary to law and equity. To establish beyond reasonable doubt that the life tenure of Bishops was definitely understood and acknowl- edged by the General Conference of 1808, which at the very time was engaged in forming the Constitution, the copy of the certificate of ordination of William McKendree to the office of Bishop is here given : Know all men by these presents, that I, Francis Asbury . . . [Here follows an account of his own ordination by Dr. Coke and three elders.] And now be it known to all whom it may concern, that William McKendree was ordained Deacon in the year 1790, and I did set him apart to the office of an Elder by my hands, in December of the year 1791. I have, this eighteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and eight, set apart William McKendree, by the laying on of hands and prayer, assisted by Freeborn Garrettson, Philip Bruce, Jesse Lee, and Thomas Ware, all of them Elders in the Church; to the oflBce and work of a Superintendent or Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church (after he had been elected by a majority — i. e., 95 out of 128 members of General Conference) as a man whom we judge well qualified for the office of a Superintendent, and one of the Bishops of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church, and fit to preside over and feed the flock of Christ, so long as Ms spirit, practice, and doctrine is such as hecometh the Gospel of Christ, and he shall submit to the Dis- cipline and Order of the said Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 220 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY And I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this eighteenth of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight. Feancis Asbuby, Jesse Lee, Feeeboen Gaebettson, Thomas Waee, Philip Beuce. From the election of Francis Asbury to the ofiBce of Bishop until the present time the Church has proceeded upon the assumption that a Bishop — unless he should of his own motion resign — is elected for life, . or good be- havior, "although if he be enfeebled in body or mind, he may be superannuated, but still bears the title of his office, and is supported by the funds from which the sup- port of the effective Bishops is drawn." Superannuation does not come within the Third Restric- tive Rule. It is determined by the General Conference as is superannuation of members of the Annual Conference. A Bishop may ask to be superannuated, as did Stephen M. Merrill, or the General Conference may relieve from work such Bishops as, in its judgment, come rightly under the provision for the same. In either case they may have such functions and honors as are set forth under the title, "Superannuated Bishops," in Discipline of 1908. The utility of this plan is confirmed by its working, especially when compared with the growth of denomi- nations which are without it, or do not possess in a large degree its equivalent. The detailed history of the Method- ist Episcopal Church, and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and other Methodist bodies, whose episco- pacy has a life tenure, confirms its inestimable value. Were Bishops chosen for a limited term, the number of elections would be greatly increased, reelections would be thought necessary to a vindication, and scheming combinations be held constantly in view. Bishops would THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 221 find it impossible to keep out of controversies, which would materially weaken their influence, and, being unable to visit within a limited period the entire con- nection, they would rarely lose their original sectional sympathy. Some, if not all, Bishops, knowing that every disappointed minister or Church would have the power to combine with others against their reelection, would be made timid in their work. As ministers elected to the episcopacy are of mature years, and there is no office so high or permanent to tempt ambition, the life tenure guarantees a larger average of impartiality, in dealing with pastors and Churches, than could reasonably be expected under an episcopacy subject to 51 time limit. The General Superintendency, ivith the life tenure, is the only connectional position of permanence in the Meth- odist Episcopal Church, and is therefore its most re- vered office. It maintains the stability of the denomina- tion and its uniformity in operation. Successive General Conferences do not consist of the same members, although a minority, by the favor and will of their constituents, may be members of several. Each Conference is created, performs its work, and dies; but the General Superintendency survives the birth, tenure, and dissolution of General Conferences, and is preeminently qualified to preserve and transmit the tra- ditions of the Church throughout the generations. The reverence with which the life tenure invests the Bishop is invaluable in a country such as the United States, and especially in a Church which puts forth no prelatical claims. CHAPTER XXVIII The Third Restrictive Rule {Continued) MISSIONARY BISHOPS For many years much diflflculty was encountered in conducting the Mission in Africa — ^the first foreign Mis- sion of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The distance was great, the climate dangerous, and the expense, neces- sary for a Bishop to visit the field, onerous. A resolu- tion to enlai'ge the Third Restrictive Rule so as to author- ize the ordination of a Missionary Bishop was made in the General Conference of 1852, but was lost by 73 to 87. The subject, on motion of Durbin, corresponding secre- tary of Missions, was indefinitely postponed. In 1853 Bishop Levi Scott visited Africa, and after making a thorough inspection, returned with a firm conviction that the Mission could not prosper except under local episcopal superintendence. The other Bishops, agreeing with their colleague's views, devoted a part of their Episcopal Address in 1856 to the subject. In due time the Committee on Missions intro- duced the subject in the concrete as follows: Resolved, That we recommend the appointment of a Mission- ary Bishop who shall reside in Liberia, on the western coast of Africa, or in its vicinity, having episcopal jurisdiction in Africa only.' On this resolution a debate followed, incisive, compre- hensive, and worthy of the issue. Quigley inquired if the resolution would not conflict with that part of the Third Restrictive Rule which provides for the perpetuity of a General Superintendencij. He set forth that they only wished to make a temporary arrangement which 'General Conference Journal, 1856, vol. iii, p. 56. 222 THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 223 would look forward to the establishment of an independ- ent Church in Africa. The redoubtable Collins opposed the resolution, declaring it would "establish a diocesan episcopacy and destroy the Itinerant General Superin- tendency," and denied that the jurisdiction of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church was confined to the United States. He exclaimed: "Is Africa in the United States? Was Canada in the United States when it was in connection with us? Was Texas in the United States when it ex- isted as the Lone Star Republic? The Methodist Episco- pal Church can extend its ecclesiastical jurisdiction anywhere throughout the globe." He averred that he had no objection to electing a Bishop to go to Africa, but never would he give his vote for the election of a man whose jurisdiction was to be limited to Africa. He moved to strike out the part which limited the jurisdic- tion of the Bishop to Africa alone. Durbin said the Constitution was to be interpreted partly by the history and the circumstances of the times, and we must interpret an article under the rule of neces- sity. "In the providence of God the time may come when we shall need a Missionary Conference in India, China, and other places, and our Bishops would not visit these places."^ He then read the following from the Bishops' Address : Two points are clear to us: first, thai episcopal authority on the spot is very desirable for the interest of the Mission in Liberia; secondly, that it cannot be regularly furnished from this country without embarrassing our home work. How it may best be supplied is for you to determine. Three modes have been suggested: first, for the General Conference to appoint a Bishop, and send him to organize them as the Methodist Episcopal Church of Africa; second, to let them organize themselves, elect their Bishop, and send him to us for ordination; third, to appoint a Missionary Bishop to take charge of that work, we retaining 'The great man's prophetic inetinct failed him here. 224 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY jurisdiction over it. As this subject has received much atten- tion from you heretofore, we shall not dwell upon it'; but we trust you will be able to make such provision as will secure the best interests of all concerned. But whatever disposition may be made of the case, we hope the brethren of Liberia will never cease to receive our Christian sympathy, and that the missionary dividend will be continued to them as long as they need and properly use it.' Durbin continued : "The Bishops do not suggest which of these modes is the best, but they would not have pro- posed them if they had supposed either of them would be an infraction of the Constitution." He closed his speech by saying that he had no doubt whatever in regard to the authority. Hosmer "undertook to answer the constitutional argument of Collins." Slicer made a vig- orous attack upon the proposition, stating that there had already been three attempts in as many Conferences to carry this measure and he was astonished that it was brought up again. Hiram Mattison tried to show, as Durbin had done, that it could be done without changing the Constitution. Osbon said "it was not a constitutional question at all." George R. Crooks said the Restrictive Rule should be construed strictly, fairly, with reference to the intentions of its framers, and they certainly only had this continent in their minds. Cartwright declared that the "episcopate is an office and not an order, and an office that can be executed every- where." He held that "the doctrine that the General Conference can elect a Bishop for a particular locality is the legitimate offspring of Congregationalism and dioc- esan episcopacy." He said that he would favor voting for a man for Africa, but not while the Church there was an integral part of the Church here. F. G. Hibbard said if the case was of so much impor- iGeneral Conference Journal, 1856, vol. iii, p. 198. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 225 tance as to make necessary a change in the Constitution, there was plenty of time for deciding. He referred to the Discipli)ie and proposed to taKe the incipient steps by a two-thirds vote in favor of amending the Third Restrictive Rule. J. S. Porter moved that "the brethren in Africa elect their Bishop to be independent of our jurisdiction," and that "the ^lissionary Society should be at liberty to make appropriations to Liberia as heretofore." Collins withdrew his amendment; and the whole sub- ject was referred back to the committee. The next day the committee reported a recommendation to the several Annual Conferences to alter the paragraph by adding, "after the word 'superintendency,' in the fourth line, 'but may appoint a Missionary Bishop or Superintendent for any of our foreigii missions, limiting his episcopal juris- diction to the same respectively.' " This went over until the next day. When the debate was reopened, Heman Bangs argued for an independent Church in Africa. "It had long been nursed; and if a mother nursed and lead her child too long, he will not be able to stand and walk alone." He moved as a substitute "that our members in Africa be authorized to form an independent Church, and that should they do so and elect an elder to the Superin- tendency, our Bishops might ordain him." Durbin emphasized the difficulty of this, and showed that the proposed form provided for cases which may arise hereafter, so that, should missions in China, India, or Germany be organized into separate Conferences, they may have the benefit of it. Bishop Levi Scott announced as his deliberate judg- ment, that in the present state of affairs in Africa, they should have a white Superintendent. James Floy opposed the report, and "objected to a white Bishop. Colored men must do the work in Africa that is done at all." 226 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Nerval Wilson thought it premature and ridiculous, to elect a Bishop for twenty elders and twelve hundred members. When the vote was taken by yeas and nays, the report was found to be adopted by 159 to 27 ; and by vote the Bishops were requested to present the resolution to the several Annual Conferences for their concurrence. Also the Conference resolved that, should the Bishops ascer- tain that the Annual Conferences had passed the measure by the requisite majority, "then they [the Bishops] are hereby authorized to act under its authority if necessary." To complete the action, the General Conference passed this statesmanlike resolution : Resolved, That the following principles shall regulate the ad- ministration in relation to Missionary Bishops during the coming four years, namely: 1. A Missionary Bishop sliall reside (with his family, if he have one) in the particular mission field assigned him, and he shall perform all the duties of a Bishop in said district, to which his jurisdiction shall be exclusively limited. 2. Should he cease to reside in said mission field, he shall exer- cise no episcopal powers, and shall become a member of the Annual Conference from which he was elected. 3. His amenability shall be as in the case of other Bishops, except that the testimony taken before the Investigating Com- mittee shall be in writing, and upon this testimony, and upon such further testimony as may be taken prior to the session of the General Conference, on proper notification of the parties, shall the case be determined by the General Conference. 4. The support of a Missionary Bishop while in his work, or in case of failure of health, and the provision for his family in case of death, shall be furnished in the same manner as in the case of other missionaries.^ The requisite number of the Annual Conferences hav- ing concurred with the General Conference, the Bishops reported to the General Conference of 1860 that "the Liberia Mission Annual Conference having elected the iGeneral Conference Journal, 1856, vol. iii, p. 177. THE THIRD RESTRICTIVE RULE 227 Rev. Francis Burns, an elder in good standing in said Conference, to the office of Bishop, and our Board being satisfied of these facts, Bishops Janes and Baker [the concurrence of their colleagues having been previously given] assisted by several elders, . . . did ordain Francis Burns." Bishop Burns wrought wondrously, but his health failed four years after his ordination. He hurried away to this country, but died soon after his arrival. The General Conference of 1864 authorized the election and ordination of a successor, and the Liberia Conference chose the Rev. John Wright Roberts. He was ordained in New York on June 20, 186G, and became an acknowl- edged leader in the Mission and in important civil affairs in Liberia, but died in January, 1875, with the "entire Conference at his side." No successor was ordained until the General Confer- ence of 1884, when William Taylor was elected, he being at that time a lay delegate from India. But as he had long been a traveling preacher in orders, the Conference considered him eligible. The General Conference of 1888 elected James M. Thoburn Missionary Bishop for India. That body enacted rules and stated various principles governing Missionary Bishops and their relations to the General Superintendents. Subsequently several Mission- ary Bishops have been elected. Such regulations are not constitutional but legislative, and as they were made by the General Conference, so they may be changed. The general rights of the Missionary Bishops are cov- ered by the addition to the Third Restrictive Rule, which became operative after the action of the General Confer- ence of 1856, and the concurrence of the Annual Con- ferences, and which was first introduced into the Dis- cipline of 1860. CHAPTER XXIX Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Restrictive Rules, and the Proviso for Change of Restrictive Rules FOURTH restrictive RULE "The General Conference shall not revoke nor change the General Rules of the United Societies," These rules were published by John Wesley, and signed by John and Charles Wesley under date of May 1, 1743, and were adopted without alteration by the first Method- ist societies in America. They were first published in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1789; and by that time, certain minor changes had been made, and Wesley's historical introduction omitted. It is not necessary to discuss these, except where they relate to fundamental principles. As the rules came from the hands of the Wesleys, the command on "Drinking" reads thus: "Drunkenness, buy- ing or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, except in cases of extreme necessity." As it appears in 1789 the phrase, "unless in cases of extreme necessity" is omitted; but in the DiscijMne of 1790 it was in substance replaced, as follows : "Drunkenness, or drinking spirituous liquors, unless in cases of necessity." The next year saw the intro- duction of the preposition "in" between "unless" and "cases." In 1848 Wesley's rule was restored exactly as it was one hundred and five years before. In Wesley's original Rules, slavery was not mentioned ; but in the Discipline of 1789 the following was inserted: "Buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them." In 1792 "souls of" was omitted, and in 1808 it was changed to the 228 PROVISO FOR CHANGE OF RESTRICTIVE RULES 229 "buying and selling of men, women, and children with an intention to enslave them." In 1864, and the Annual Conferences supervening, the paragraph on slavery in the General Rules was changed to "Slaveholding, buying or selling slaves."^ Wesley's historical introduction was reinserted in 1792, simply substituting the third person for the first and inserting Wesley's name. FIFTH RESTRICTIVE RULE They shall not do away the privilege of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee and of an appeal; neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society or by a committee of the people. This rule was subjected to only one alteration until 1884, when the phrase "The General Conference" was substituted for the word "They"; and since the revision of the Constitution as a whole, it reads: The General Conference shall not deprive our ministers of the right of trial by the Annual Conference, or by a select number thereof, nor of an appeal; nor shall it deprive our members of the right of trial by a committee of members of our Church, nor of an appeal. The General Conference, however, has the right to modify methods of procedure according to its wisdom and will, provided these essentials are undisturbed or are changed in a constitutional way. SIXTH RESTRICTIVE RULE This restriction, when first adopted was: They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. 'This subject is further treated. 230 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY With the exception of changing "They" to "The Gen- eral Conference," and "or" to "nor," this restriction remained as it was originally formed until the revision of the Constitution, by which it was made to read : The General Conference shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, and superannuated preachers, their wives, widows, and children. For many years the Bishops and needy traveling preach- ers were supported from the produce of the Book Concern ; and this money was also appropriated to paying the expenses of the General Conference. But after much discussion, the Bishops are now supported by a special fund, raised for the purpose; and the expenses of the General Conference are provided for in a similar manner. It is recognized without dissent that the traveling preach- ers, and the supernumerary and superannuated preachers, their wives, widows, and children have a claim upon the produce of the Book Concern. Certain legislation, how- ever, which is recognized as within the authority of the General Conference, prevents the misapplication of the funds. The Chartered Fund, at its birth, was expected to become of great value; but its name was against it. Enthusiasm was not maintained, and only for a short time did it receive funds.^ THE PROVISO The method provided by the Constitution for repealing, altering, or adding to the Restrictive Rules was originally : Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions. 'At present it disburses to each Conference $25 annually. PROVISO FOR CHANGE OF RESTRICTIVE RULES 231 There were serious difficulties in such a plan. Under that Rule, it was possible for one Conference — and that the smallest — to countervail the will of the whole Church and prevent all change. Further, as the proposition to change the Constitution must be first voted upon in the Annual Conferences, however great an emergency might arise, it could not, in some cases, be met for four years, unless a special General Confei'ence were called. An illustration of the first difficulty mentioned, is given by Bangs, who says : A recommendation had been sent the rounds of the Annual Conferences requesting them to empower the General Conference of 1828 to diminish the number of delegates. This recommenda- tion passed all the Annual Conferences except the Philadelphia; and as it required all the Conferences to concur before the altera- tion could be made by the General Conference, the measure was defeated by the nonconcurrence of this single Annual Confer- ence. It was thus that we all began to feel the pressure of the yoke which had been imposed upon us by the General Conference of 1808, by which we were compelled to submit to the burden until permitted to relieve ourselves by the concurrence of all the Conferences in the Union. This unwise provision put it com- pletely in the power of a very small minority to rule the whole body on any question arising out of the Restrictive Rules. From such a grievous yoke, "which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear," the General Conference of 1828 made an effort to break loose.* Wilbur Fisk proposed a measure of relief, which, as adopted by the General Conference, was as follows: Resolved, That this General Conference respectfully suggest to the several Annual Conferences the propriety of recommending to the next General Conference so to alter and amend the Rules of our Discipline, by which the General Conference is restricted in its powers to make rules and regulations for the Church, com- monly called the Restrictive Rules, as to make the proviso at the close of the said Restrictive Rules, No. 6, read thus: "Provided, nevertheless, that upon the concurrent recommen- ^History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. iv, p. 103. 232 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY dation of three fourths of all the members of the several Annual Conferences who shall be present and vote on such recommenda- tion, then a majority of two thirds of the General Conference suc- ceding shall suffice to alter any of such regulations excepting the first Article. "And, also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall have first been recommended by two thirds of the General Con- ference, so soon as three fourths of the members of the Annual Conferences shall have concurred, as aforesaid, with such recom- mendation, such alteration or alterations shall take effect."^ In the General Conference of 1832 the Committee on Itinerancy reported the result of its submission to the several Annual Conferences, stating, that the "resolu- tions have passed all the Annual Conferences in full and due form, with the exception of the Illinois, where we find some want in the formality, not sufficient, how- ever, in the judgment of your committee, to alter or set aside the principle."^ The subject was postponed and was taken up for final discussion and vote on the 10th of May, when the report of the Committee on Itinerancy was again read, and also the following communication in writing from the delegates of the Illinois Conference: We, the delegates from the Illinois Annual Conference, do hereby certify that we do all cordially concur in the above as- surance.' The General Conference evidently considered this suf- ficient, for the resolution concerning the change in the Proviso was unanimously adopted, and though the pro- ceedings were not quite regular, there is no record of any objection to it at that time or siuce.^ 'General Conference Journal. 1828, vol. i, pp. 353, 354. 2Ibi(l., Journal, 1832, vol. i, pp. 377,378. 'Ibid., Journal, 1832, vol. i, p. 383. ■•In order to learn just what the informality in the action of the Illinois Con- ferpMCe was. the Rev. Christian Galeencr, sccirtary of that Conference, at the request of Dr. Neely, carefully examined the Journal, bat could find no mention (-f the subject, and so wrote him, January 9, 1S91. PROVISO FOR CHANGE OF RESTRICTIVE RULES 233 At the same time that the alteration in the Proviso for changing the method of altering any of the restrictions was effected, an addition, equivalent to another Restrictive Rule, was made. There were inserted into the Proviso, the words "Excepting the first Article." This is a limit upon the Proviso, which would appear to prevent, by any means whatever, any change in om* Articles of Reli- gion and the establishing of any Standards or rules of doctrine '"contrary to our present existing Standards." But this is not the case. Before this alteration was made the Annual Confer- ences and the next succeeding General Conference could destroy, modify, or enlarge every one of the Restrictive Rules. The fact that it was Constitutional to insert, in the Proviso for amendment, the words "excepting the first Article" demonstrates that, had they been placed there at the first, it would have been constitutional to remove them. Therefore, by the General Conference and the constitutional votes of the members of the Annual Conferences, and. at the present time, the votes of the Lay Electoral Conferences, the words could be removed, and that having been done, the First Restrictive Rule could then be altered by the same method as any of the others. Some who feared that, under this Rule, our Standards of doctrine could be easily mutilated, have tried to prove that the First Restrictive Rule could be changed only under the old law; that is, if all the Annual Conferences by a majority vote should agree to change the said Rule, and the ensuing General Conference should ratify the same by a vote of two thirds. That method was annihi- lated and another put in its place, and the idea that it could be called from its grave in which it had lain for half a century is without support. The Rule as it was enacted in 1808 bore the same rela- 234 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY tion to the Proviso for changing the Restrictive Rules as did the Rule protecting the episcopacy or any other Restrictive Rule. Now, the Articles of Religion and "our present existing and established Standards" are more safely protected than any other part of the Constitution. CANADIAN METHODISM'S SEPARATION FROM THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES CHAPTER XXX Separation of Canadian Methodism from the Methodist Episcopal Church The divers and diverse relations of early Canadian Methodism to the Methodist Episcopal Church became Intricate to such a degree as to involve constitutional questions of vital interest and great difficulty. A broad sketch is needed to render clear the issues and explain the final action taken. In the province of Canada a few local preachers repre- sented Methodism before 1789. William Losee appears in the Minutes of that year, stationed, uiidei- Freeborn Garrettson, presiding elder, with David Kendall on the Lake Champlain Circuit. Losee had kindred in Upper Canada, and went among them preaching the gospel. Stevens says the tradition is that Losee received permis- sion from Garrettson in the winter of 1789-90 to "range at large," seeking a more eligible field. This is highly probable, as the circuit named ''Lake Champlain" had not been successful, and in 1790 was abandoned. It is certain that Losee formed classes, and returned to the Conference with petitions for his reappointment, and the next year was regularly stationed in Canada. He is recognized in the Minutes of 1790 as remaining "on trial," but there is no station in connection with his name in the Minutes of that year. In 1791 he was admitted into full connection and appointed to Kingston, Canada. steady progress The spirit of Methodism and its preachers was re- sponded to by many ; and by 1799 there was, in Canada, 237 238 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY a presiding elder's district with four preachers. Between that period and 1810 the preachers designated for Canada were frequently transferred from one Annual Conference to another. Those in Lower Canada were always related to a different Conference from those in Upper Canada; but all Methodists were always connected with the Meth- odist Episcopal Church until 1812, when war broke out between the United States and England. Two years before that event the Genesee Annual Con- ference had been organized, and the preachers in Canada were chiefly comprehended within its boundaries ; and by the opening of the Conference year 1812-13, all except those on the border circuits were connected with that Conference. Early in the war all the preachers for Lower Canada except two, being American citizens, re- turned to the United States. Thomas Burch, a British- born subject, took the place of Nathan Bangs in Montreal. The presiding elder of the Upper Canada District at that time had charge of seven circuits and twelve preachers. Several of these were American citizens, but only one went back to the United States on account of the war. ENTANGLEMENTS ARISE Quebec Methodists, having been destitute of the ordi- nances, applied to the chairman of the Nova Scotia District, which was not ecclesiastically connected with the Methodist Episcopal Church, for a supply, and, through his representations, a minister was sent from the British Conference, who arrived in 1814. The larger part of the society in Montreal expressed a similar wish, which was responded to; but the minority, desiring a preacher from the United States, received one, and for some time worshiped in a public hall. On one plea or another, British Wesleyan preachers had established themselves in other parts of Lower Canada, SEPARATION OF CANADIAN METHODISM 239 and as far west in Upper Canada as Niagara and Saint Catherines, and various important stations between. Under these circumstances the British Conference sent to the General Conference of 1816 a letter to the effect that the Methodist Episcopal Church should vacate divers stations and surrender them to the British missionaries. The reasons for this proposition were: the relative situation of the inhabitants of Montreal and Canada to England, the fact that there was a misunderstanding between British missionaries and the American presid- ing elder for Lower Canada, and because a considerable part of the money for erecting the chapel and house in Montreal had been raised in England. The General Conference, however, declared that it "appears, from written and verbal commimications, that it is the desire of the great majority of the people in Upper and Lower Canada to be supplied, as heretofore, with preachers from the United States." And "these things being duly con- sidered, together with the contiguity of those provinces to the western and northern parts of the United States," the following resolutions were submitted : Resolved, 1. That we cannot, consistently with our duty to the societies of our charge in the Canadas, give up any part of them, or any of our chapels in those provinces, to the superin- tendence of the British connection. Resolved, 2. That a respectful letter be addressed to the Lon- don Methodist Missionary Society, explaining the reasons for the above resolution.^ This letter requested "that the preachers of each con- nection might be permitted to .occupy in peace their respective fields of labor." DIFFICULTIES GROW MORE PERSISTENT Grave difficulties then arose between the Wesleyan Church of England and the Methodist Episcopal Church 'General Conference Journal, vol. i, pp. 151, 152. 240 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY of the United States — difficulties which were not settled to any degree until the General Conference of 1820, and then only apparently. At this General Conference numerous memorials and petitions from the several cir- cuits in Upper Canada were presented. They protested against the interference of the British missionaries, and prayed that " they might still be supplied with the min- istry and ordinances of religion by the American Con- ference." After an unusually careful consideration of the subject, several resolutions were adopted : Resolved, By the delegates of the Annual Conferences in Gen- eral Conference assembled, 1. That it is the duty of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church to continue their episcopal charge over our societies in the Canadas, except Quebec. Resolved, etc., 2. That the following address be sent to brethren in Canada: "Deae Beethben: . . . We sincerely deprecate those evils of which you complain, and which have grown out of the conduct of the missionaries sent by the British Conference to labor in Canada. Confiding, however, in the integrity of that Conference, and believing they have been misled by partial and erroneous statements sent out by interested persons in Canada, we still hope ithat the existing embarrassment will be removed, and that an amicable adjustment of this unhappy affair may be brought about. ..." The fourth resolution was: That this Conference address the British Conference on the subject of a mutual exchange of delegates, as representatives of the one Conference to the other. The sixth resolution provided: That the episcopacy, by and with the advice and consent of the General Conference, if they judge it expedient prior to the sitting of the next General Conference, shall have authority to establish an Annual Conference In Canada.*^ Later the first resolution was amended by adding: 'General Conference Journal, vol. i, pp. 213-215. SEPARATION OF CANADIAN METHODISM 241 Provided, nevertheless, that the episcopacy shall have au- thority to negotiate with the British Conference respecting Lower Canada in the way and manner they shall see fit.' Affairs in Canada, in 1824, were not drifting nor being brought to any conclusion satisfactory to the Canadian brethren; and the Methodists in Upper Canada were desirous of having an independent Church reorganization in that province. The result of the different deliberations upon this subject was contained in the resolutions : That there shall be a Canada Conference under our superin- tendence, bounded by the boundary lines of Upper Canada. And That a respectful representation be made to the British Con- ference of those points in the late agreement between the two connections which have not, on the part of their missionaries, been fulfilled.^ In the Conference of 1828 a petition from the Canadian Annual Conference was presented by William Ryerson, "praying that it may be separated from the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States." Upon this Bangs observes: This desire, however, did not arise out of any dissatisfaction with the conduct of the brethren in the United States toward them, but chiefly from the opposition evinced by statesmen In Upper Canada to their being subject to the control of a foreign ecclesiastical head, over which the civil authorities of Canada could exercise no jurisdiction; and as most of the preachers in Canada were formerly from the United States, and all of them subject to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in another nation, it was contended by the Canadian authorities that they had no sufficient guarantee for their allegiance to the crown of Great Britain, and to the civil regulations of Canada; and hence the Methodist ministers in Canada had suffered civil disabilities, and had not been allowed to celebrate the rites of matrimony, not even for their own members.' 'General Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 237. 2Ibid.. vol. i, p. 302. 'History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. iii, p. 388. 242 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS The controlling resolution passed by the Conference of 1828 was: If the Annual Conference in Upper Canada at its ensuing session, or any succeeding session previously to the next General Conference, shall definitely determine on this course, and elect a General Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in that province, this General Conference do hereby authorize any one or more of the General Superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, with the assistance of any two or more elders, to ordain such General Superintendent for the said Church in Upper Canada, provided always, that nothing herein contained be contrary to or inconsistent with the laws existing in the said province; and provided that no such General Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, or any of his successors in office, shall at any time exer- cise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatever in any part of the United States, or of the territories thereof; and provided also, that this article shall be expressly ratified and agreed to by the said Canada Annual Conference, before any such ordination shall take place.' Bangs enters into an argument to prove that this reso- lution was constifvtional. He acknowledges that when the subject first came up for consideration, and the report was approved by the vote of the General Conference, it had no constitutional right to set off the brethren in Upper Canada as an independent body, because the terms of the compact by which we existed as a General Conference made it obligatory on us, as a delegated body, to preserve the union entire, and not to break up the Church into separate fragments. Hence to grant the prayer of the memorialists, by a solemn act of legislation, would be giving sanction to a principle, and setting a precedent for future General Conferences, of a dangerous character — of such a character as might tend ultimately to the dissolution of the ecclesiastical body, which would be, in fact and form, con- travening the very object for which we were constituted a dele- gated Conference, this object being the preservation, and not a 'General Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 406. SEPARATION OF CANADIAN METHODISM 243 destruction or dissolution of the union. These arguments ap- peared so forcible to the first committee, and to the Conference, that the idea of granting them a separate organization on the principle of abstract and independent legislation was abandoned as altogether indefensible, being contrary to the constitutional compact.' Bangs also conceded that since the "Canadian brethren so earnestly requested," and pleaded "with so much zeal, and even with most pathetic appeals to our sympathies" for some method of granting their wish, the Conference "looked about for a way to satisfy them." Emory suggested that, as the preachers who went to Canada in the first instance as missionaries, and after- ward, when additional helj) was needed, Bishop Asbury and his successors asked for volunteers, not claiming the right to send them, in the same authoritative man- ner in which they were sent to the different parts of the United States and Territories, . . . they had a perfect right to request us to withdraw our services, and we the same right to withhold them. The Conference then concluded, that It seemed perfectly compatible with our powers as a delegated Conference and their privileges as a part of the same body, thus connected by a voluntary and conditional compact, either ex- pressed or implied, to dissolve the connection subsisting between us, without any dereliction of duty or forfeiture of privilege on either part. It was on this principle alone that the above agree- ment was iased.^ A FINAL AND SATISFACTORY ADJUSTMENT In the General Conference of 1828 the Canadian Meth- odists made a claim on a portion of the Book Concern. The members of the Conference, with few exceptions, agreed that the claim was just. But the prevailing opinion was that there were constitutional difficulties in the way; and the matter was postponed to the General ^History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. iii, p. 390. 'Bangs, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. iii, p. 391. 244 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Conference of 1832. That body, after much, and peculiarly able, discussion, resolved that "an apportionment of the property of the Concern ought to be made to them. But as constitutional difficulties are believed to be in the way of such appropriation by this Conference, because they have not been instructed on the subject by their constitu- ents, according to the Proviso at the end of the restrictive regulations," they therefore passed a resolution by which "if three fourths of all the members of the several Annual Conferences, who shall be present and vote shall concur," the apportionment might be made. The proposal sent down to be voted upon was: 1. The dividend shall be made according to the proportion that the number of traveling preachers in the Canada Confer- ence bears to the number of traveling preachers in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, including in both esti- mates the superannuated preachers and those on trial. 2. The amount of property to be divided shall be reckoned according to the first and largest estimate of stock in the late exhibit of the Book Agents, namely, $448,745. 70iA, deducting there- from debts due from the Concern, annuities, etc., . . . and leaving an amount to be divided of about $413,566,931/2. 3. That the Canada Conference shall receive a full propor- tion of the unsalable and salable stock, and of the bad as well as good debts, considering the stock and debts in Canada that belong to the Book Concern as so much of the dividend already paid, but to be estimated as forming a part of the General Book Concern, according to the manner of estimating the whole amount* The Annual Conferences debated this plan, for and against, with great zeal; and in the General Conference of 1836 the Committee on Canada Affairs reported on the submission as follows: In favor of concurring with the General Conference of 1832, five hundred and ninety-nine ; against concurring, seven hundred and fifty-eight. Whole number of votes taken, one thousand three hundred and fifty-seven. This statement shows that in- >GeDeral Conference Journal, vol. i. pp. 404, 405. SEPARATION OF CANADIAN METHODISM 245 Stead of three fourths of the votes being in favor of obviating the constitutional restriction, as the Discipline in such cases requires, a large majority have decided against it. And this your committee regard as final and conclusive against these claims. ^ In the meantime the Canada Conference had appointed its president, the Rev. William Lord, and the Rev. Wil- liam Case to negotiate its claims in the Book Concern, giving them ''full powers to bring an amicable termina- tion." Therefore the General Conference instructed the Book Agents to sell the Catalogue books to the Canadian Conference at forty per cent discount from the retail price, Sunday school publications at eighteen per cent, and that these and some other subordinate privileges should continue until 1852. Bangs, the veteran missionary to Canada, had the exquisite pleasure of writing in his History: Thus was this long-pending question brought to an amicable termination on such terms as to preserve and perpetuate the harmony and brotherly affection heretofore subsisting between the connections.- 'General Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 461. 'History oj the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. iv, p. 239. BISECTION OF THE CHURCH IN 1844^5 CHAPTER XXXI The Bisection of the Church Slavery from the very first was a troublesome and embroiling element in Methodism. It appears in the Rules and Regulations of 1780, in a sharp "disapprobation" of all who keep slaves ; in 1783, in a threat to suspend local preachers who do so. In 1784 it was decreed, that all, who having been warned and yet "buy slaves to keep as slaves," shall be expelled, and that traveling preachers "who now have slaves and will not free them if the law allows, shall be no more employed." Later in 1784, there was added to the "Rules of our society" a compli- cated scheme of emancipation. Recognizing that "these rules fonn a new term of communion, anyone who will not obey them may peaceably withdraw; but he shall never partake of the Supper of the Lord with the Method- ists," till he complies with the rule. Those who "buy or sell slaves, or give them away" are immediately to be expelled ; "unless they buy them on purpose to free them." But in 1785 the Annual Conferences found these last Rules would do harm, and they were suspended. This notice had the effect of an absolute repeal, and in the second edition of the Discipline, published in London in 1786, they entirely disappeared. FIRST GENERAL RULE AGAINST SLAVERY The Discipline of 1789 contains for the first time a "general rule" forbidding "The buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, women, or children with an intention to enslave them." The General Rules as framed by Wesley contained 249 250 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY nothing whatever with regard to slavery, and no evidence exists that the above "General Rule" was authorized by the Annual Conferences. The General Conference of 1796 declared that it was "more than ever convinced of the great evil of the African slavery which exists in these United States"; it com- manded the yearly Conferences, Quarterly Conferences, and also presiding elders and pastors, "to be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official stations in our Church ; . . . and to require security of those who hold slaves for the emancipation of them." And also: "Every member of the society who sold a slave should, after full proof, be excluded the society." Paragraphs were inserted in 1800 to the elfect that if any of the traveling preachers "becomes an owner of a slave or slaves by any means, he shall forfeit his minis- terial character in the Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of the said slaves." The Annual Conferences were directed to draw up ad- dresses for the gradual emancipation of the slaves in those States in which no general laws had been passed for that purpose. EXTRAORDINARY CHANGES But as before, these stern decrees reacted, and in 1804 astonishing modifications were made. It was provided that the members of the societies in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee should "be exempted from the operation of the above rules." In 1808 the General Conference elided all of the section on slavery except the first two paragraphs, and passed a resolution authorizing "each Annual Conference to form their own regulations relative to buying and selling of slaves." There appears to have been no debate on the subject and by this legislation everything relating to THE BISECTION OF THE CHURCH 251 slaveholding among private members was stricken out. Bisliop Asbury moved the extraordinary resolution "that there be one thousand forms of Discipline prepared for the use of the South Carolina Conference in which the section and rule on slavery he left out." This motion apparently prevailed unanimously. A change was made in 1812 so that the paragraph should read : Whereas, the laws of some of the States do not admit of eman- cipating of slaves, without a special act of the Legislature, the General Conference authorizes each Annual Conference to form their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves. In 181G, the following was enacted: No slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. In 1820 the provision that "Annual Conferences can form their own regulations about buying slaves" was stricken out. ORGANIZED OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY In the General Conferences of 1828 and 1832 there was no slavery legislation. But various ominous events had been occurring. The New England Antislavery Society was organized in 1832, the first Methodist Abolition Society in 1833, and the American Antislavery Society the same yeai*. At a convention in Philadelphia sixty-three abolitionists, representing eleven of the States, were present; among them William Lloyd Garrison and John G. Whittier, They lectured and distributed pamphlets, tracts, and leaflets, and by 1835 they had collected |35,000 to expend for issuing a million publications of various sorts, for the employment of fourteen lecturers, and for organizing five hundred auxiliary societies. The Ohio Annual Con- 252 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ference in 1835 passed a resolution against abolition and antislavery societies. The Baltimore Conference in the next year declared itself convinced of the great evil of slavery, but was equally opposed "in every part and par- ticular to the proceedings of the abolitionists." The New England and New Hampshire Conferences organized societies in 1835 for the promotion of the immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery. Zion's Herald was opened to articles in favor of abolition, and published an appeal to the members of the New England and New Hampshire Conferences signed by Leroy Sunder- land and several other ministers. This was answered in the same pai)er by a counter appeal written by D. D. Whedon, signed by Wilbur Fisk, Abel Stevens, Bishop Hedding, "Father" Taylor, and five others. HEATED ACTION IN GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1836 Of the sixteen delegates elected by the New England and New Hampshire Conferences to the General Confer- ence of 1830, fourteen were pronounced abolitionists. A memorial was presented, signed by two hundred minis- ters, asking for the restoration of the original rule on slavery. Another was signed by 2,284 lay members. There were many other petitions, all of which were referred to a committee. The Conference sat in Cincinnati, and during its prog- ress an abolition meeting was held in the city, which was attended by George Storrs and Samuel Norris, delegates from New Hampshire to the General Conference. On May 11, Roszel, of the Baltimore Conference, moved that the committee appointed to draft a pastoral letter to the Church be instructed to take notice of the subject of abolition "that has so seriously agitated the different parts of our country, and that they let our preachers, members, and friends know that the General Conference THE BISECTION OF THE CHURCH 253 is opposed to the agitation of that subject, and will use all prudent means to put it down."^ The next day, Roszel moved a preamble and resolutions censuring two members who were lecturing on the subject of abolition in Cincinnati. The debate following created much excite- ment, and when the voting took place the resolution of censure was adopted by 122 for and 11 against, and the resolution condemning ''modern abolition" was adopted by a similar vote, as was the whole report. These are the resolutions: Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in Gen- eral Conference assembled, 1. That they disapprove in the most unqualified sense the conduct of two members of the General Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city re- cently upon and in favor of modern abolitionism. Resolved, 2. That they are decidedly opposed to modern aboli- tionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the slave-holding States of this Union. Resolved, 3. That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be published in our periodicals.* After the General Conference of IS.Sfi the Methodist abolitionists, being greatly wrought up by the censure of the two members and by the resolutions passed by the body, increased their activity. Those in the New England Conference in 1837. anticipating that the Bishop would refuse to put any motion involving slavery and abolition, determined to block all business and adjourn from time to time, and notified the Bishop of their purpose. As a peace measure he offered to allow them to adopt a respectful petition to the next General Conference. The Bishops presiding in other Annual Conferences refused in several instances to put motions relating to the sub- ject; and the Bishop in the New Hampshire Conference iGeneral Conference Journal, vol. i, p. 443. 2Ibid.. vol. i, p. 447. 254 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY stipulated six conditions before allowing the appoint- ment of a committee on slavery, and these the Confer- ence refused to accept. THE APPEAL OF SILAS COMFORT To the General Conference of 1840 Silas Comfort, a member of the Missouri Conference, appealed from a decision which had adjudged him guilty of maladminis- tration in a trial for admitting the testimony of a colored member against a white one. When his case was taken up Bishop Roberts decided that the appeal ought not to be entertained by the General Conference. As it was the right of the Conference to determine such questions, a motion to entertain it was made, and prevailed. After a long debate, the Conference rejected the i*esolution before it, which affirmed the decision of the Missouri Conference. This was equal to reversing the Missouri decision. But the next day. by a vote of 74 to 4(1. the Conference Resolved, That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher among us to permit colored persons to give testimony against white persons, in any State where they are denied that privilege in trials at law.^ Attempts were made to reconsider this resolution, and a compromise was finally effected in a series of resolu- tions. The first was that the Conference did not intend "to express or imply that the testimony of colored per- sons against white persons in Church trials, is either expedient or justifiable in any of the slaveholding States or Territories where the civil laws prohibit such testi- mony in trials at law," and also that "it is not the inten- tion of the Conference to prohibit such testimony in Church trials in any of the States or Territories where it is the established usage of the Church to admit, and where, in the judgment of constitutional adjudicatories 'General Conference Journal, 1840, vol. ii, p. 60. THE BISECTION OF THE CHURCH 255 of the Church, such testimony may be admitted with safety to the peace of society, and the best interests of all concerned." And the last resolution was, "That it is not the intention of this Conference, in either of the above cases, or in any action had by this body, to express or imply any distrust or want of confidence in the Chris- tian piety or integrity of the numerous bodies of colored members under our pastoral care."^ Later in the year several distinguished ministers in the North were tried and censured by the Conference for promoting abolition. While these proceedings were taking place in the North, conventions, equally excited and determined, were being held, and resolutions, fully as uncompromising, were being passed in the South, both in Church and State. ■General Conference Journal, 1840, vol. ii, p. 109. CHAPTER XXXII The Bisection of the Church (Continued) Very soon after the adjourning of the General Con- ference of 1840 secessions from the Church began in the North, which in the end resulted in the establishment of the Weslej an Connection of America. Extraordinary discussions now filled the press of the Church. To prevent the members from seceding, and to promote the cause of abolition, which they had espoused, the Methodists in various parts held numerous conven- tions. At one in Boston, January 18, 1843, it was re- solved, that slaveholding is sin; that every slaveholder is a sinner, and ought not to be admitted to the pulpit or the communion; that the Methodist Episcopal Church is responsible for slavery within its pale. Resolved, That the only way to prevent entire dissolution among us as a Church is an entire separation from the South. It was under such circumstances that the General Con- ference of 1844 convened in the city of New York, Bishops Soule, Hedding, Andrew, Waugh, and Morris being present. Prior to the assembling of this Conference the Annual Conferences were asked to pass judgment on the propo- sition of the New England Conference to modify the general rule on slavery, so that it should read: "the buy- ing or selling or holding men, women, or children as slaves except on purpose to free them." The votes in favor were very far from sufficient. Many memorials of traveling preachers and private members were sent to the General Conference, but only one in seven of the twenty- eight Annual Conferences asked for antislavery action. 256 THE BISECTION OF THE CHURCH 257 Early in the session a Committee on Slavery, consisting of one member from each Annual Conference, was ordered. THE APPEAL OF HARDING The first great issue was the appeal of F. A. Harding, of the Baltimore Conference. Slaves had come into his possession by marriage, and he had been suspended from his ministerial standing for refusing to manumit them. The appeal was admitted, and William A. Smith, one of the ablest of the Southera debaters, represented the appellant. Collins, of Baltimore, supported the action of that Conference. Early, of Virginia, moved that the deci- sion be reversed. Fifty-six voted in favor, but 117 against. "The president announced that this vote aflSrmed the decision of the Baltimore Conference." Capers appealed, but tfce chair was sustained by a vote of 111 to 53. New York, New England, Providence, Maine, New Hampshire, Troy, Black River, Oneida, Genesee, Erie, Pittsburgh, Ohio, North Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Baltimore Con- ferences voted unanimously to sustain the action of the Baltimore Conference. All of the Rock River but one voted to sustain; all of Illinois but three; all of the New Jersey but two, and all of the Philadelphia save three. The Kentucky. Holston, Tennessee, Memphis, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, voted unanimously to reverse. Three of the four from Missouri did the same, and also one of the two from Texas; the other was a Northerner who had been a missionary in Texas and who returned at once to the North. This was a prophetic division: indicating cleavage on many issues. THE SITUATION OF BISHOP ANDREW A few days afterward Collins presented the following resolution : Whereas, It is currently reported, and generally understood 258 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY that one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church has become connected with slavery; and, Whe)-eas, It is due to this General Conference to have a proper understanding of the matter; therefore, Resolved, That the Committee on the Episcopacy be instructed to ascertain the facts in the case, and report the results of their Investigation to this body to-morrow morning.' The Committee on the Episcopacy reported "that Bishop Andrew is connected with shivery," and presented a letter from the Bishop on the subject. In that he de- tailed that a lady had bequeatlied to him a mulatto girl in trust that he should take care of her until she should be nineteen years of age, and then, with her consent, she was to be sent to Liberia ; and that in case of her refusal he should keep her and make her as free as the laws of the State of Georgia permitted. She refused to go; and the laws of that State would not permit her emancipation ; and she would not consent to leave the State. In that ease he was a slaveholder legally, hut not of his own consent. He explained that five years ago the mother of his former wife had left to her daughter, but not to him, a Negro boy, and as his wife died without a will, the boy became his property. "Emancipation is impracticable in the State," but he said that "the boy shall be at liberty to leave the State whenever I [Bishop Andrew] shall be satisfied that he is prepared to provide for himself, or I can have sufficient security that he will be protected and provided for in the place to which he may go." Also he informed the committee that he v/as married to his present wife in the preceding January, "she being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from her former husband's estate, and belonging to her." Shortly after the marriage, "being umvilling to beco)iic their owner, regarding them as strictly hers, and the law not permit- 'General Conference Journal, 1844, vol. ii, p. 58. THE BISECTION OF THE CHURCH 259 ting their emancipation," he secured them to her by a deed of trust. He said further, that these statements proved that he had neither ^'bought nor sold a slave," and that in the onh- two instances in which he was a legal slaveholder, ''emancipation is impracticable"; and as to the slaves owned by his wife he had no legal responsibility in the premises, nor could his ivifc emancipate them if she desired to do so.^ Griffith's resolution requesting bishop andrew TO resign GriflBth, seconded by Davis, both of Baltimore, moved "that the Rev. James 0. Andrew he, and he is hereby affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the BifG«ieral Conference Journal. 1800, vol. i, pp. 31, 32. Ibid., 1800, vol. i, p. 35. BEGINNINGS OF ORGANIZATION 363 This was also lost. Another motion was: That the rule which provides that no law be abolished but by a vote of two thirds of the Conference, be reconsidered. This was done, but the motion, that it be rescinded, was lost b^' a majority of one. Jesse Lee moved that no names of members be used in debate, which did not pre- vail. Another moved that "every motion lie on the table one sitting before debate," but this was also lost. On the third day it was moved that "no person be admitted as a spectator during the sitting of the General Conference." This was passed, but in the same session another motion prevailed that "all the official members of our Church should be admitted as spectators." In 1804 a second tie appeared. It was on the question whether there should be an ordination of local elders, and the votes were 44 to 44. Coke did not give the cast- ing vote, but moved that it "lie over, as unfinished busi- ness, till the next General Conference." CHAPTER XLVI Progressive Enlargement During the Conference of 1808 several additions were made to the small list of rules under which it began proceedings. Immediately after the secretary and assistant secre- tary were elected "the judgment of the Conference was called for respecting the membership." It was voted that "no preacher has a right to a seat in this Conference who has not traveled, under the direction of the yearly Con- ference, four full years." 1812 In 1812 there was a situation to be met with respect to reserve delegates, this being the first time they had appeared. Three extra members had been elected by the New England Conference, and "after some conversation," quaintly worded, a motion was made : "Are our brethren from the New England Conference entitled to their seats in this Conference?" On taking a vote, it was found that 56 were in the affirmative and 22 against. Therefore the reserves took seats in the place of those who had failed to appear. A suggestive rule was passed in this General Confer- ence. It was that "a secretary be appointed who is not a member of this Conference." A committee of seven of the most influential members were selected, one from each Conference, to form rules "for the regulation of this Conference." These were Ezekiel Cooper, N. Snethen, Philip Bruce, George Picker- ing, Freeborn Garrettson, Lewis Myers, L. Blackman, and William B. Lacy. 364 PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT 365 Under the discussion of the "rules and orders for gov- erning the Conference" this important question was de- cided : "Shall the Conference have power to resolve itself into a committee 'of the whole' This was carried by a large majority. * Lee moved that "no old rule shall be abolished without a majority of two thirds/' but the motion was lost. He also moved that "the traveling preachers, who are in full connection, have liberty to sit in this house as listeners during Conference." This passed by a large majority, and these were allotted seats in the gallery, but were "sub- ject to the orders of Conference." Immediately after this a motion to allow traveling preachers not in full connection to be admitted as specta- tors was lost by a large majority, as was also a motion that the local preachers be admitted. Bishop McKendree's address was referred to a Com- mittee of the Whole. When the report of the Coiiimittee of the Whole relat- ing to the episcopacy was called up, it was referred to a committee of eight. It was then moved that this com- mittee be appointed by the Conference; which proceeded to elect hallot the Committee on Episcopacy. The rules of the last General Conference were read one by one, and passed with such amendments as the Confer- ence judged expedient. A futile attempt was made to strike out the 34th Article, which concerned the Committee of the Whole. Some quaint phrases w^ere used ; for example, S. G. Roszel moved to "concur in the gross." The General Conference closed in a peculiar manner: J. Early called up his motion, to make the following addition to the fourteenth section, 23d page of our Discipline: "If a mem- ber of our Church be convicted of giving treats at elections directly or indirectly, he shall first be reproved by the senior minister or preacher of his circuit; and if afterward he persists 366 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY in such pernicious practices, he shall be expelled from the Church." Moved and carried to adjourn until May 1, 1816, to meet in the city of Baltimore. After it was moved and carried, this motion was called, re- considered, and lost; but some counted and «aid there was not a quorum present. Then followed the signatures of Francis Asbury and William McKendree. And below them is this : "I consider the reconsideration of Early's motion unofficial. William McKendree." In 1816 it was moved: That the rules of the last General Conference be read one by one and passed, with such amendments as the Conference shall judge expedient. Carried. In this Conference the motion to reconsider was used frequently, and the call for the "previous question" was conspicuous. On May 24, 1820, on a motion to reconsider, there was a tie of 43 ayes to 43 nays. A second vote was taken with the same result, Bishop Roberts refusing to give the cast- ing vote; and he pronounced it "not carried, inasmuch as there was not a majority." By 1820 the rules had reached the number of forty, but they were not incorporated in the minutes. The catalogue of rules in the Journal of the General Conference of 1828 was the product of a committee, and contains several of the best in use at the present time. Passing over the years between 1828 and 1864, we find the parliamentary rules reduced to twenty, but they combine several cognate rules in one. The Rules of Order of the General Conference of 1908 are elaborate, and the number of separate paragraphs is fifty. This is not a waste of space, since the General Conference consists in considerable part of foreigners, PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT 367 whose native tongue is not English, and many of the members have not had experience in public bodies, and others, who are expert parliamentarians in Legislatures and town meetings, are not acquainted with the congeries of rules which have been accumulating for more than one hundred years. For a long time it was very difficult to prevent the introduction of subjects foreign to the situation and pur- pose of the Conference. It only required one man to move and another man to second to precipitate a debate which might consume time and irritate the greater part of the members. A number of years ago a member intro- duced the subject of capital punishment and used fifteen minutes on the subject, at a point when time was precious. And many years before that a member took the floor, before the rules had teen adopted for that Conference. He claimed that he had a right to speak at any length, and did speak more than an hour and a half. He was sincere, able, and learned, and would have been inter- esting in a high degree, if the audience had assembled to listen to a lecture. The presiding Bishop was com- pelled to suppress him without a special rule to authorize it, by assuming that the entire body desired him to cease. A very important addition has been introduced. The third rule under the "Order of Business" is "the calling of the roll of Conferences in alphabetical order for the presentation of appeals, resolutions, and miscellaneous business for immediate consideration." And the follow- ing has been added to it: The person introducing a proposition under the call may speak to it if it be seconded: after tchich a motion to refer, if made, shall be entertained and be decided without debate. But immediately after the motion or resolution has been presented, and before the person who introduces the proposition has 368 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY spoken, the question of consideration may be raised by a mem- ber, saying: "Mr. President, on that I raise the question of con- sideration." The question of consideration shall then be put without debate, and if there is a two-thirds vote against con- sideration, the proposition shall not be entertained. To the 22d Rule an additon has been made: Reconsideration. When any motion or resolution shall have been acted upon by the Conference, it shall be in order for any member who voted with the prevailing side to move a recon- sideration; but a motion to reconsider a nondebatable motion shall be decided without debate. The latter part of the rule was introduced a number of years ago because one of the ablest parliamentarians in the episcopacy decided in favor of a speaker who dis- cussed a motion in a critical debate, and when a member rose to a point of order declared that there was no rule against it. Under the caption of "Voting" there is a law or rule now existing, which is very necessary but is by no means as old as the Constitution of the General Conference : Every member who is within the bar at the time a question Is put shall vote unless the Conference for special reasons ex- cuses him. If such member were to refuse to vote, the General Conference has power to expel him. The contrast between this list of rules and the few that our fathers employed is suggestive and inspiring. A similar process has taken place in the parliamentary rules of the State Legislatures and federal Congress. CHAPTER XLVII Some Decisions by the Bishops I In the General Conference of 1816 Bishop McKendree introduced a foreign element. A motion was made that "the fortieth Article, relative to the previous question, be expunged entire from the rules of the Conference.'' Bangs called for the previous question, and this singular decision was given by Bishop McKendree : "The president was of opinion that it was not in order, on prudential grounds, to put the previous question on a motion which goes to consider the propriety of the previous question itself." II In the General Conference of 1840 a tie appeared on a motion to lay a substitute on the table. The vote stood 62 to 62, and the presiding Bishop, Andrew, voted in the affirmative. Ill In the General Conference of 1840 the report of the Committee on the Episcopacy with respect to increasing the number of Superintendents was taken up. The second resolution was read, the pending motion being to amend by striking out "2" and inserting "1"; a division of the motion was called for, so as to take the question on striking out first. The Conference resolved to take the question without further debate, and the main question being about to be taken, the call for division was renewed. Winans moved to postpone the motion for a division. 369 370 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The point of order was raised in respect to the propriety of such a motion after the main question had been ordered, and the Chair (Bishop Hedding) decided it to be in order to move the postponement of the motion to divide. Bangs took an appeal, the question being, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Con- ference?" It was decided in the negative. The president having decided that the main question had respect to the pending amendment only, Bangs again took an appeal from the decision and it was determined in the negative. It was moved to adopt the whole report as amended. While this was pending a motion was made to amend the report by inserting a resolution in favor of the election and ordination of one Bishop. The president decided it to be in order, "because it was a point the Conference had not acted on when it was determined not to elect two Bishops." From this decision Bangs took an appeal ; and again the decision of the Chair was negatived. IV In 1840 a vote was taken which stood 69 to 69. Bishop Hedding was in the chair, and was called upon to give the casting vote. He declined, "not that he was unwill- ing to give his opinion in the case pending, but because he did not think he had a constitutional right to do so." For this opinion he gave the following reasons : In the original General Conference the Bishops not only had a right to give the casting vote, hut to speak and vote on all subjects if they chose to do so. They had the right, because all traveling preachers who had been in the connection four years had it, and they had the right as traveling preachers; but when the delegated General Conference was constituted that right was taken away — probably not by design, but inadvertently. Under SOME DECISIONS BY THE BISHOPS 371 the arrangement for a delegated General Conference the Dis- cipline has always said, in substance, the General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the Annual Conferences. The Bishops, not being delegates from any Annual Conference, have no right to vote, and, consequently, no right to give a casting vote. The Discipline provides that they shall preside in the General Conference, but it does not provide that they shall vote. The speaker of the House of Representatives in Congress can give the casting vote, because he forms a part of the body, and is elected and sent there as others are. The president of the Senate of the United States has a right to give the casting vote because, though not an elected member, the Constitution gives him that right. If our Constitution had given the Bishops a right to vote, I should now be willing to give the casting vote, but as it does not, I must decline. The biographer of Bishop Hedding, Davis W. Clark, says that the latter "knew that this had been done in several instances when there was a tie in the General Conference." This is an error; only four ties had occurred in the history of the General Conference. These have been mentioned elsewhere; in three of them there was no casting vote, and the only one ever cast was on May 19, 1840, nine days before Bishop Hedding declined to give it. From that time, in the Methodist Episcopal Church or the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, no Bishop has given a casting vote. Rarely is an appeal taken from the decision of a Bishop when presiding in the General Conference, and still more rarely does the Conference sustain the appeal. The reason for this is compound. Many are not versed in parliamentary proceedings ; all revere the General Super- intendents; and usually they ore right in their decisions in the Conference. While there are different degrees of gifts and knowledge for this work among the Bishops, there are several who are past masters in the art: and they can guide and steady the timid or perplexed. 372 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY The late Bishop Fowler, most capable and usually cor- rect in his conclusions, made a decision which led the late Bishop Merrill to approach him from the rear of the plat- form, and at the same time a question came from the floor, "Is the President sure that his decision is correct?" Instantly he responded: "The Chair is not sure at all. He has received light from behind." VII One important question arose in the General Confer- ence of 1880. The preceding Conference had ordered a Committee on "Revising of the Ecclesiastical Code," consisting of nine — three Bishops, three ministers, and three laymen. The Bishops were Harris, Merrill, and Andrews. Bishop Harris was elected chairman. He promptly declined on the ground that a Bishop, not being a member of the General Conference, could not enter the discussions on the floor, and especially, take the advan- tage, given to the chairman of a committee, of making the last speech. The other Bishops agreed with him, and one of the three ministers was elected. In the General Conference of 1884, Bishop Wiley was on a committee, and a question arose as to the right of Bishop Wiley, chairman of the committee, to close the debate. Bishop Hurst decided that he had the right. Thereupon an appeal was taken from the decision of the Chair, "upon the ground that these rules were made for the government of the members of the General Conference, and that Bishop Wiley, not being a member of the General Con- ference, had not the right, under parliamentary rules made solely for the government of members of the body, to close a debate." The appeal was sustained by a large majority. Later as a matter of privilege, Bishop Hurst stated SOME DECISIONS BY THE BISHOPS 373 again the ground of his decision with additions, as follows: The Committee on Cooperation in Church Work is a creature of the General Conference. This body appointed a member from each General Conference district, and directed that the Board of Bishops should designate one of their number besides, who proved to be Bishop Wiley. All these together should constitute the committee. It would seem that Bishop Wiley is as much a member of the committee as any other man on it, because he ■was designated by order of the General Conference. If he were not, it would be clear that the conclusions which the committee reached, and this report, would be of no legal force. To this opinion I must still adhere.' Later the appellant moved that Bishop Wiley be permitted to give an explanation of an item in dispute. It was the judgment of those who sustained the appeal, that, had the decision been sustained, and the assump- tion it contained become settled, a majority could have placed a Bishop at the head of every committee with power to utter the last speech in the debate. 'General Conference Journal. 1884, p. 263. CHAPTER XLVIII Rational Rules and their Rational Use Of all the concise statements of the value of parlia- mentary rules none are clearer than these two. Jefferson, who wrote the first important work in America on parliamentary law, quotes from Mr. Onslow, who was counted "the ablest among the speakers of the House of Commons," as frequently saying that "it was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man, from old and experienced members, that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check, and control, on the actions of the majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power." Jefferson quotes another authority: "It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that thei'e may be a uniformity of proceed- ing in business, not subject to the caprice of the speaker, or capriciousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency, and regularity he preserved in a dignified public body." strict attendance Every member of a General Conference should attend to the business from the beginning to the end of the sessions, tiresome though it may be. No one can foretell 374 RATIONAL RULES AND THEIR RATIONAL USE 375 what may spring up. "The regular order of business, after the reading of the Journal and action thereon, is the calling of the roll of Conferences in alphabetical order for the presentation of appeals, resolutions, and miscellaneous business for immediate consideration." There are one hundred and thirty-five Annual Confer- ences, and this order of business is frequently continued each morning for ten or more working days. A solemn responsibility is placed upon every delegate by his constituents, and is accepted by him. Decisions are settled by majorities, and frequently by a majority of one ; or are lost for the lack of two more votes. Every member also should understand what is going on. Not unfrequently a resolution is put upon its passage and declared lost or carried, and when the president an- nounces the result, then, or later, dissatisfaction arises, and not a few members declare that they did not hear what was going on, or that they were absent. It is the duty of every member to vote. Under no circumstances should he fail to do so, unless he cannot choose between the positive and negative of the resolu- tion. Every member can. if he will, comprehend the proposition presented — if not through the public speeches, by conversation with some one near him who understands the situation. A large number of propositions belong to the class that have to be published in the Daily Advo- cate before being acted upon in the Conference. These should be studied, so that whatever the confusion may be, the meaning of the resolution can be kept before the mind. If not already done, often it would be wise to postpone and print in the Daily Advocate. Besides the regular methods of the Conferences there are two other possible forms of action; and these differ in moral quality. 37G CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY THE "trick" In every legislative body there is room for tricks, which, if not counter-worked, may bring about great dis- aster. Such are common in Legislatures, in the House of Representatives ; sometimes in Senates, and most fre- quently in boards of aldermen in cities under the domina- tion of corrupt officials, or the power of a conscienceless political party leader; under such circumstances money and promises of place play a great part. The "trick," however, sometimes appears in the assemblies and con- ferences of great literary, scientific, artistic, benevolent, and religious societies and in denominational General Assemblies and Conferences. The word "trick" is used in the sense of a device for getting an advantage; a petty artifice; a contrivance, which, if exposed beforehand, would be condemned by all who did not benefit by it. For example : very frequently the Conference assembles slowly in the morning. Some members are quartered at great distances from the place of meeting, and think that if they reach their seats at the close of the reading of the minutes they will be in time for business: also it requires several minutes after recess to resume business. Sometimes those who are anxious to get some report or resolution carried, take advantage of this ordinary situation to gather together all their forces, making a compact not to have any dis- cussion, and thus, in a few minutes, get their motion through, having a majority (perhaps the only way they could have procured it) . Such tactics may justly be called a trick. It is a secret device for getting an advantage, not by positive, but by what may be called negative, deception. The producing of a majority by the manner described, is not so deceitful as it is when the leaders detail some of their friends to engage the opponents of the measure RATIONAL RULES AND THEIR RATIONAL USE 377 in conversation at their hotels so that they shall he absent until after the transaction is safely completed. In a Christian assembly everything should be open and fair. If defeated by the tricks of the unconscientious, the only resource is to secure a reconsideration. STRATEGY The other method is by strategy. Parliamentary law is complex. Each rule has a definite meaning and a definite purpose, and he who understands it and is ca- pable of using it can be in a degree a "master of assem- blies"; and there should be scores of masters in a large assembly such as the General Conference, men who can pilot a resolution safely into the harbor through waves of emotion or fogs of confused ideas. Strategy in war is the science of projecting and direct- ing important military movements or operations, and the skillful management of large bodies of men : and the first derived definition from it is the display or exercise of skill and forethought in carrying out one's plans. In a parliament the exercise of such strategy is open. The motion is made; the body understands its meaning and measures its scope. The strategist may or may not declare what his next move will be, but all the weapons that he can possibly employ lie open to every eye. All the rules are com])rehended in a few fundamental prin- ciples: to push business along; to hold it back when necessary ; to get it out of the way ; to prevent confusion ; to modify by dividing or diminishing or enlarging; to dismiss the assembly. Keeping these elements in view a modicum of common sense will prevent error. The man who uses honorable strategy weighs the result of every motion before he makes it. He perceives the temper of the assembly. If he believes the motion before the house worthy of being debated, but to be in some 378 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY respects defective, he may make a motion to amend; but if there be made an amendment to that amendment, and he has reason to think that the second amendment is of such a nature that the original motion was better without any amendment, and, for reasons, believes that the body will be deceived by the second amendment, and is somewhat tired of the whole debate, he may move to lay all that is before the house on the table. His knowl- edge of the situation and of the temperament of the body enables him to do this; whereas, if he had done it before, it would not have been laid upon the table and the majority of the house would have been antagonistic to anything that he might do. This is strategy, but it is not trickery, for it is as open as the day. In the long roll of parliamentary assemblies presid- ing officers have sometimes been found to be parties to an underhand scheme of action. When only one member addresses the Chair, if he be in order, the pi'esident niust recognize him. But if there be two, he has the necessary right to recognize one, and if a larger number, to select one from it. But he has no right to make promises to men to give them the floor, as against a man holding a view obnoxious to him, if the said man addressed the Chair before any other. In a protracted debate, should a large number rise in unison, the president can choose; he can, if he will descend to it, choose each one from the side of the ques- tion that pleases him. In the history of large assem- blies in the course of years such things have been done. A president of a noble mind would alternate, first recog- nizing a representative of the aiiirmative, and next, one of the negative. This is the case usually in the General Conference. The highest type of man would select the best on each side, and not (as has been the case in some bodies) out of the motley crowd that address the speaker, RATIONAL RULES AND THEIR RATIONAL USE 379 select the best upon the side that he favors, and the weakest of those on the other side. In the contrast it is a pleasing and uplifting spectacle to know the sentiments of a presiding officer and to discover him to be as impartial as a finite being could be in selecting from the number desiring the floor. CHAPTER XLIX "Without Debate" The abhorrence of debate at particular times and for particular purposes is illustrated b.y certain extracts from the Journals of the General Conferences. I General Conference Journal, 1832, May 28: Monday Afternoon Conference met according to adjournment. Bishop Soule in the chair. The Journal of the forenoon was read and approved. The president presented the following written address: The Bishops being desirous of understanding with clearness and certainty the resolution passed by the General Conference at its present session in relation to the episcopal visitations of the Annual Conferences, in the course of the ensuing four years, beg the favor of a vote of the Conference, without debate, in answer to the following questions, viz.: Was it the intention of the General Conference, by the resolu- tion above alluded to, simply to relieve the Bishops from the influence of the resolution passed at the last General Conference on the same subject, and to leave them now at liberty on their joint and several responsibility to make such arrangements among themselves for the entire administration, and for the visitation of the Annual Conferences as they shall judge most conducive to the general good; and without designing to give any direction or advice whether it be or be not expedient for each of the Bishops, in the course of the four years, to visit each of the Annual Conferences, should they themselves find it convenient and practicable, and judge it for the general good so to do? The Conference voted an answer to the above in the affirmative. 380 "WITHOUT DEBATE" 381 II The extracts here presented should be closely read to understand the foregoing. Copied from the General Conference Journal of 1824: May 25, recorded May 28 : Resolved. &c., 4. That it is highly expedient for the General Superintendents, at every session of the General Conference, and as far as to them may appear practicable, in the intervals of the sessions, annually, to meet in council to form their plan of traveling through their charge, whether in a circuit after each other or by dividing the connection into several episcopal de- partments, with one Bishop or more in each department, as to them may appear proper and most conducive to the general good, and the better to enable them fully to perform the great work of their administration in the General Superintendency, and to exchange and unite their views upon all affairs connected with the general interests of the Church. The above resolution was carried, and was not recon- sidered. Ill General Conference Journal, 1828, May 22: Report of the Committee on the Episcopacy The Committee on the Episcopacy begs leave to report: 1. Your committee, after a particular and minute examina- tion respecting the labors and administration of our govern- ment by the episcopacy, finds nothing to condemn but much to applaud. Their labors during the last four years have been arduous, and their attention to duty such as meets the decided approbation of your committee. 2. In any arrangement that the Bishops may think proper to make for their own convenience in the general oversight of the work, we would recommend that each of our Bishops should, if practicable, be known in each of the Annual Conferences once in four years; and that none of our preachers should be kept too long in city stations. This also was carried and not reconsidered. 382 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY IV General Conference Journal, 1832, May 23: 8. Considering the great extent of the work throughout this vast continent, committed to the oversight of the episcopacy, the committee deems it inexpedient to require each of our Bishops to travel throughout the whole of their extensive charges during the recess of the General Conference, and there- fore recommends to the episcopacy to make such an apportion- ment of the work among themselves as shall best suit, in their judgment, most effectually to promote the general good. The journey through the three extracts, from 1824 to 1832, carefully examining the route, will show why the General Superintendents authorized Bishop Soule to ask that the Conference interpret the last of the three actions, without debate. Also the answer desired was furnished. Whether the General Conferences were wrong or right in their desires is not in question here. Those Bishops were godly men, and the Church justly honors their mem- ory. The issue is whether a momentous question should be determined without delate — not by a parliamentary rule made by the house, but by a pressure laid in the form of a request upon the whole Conference. Under the cir- cumstances anyone who had begun to address the Chair would have offended the majority of his brethren and also the episcopacy. NECESSITY AND SUPREME VALUE OF DEBATE There are those who would have all business done by committees or commissions, and are impatient if anyone rises to propound a question to the chairman, and par- ticularly so if the question goes to the center of the sub- ject and awakes in the whole assembly a spirit of inquiry. But those who dislike such a question are often much "WITHOUT DEBATE" 383 more disturbed when a powerful speaker, who has studied the subject, attacks the foundations of the report. John Wesley, even in the early days of his conversa- tional Conferences, at which the majority of the preachers were far below the master in education and experience, was never guilty of this. He heard them for hours and days, and, though he retained and exercised the power of final decision, learned much from the "Conversations," and modified his views whenever he received from others a valuable suggestion. It is not in the nature of human beings possessing great power and having no adequate restriction, to be impartial, just, and tender. Even in the absence of any conscious ambition to rule for rule's sake, the habit would grow strong in proportion to the absence of obstruction or the fear of discomfort. Free debate is the salvation of a free people, in Church or in state. The practice of debate quickens the mind, teaches how to marshal arguments, requires much general or particu- lar preparation : for "he that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." Debate promotes fluency of utterance and increases the susceptibility of being aroused mentally and physically at the same moment. That which represses debate on important subjects fur- nishes armor and builds fortresses for tyrants. HELPS TO EFFECTIVE DEBATE No one should enter into a debate before he has made a thorough examination of the whole subject; otherwise his understanding will be clouded, and he will not know after he has finished what he himself believes. Either in debating or in listening to debates it is unwise to form immovable opinions of the general sub- 384 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ject as the debate progresses. Generally men are identi- fied with one side or the other, and he who has examined the whole subject before unalterably fixing his own judg- ment is able to weigh the arguments brought forth by others. A debater in a Christian assembly — or, indeed, anywhere — should cultivate self-possession. Neither embarrassment nor anger should be allowed for an instant ; no personal allusions, such as charging oppo- nents with sophistry, hypocrisy, or stupidity, no stinging witticisms; everything should be done in good humor. That man is mentally blind and deaf and lame who does not know that men may believe opinions directly opposed to his, yet be as wise and honest as himself. In an assembly invested with important responsibili- ties no one should speak for speaking's sake, or to be seen ; but if any member think that he has something valuable to say, he should utter it. Should another have brought it forward, and some one has assailed it but does not convince a listener familiar with the issue, he should rise and defend it. Where the limit of the speaker's time is but ten minutes, ten pertinent sentences stated clearly may be better than ten times ten. If one is, like Elihu, compelled to speak, full of matter, bursting with sound words, he should view intently the speaker on the floor and discern by his inflection and accent when he is about to cease. Let him not allow a fraction of a second to pass after the speaker has finished before Elihu's voice is heard, and at the same instant let it be perceived that he is on his feet. STANDING COMMITTEES A HELP TO DEBATE The standing committees, as well as the special com- mittees, are governed by the same rules of order which are in practice in the General Conference, so far as they apply to them. It is impossible, for various causes, for "WITHOUT DEBATE" 385 every member of a General Conference of more than eight hundred delegates to speak in that body, and it is much easier to secure the floor in a committee than in the house. So far as possible one who has anything to say that has not been said by others effectively should deliver his senti- ments in the committee. Frequently there is a unity of agreement on important questions ; but on important questions in which there is a division of the sentiment there should be a majority and a minority report. He who is able or learns to speak "in order" in a committee of more than one hundred need not be afraid to address the larger body. Until about forty years ago in the Gen- eral Conference, the allotted time for speakers was fifteen minutes, but it was customary to lengthen the time of luminous debaters indefinitely. The regular time has been reduced to ten minutes, with but few instances of suspending the rule ; therefore the work of the committees should be thorough, and the chairman, who has the last speech, should say much in little; and those who speak in the General Conference should cultivate that method. NECESSARY BUT DANGEROUS RULES The motion to lay on tJie table is nondebatable. The person moving it cannot, if he would, explain why he moves it, nor has anyone the right to ask why he wishes to do it, nor can the president utter a word except to put the motion. It requires only a majority of one. The previous question also admits of no debate, but it does not take the subject out of the touch of the assembly. The reason for it cannot be explained at the time, and the main question must be put. It is not quite so dangerous as the question to lay on the table. If sustained by a vote of two thirds, it brings forward the main question. Under it, it is in order under our rules to move to refer or to recommit, on either of 386 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY which the vote shall be taken without debate. It will allow a division or to lay on the table after the previous question has been ordered. It shall not, however, be in order to move the previous question or to move to lay on the table at the close of a speech in which the pending ques- tion has been discussed. The dangerous possibility is in the fact that chairmen of committees, and members wishing to bring forward other 'business in which they are interested, are frequently ready and hasty to move to lay on the table or to call the previous question for the purpose of getting the subject out of the way, so that the business which the mover and his friends wish to bring forward can be considered. If the first is more important than the second, it may be injurious, and it is often thoughtlessly done. The period near the permanent close of a General Conference is a dangerous time. A member should take as much interest in things not affecting the community or region whence he comes as he does in those of his home country. Relaxed attention is noted frequently in Legislatures and Congresses ; men ascertain at what time that which they stand for particu- larly will be brought forward, and the rest of the time they absent themselves or are listless. The delegate to the General Conference who only pays attention to the things that he thought of before he came will go away without knowing much more than he did when he arrived. The unification in spirit of the Methodist Episcopal Church is to be brought about and maintained only by the fact that the knowledge of one is the knowledge of all, and those who attend with the intention of learning what they can of universal Methodism and the new methods which promise well, will carry away much which will be valuable wherever they go. CHAPTER L An Unpaealleled Free School of Parliajientary Law Our system of government under the Constitution would naturally develop great parliamentarians. A few salient points of character or achievement relating to those who have presided in the General and Annual Con- ferences will serve to show that this is not an unsup- ported estimate. One hundred and sixty-three Annual Conferences, in- cluding Mission Conferences not represented in the General Conference, meet four times each during the in- terim of the General Conferences. One hundred and twenty-five are in the United States, and the rest are scattered throughout the world. The same General Su- perintendents who preside in the General Conferences, preside over the Annual Conferences. In them the General Superintendents have much more control than they have in the General Conferences. They decide questions of law and their decisions must prevail for the session. There is, however, the right of an appeal to the next General Conference. The Bishops can adjourn the Conference after it has been in session one week, and they can compel the Con- ference to sit longer than a week if the Disciplinary re- quirements are not yet met. Thus in four years more than five hundred Conferences are held in at least four hundred towns or cities, all presided over by expert parliamen- tarians. Besides these there are several Missionary Bishops, who — limited to certain foreign missions and the coun- tries wherein the missions are — preside over the Confer- 387 388 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ences in those countries. And once in every quadrennium every Mission over which a Missionary Bishop has charge is administered jointly by a General Superintendent and the Missionary Bishop. A PROCESSION OF GREAT PRESIDING OFFICERS Thomas Coke was impulsive, not suited to presiding in the United States, especially at the time in which he was in this country. Francis Asbury had little use for a code of laws. He did not resemble a president or a moderator; rather a loving but stern father. He lived only eight years after the establishment of the Constitution, and during the greater part of that period he was very ill. A thorough study of his temperament would not allow dissent from the view here taken. William McKendree was a competent parliamentarian, but was conscious of power and sometimes did not show the softness of spirit which would disguise the strong grasp upon the wills of those whom he superintended. Both Asbury and McKendree were lovable men, and the latter had what might be called a "business head." If it is permissible to say that Peter was more impulsive, more liable to speak sharply, and rush hastily into a difficulty, than others of the apostles, or to mark the distinction between John and Paul without reflecting upon their characters and religious standing, it is allow- able to believe to-day neither Asbury nor McKendree would be able by the same methods and spirit, to con- trol the Church which they erected. In fact, they lived at a period between the undeveloped Church and one thoroughly settled. Richard Whatcoat — so kind, so amiable, so sincere and so grave — was accepted as a president, and venerated. Robert R. Roberts was a man with a strong but not A FREE SCHOOL OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW 389 rapidly moving mind, and a large and sympathetic heart. Possessed of tact and executive ability, he presided with mildness, propriety, and dignity. He was calm, prompt, and impartial, but thoroughly decided and firm. In every respect, mentally and morally, he was fit to be one of a number of Bishops, cotemporaneously performing the duties of the itinerant General Superintendency. Enoch George had no taste for systems of rules. His soul was filled with religious fervor. He was always in haste to dispatch business. Except in faith, hope, and love, which both experienced, there was little similaiity between George and McKendree. A MASTERFUL RULER APPEARS AMONG THE BISHOPS Not until Joshua Soule arrived was there a parlia- mentarian of the highest type. His majesty, manner, and strength overcame common minds and interested the more able. His resoluteness, attention to business, and knowledge of the meaning of every rule made him capable of commanding an audience to work his will. Where he presided lawyers and judges would visit the Conference to observe his management. Some of them smiled but not with the smile of scorn, for they perceived that he had a grasp of his subject — a grasp upon the rules and a grasp upon the Conference.^ Elijah Hedding was an all-round presiding ofBcer, dignified, benign, firm when resisted, and in personal religion simple as a child. He gave every function of his position its true place, drew good men to him, without severity reproved the frivolous among young ministers and cheered the aged. John Emory was eminently qualified for presiding. He had risen to a successful practice of the law when 'Joshua Soule and James O. Andrew spent their later years as Bishops in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 390 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY he began to devote his life to the service of the Church. "After his election to the episcopacy he was appointed to preside at the closing session of the same General Con- ference. He promptly repressed the confusion which arose, as it always does at such times, securing the me- thodical and satisfactory transaction of the business re- maining to be adjusted." He died before he could disclose all his strength. James O. Andrew represented his section at its best. He was loved, and his manner, skill, and devotion to his duty and respect for his office endeared him to his con- temporaries in the episcopacy, the ministry, and the laity. Beverly Waugh blended good sense and self-possession in a manner which added greatly to assist his presidency. During the antislavery conflict he was designated to preside over the New England Conference, and was asked if he would allow memorials to be presented on the sub- ject of slavery. He asked time for consideration, and had an interview first with the older and more conserva- tive preachers, and, secondly, in an epistolary way, with those who wished to introduce the memorials. He con- cluded to rule the motion our of order, and after giving his reasons, said : "And now, brethren and fellow laborers, allow me most affectionately to address you for a moment. I rei)eat that T very much regret the necessity which has urged me to this decision ; but I beg you to believe that in the best light which I have been able to obtain it becomes my imperious duty to take this ground. Let this not produce any unpleasant personal feeling toward each other. I need not say that I believe you are most conscientious, and, of course, you will adopt the motion. Let us be lovers one of another while we prosecute our calling in the work." Before the close of the session, on motion of two lead- ing Abolitionist brethren, he was thanked for his digni- A FREE SCHOOL OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW 391 fied, able, impartial presidency and invited to visit them whenever it might be practicable. Thomas A. Morris was not a failure as a General Superintendent. The common people met, heard, and obeyed gladly. He had some of the elements which gave Benjamin Franklin his popularity. Many are the inci- dents repeated by the very aged, of his crisp sentences and his paternal aspect as he uttered them. His judg- ment also was sound; he was adapted to his time, and lived to a great age. Of Leonidas L. Hamline, Thomas M. Eddy, who knew him, wrote that "his rulings on points of order were ready, and rarely controverted ; without parliamentary finesse he had thoroughly mastered parliamentary detail. His decisions on law points were clear. His judicial training had strengthened his natural legal turn of mind." As he was ill during the years of his episcopacy, he fell into various eccentricities, yet when able to preside he performed his work perfectly so far as his deciding par- liamentary questions was concerned. As an orator, few equaled him. Edmund S. Janes was one of the master presidents. In his twentieth year he began the study of law and was admitted to the bar. In the first four years of his min- istry he exhibited business qualities of a high order and spirit and a singular clearness of statement which made intricate financial questions intelligible. This led to his being appointed agent for Dickinson College, and the same qualities which secured this appointment caused his selection as financial secretary of the American Bible Society. This position he filled till his election, in 1844, to the office of Bishop. His power of attention was extraordinary. He had a strong will and was of great readiness in speech. He had a high estimate of his powers, responsibilities, and the prerogatives of his office. 392 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY No labyiiutb of debate was too iulricatc for him to unravel. Levi Scott was a godly man, an unaffected friend, and a business parliamentarian ; he could have presided in any Legislature with efficiency. Matthew Simpson was a president rarely, if ever, disturbed or entangled. His Celtic ancestry, however, caused him to thrust back vehemently any impu- tation upon his fairness. One of the best of men, distinguished and courteous, was interested in the com- position of a committee. The Bishop appointed its members, and the gentleman referred to, intimated that the committee had been "packed." Instantly Bishop Simpson, with flushed face and intensity of voice, demanded that those words be recanted. As the speaker had not for an instant thought that Bishop Simpson would pack a committee in the ordinary way, but had used that expression to show that one side of the case had a large proportion of the committee, he easily satis- fled the Bishop's feelings. Bishop Simpson dispi'oved the saying that a great orator is never a good presiding officer. Osmon C. Baker was a noteworthy officer when all was peaceful, and, as his gentle spirit spread throughout the Conferences, peace generally prevailed. His balanced judgment, his delicacy and refinement, made him a superior president and cabinet officer. L. D. Barrows, himself a master of parliamentary law, and an author upon the subject, declared that none were his superiors in parliamentary usage. Edward R. Ames had a powerful personality. His biographer declares that he had the governmental faculty in excess. He also was truly a master of assemblies. Tliough he sometimes showed an austere countenance and indulged a stinging wit, and, as the consequence, was A FREE SCHOOL OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW 393 occasionally spoken of as having the spirit of a despot, beneath all these symptoms there was a heart; and when he had overdone the pressure upon a Conference he would sometimes make an apology that went to the hearts of all the assembly. A modest, but very intelligent minister, who rarely took part in Conference discussions, presented a motion relating to a method of procedure. Bishop Ames peremptorily said : "The Conference ought not have its time wasted. That is not necessary. It ought to be done in such a way." The Conference was amazed and indignant that such a man should receive so curt an answer. But, probably for the first time in his life he rose to a height which caused all sense of diflSdence to disappear. With decision he said, "I did not make the motion to elicit the opinion of the Chair, but to ascertain the mind of the Conference." Instantly Bishop Ames said, "You are right, brother; I will put the motion at once." Davis W. Clark rose not from extreme poverty but from a home which required him to make his own way in the world. He was self-made in the best sense, and discerning his intellectual needs, he turned to the seminary and the college. By genuine work he excelled in the various spheres of minister, principal, and editor. After having been elected it was soon evident that he would not err in deciding points of order or allow disorder. For some years he was a neighbor of Bishop Hedding, and from him received much information otherwise unattainable. He seemed also to have been imbued with the spirit of that godly man. Sent forth as Bishop during the Civil War, he exhibited great skill in readjusting disturbed Confer- ences and founding others. Edward Thomson, classic in tastes, gentle without losing strength, loved by students, a writer of fame, without special powers of control in the General Con- 394 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ference or the Annual Conference, won reverence and elevated in thought and feeling all who heard his strong, spiritual, and poetical sermons and addresses to the young ministers. Calvin Kingsley had peculiarities which gave him a distinct personality, but were of great advantage to him both as an educator and as General Superintendent. He had remarkable powers of debate. Far from the country of his birth, he died on a missionary tour. Travelers in Syria visit his grave at Beirut, and will prolong his memory for centuries. William L. Harris had no superior in knowledge of parliamentary law. Having been secretary of the General Conference for several terms before he was elected to the episcopacy, he had every opi)ortunity to perfect himself in the functions of a moderator of a great assembly; and wherever he went it was evident that he was a man for any emergency. Randolph S. Foster was a man apart. Gi-eat thoughts and great words occupied his mind, his tongue, and his hands. His presence commanded order. Where another would have been troubled by confusion which he could not compose. Bishop Foster's look would calm the storm. Only when he became irritated and attempted to rebuke the causes of it did he lose command. Isaac W. Wiley was cultured, fit for any place calling for clear thinking and forceful speaking. Some thought him cold, but it was only on the surface. His friends compared his style with that of Addison. From chronic illness he suffered much and died in China, where in his earlier years he had been a medical missionary. His manner and knowledge of parliamentary rules enabled him to excel in preserving order and system. Stephen M. Merrill was qualified by nature to investi- gate causes, measures, and weigh propositions, so that A FREE SCHOOL OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW 395 when he grew to manhood he readily took to reading and mastering historical works. The same qualities and tendencies aided him in the study of systematic theology. He made a specialty of parliamentary law and became the mentor of several of his colleagues. Unique in the episco- pacy, he wielded much influence. Edward G. Andrews was thoroughly educated, an alumnus of Wesleyan University, and afterward principal of a preparatory school, which under his control exerted marked influence in western New York. At the time of his election he was, and had been for some years, in churches capable of reacting for good upon their pastor. Almost as soon as he was ordained he began anew to study the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and in less than four yeai's he had no superior in influence in the episcopacy. For thirty-two years he filled the po- sition with constant success, and after he ceased to visit the Conferences he was a counselor to many, a forceful writer, and a much-sought preacher, attending all the meetings of the Boards, of which he was a member. Gilbert Haven was evidently a genius, with a mind quick as lightning to see, and a tongue to speak the thought. To attempt to describe him as a president is to attempt the impossible. It was supposed by some that his becoming a General Superintendent might introduce elements of unrest or conflict, but, without losing his characteristics, he became a suggestor of good projects and an industrious performer of his routine duty. Jesse T. Peck on occasions rose to the highest concep- tion of the presiding officer. Ordinarily he indulged his remarkable facility of speech to an excess. He was sixty- one years of age when he was elected Bishop, and was already showing signs of lessening vigor; but with much industry he discharged his oflScial obligations. Fre- quently he delivered addresses and sermons with such 396 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY eloquence that the assembly forgot his feebleness. In the Ecumenical Conference held in London in 1881, two years before his death, he received deservedly high honor for the manner in which he presided. Cyrus D. Foss was a careful, consistent, and command- ing presiding officer. At no time did he lower the stand- ard of the best of his gredecessors. His thorough educa- tion, his many years in Brooklyn and the city of New York, and his presidency of Wesleyan University for several years, were preparing him for this position which touches every constituent of Christianity. John F. Hurst, when his mind was intent upon the situation, was equal to the normal conditions and to most of the emergencies of the General Conference and the Annual Conferences. In the latter he was sometimes abstracted when routine business was slowly moving on, especially after he assumed the presidency of the Ameri- can University and was flooded with letters. His wide knowledge, his residence in Germany in the Martin Mission Institute for several years, and his presidency of Drew Theological Seminary all combined to make him a useful member of the Board of Bishops. Erastus O. Haven lived but a few months after his election. He was in his sixtieth year when he entered the Board, but his adaptive power was great and he could not, when well, fail or become entangled in the work assigned him. He began his episcopal career with the greatest zeal and wherever he went he was welcomed. The editorship of Zion's Herald for several years, the presidency of the University of Michigan and of the North- western University, also the office of chancellor of Syra- cuse University, besides being eight years secretary of the Board of Education, qualified him to understand the needs of every part of the United States. William X. Ninde, much of a dreamer in the best sense. A FREE SCHOOL OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW 397 often abstractedly thinking in the midst of confusion, and not notable for self-manifestation, was expected by some to become embarrassed in ruling an immense assem- bly; but from the first he was perfect in the presidency; this was the result of close study of parliamentary law after his election to the episcopacy. He was elected be- cause of his cultivation, courtesy, and spotless piety. After he began to travel throughout the United States in the discharge of his duty, preaching to great concourses, and called upon to speak in every form of meeting, he became a powerful orator; perfect in his former method, he became so in his latter. Willard F. Mallalieu, as his French oiigin might sug- gest, was subject to an accession of emotional warmth, usually of a spiritual nature, but sometimes of criticism or condemnation. There were various classes whose views and works were not in harmony with his sentiments and principles. He was firm in many opinions and dewted to evangelism. To his friends he was most agreeable, and when he became aware of having wounded the feelings of others he was effusive in making peace. As a president he was generally liked, and reached the hearts of many. Parliamentary practice was not one of his chief studies, but his common sense and experience guided him through thickets of motions. Charles H. Fowler possessed a variety of gifts and was always accorded attention when presiding. His native wit, unusual quickness in forming a judgment; resolution, and power of condensing his opinions into Anglo-Saxon words made him all sufficient. If a suggestion were made that his decision was incorrect, or might be so, he listened with interest, and, if convinced, acquiesced ; but if the criticism proved to be wrong, the interrupter was liable to receive a good-humored rebuff. James N. FitzGerald, a lawyer before he entered the 398 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ministry, was of the type who give extraordinary atten- tion to the letter of the rule, and careless debaters and motion-makers were in danger when he presided. His mind was also clear upon all subjects with which he dealt. While presiding he was closely attentive to business and in his manner would have graced any judge's bench. When in good health he left nothing undone that could be reasonably expected from him. Isaac W. Joyce was a preacher and an evangelist by temperament and practice. He was elected because his constituents believed that such a man was needed at that time in the episcopacy. Those who did not know him accepted the testimony of those who knew him well. He proved their prognostication true, and more. As a pre- siding oflScer he was of average capability among his colleagues, and left a savor of the spirit of Christian work behind him when he departed. There was one peculiarity in his preaching: when in the mood, and all things were favorable, he became capable of preaching to the Annual Conference with extraordinary effect. He believed that God inspired him, and under such circumstances all fear, anxiety, or loss of words disappeared. John P. Newman. This noted orator had but a few years to display his competency in the episcopacy. He was known throughout the country. His chaplaincy in the Senate of the United States, his many years of ministry in Washington, his tour around the world under an important commission from the President, his re- markable report on his return, which disappointed those critics who declared that he would not bring home any- thing of worth from afar, caused many to flock to hear him when preaching at the Conferences and presiding in deliberations and also in the few General Conferences occurring before his death. He had had little executive ex- perience, and in view of the fact that the oratorical tern- A FREE SCHOOL OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW 399 perament and action had controlled him all his life, it was a wonder to many that he performed the duties of the episcopacy as well as he did. Daniel A. Goodsell gave great promise of success from the first. His form was imposing, his voice musical, and his mental faculties and acquirements were adequate to any task. Nor was this anticipation a dream. From 1888 to 1909 he filled the position of General Superin- tendent, and discharged its responsibilities in some re- spects in an unusual manner, and all of them without failure. As preacher, writer, occasional speaker, careful in forming judgments and wary in publishing them, he justified the eulogy given to him of being "every inch a Bishop." Charles C. McCabe resembled none of his predecessors or successors in the episcopacy. Endowed with a voice clear and sweet, filled with sympathy and love, impulsive as a child, and sometimes as penetrating and wise as Abraham Lincoln, he so disliked rules that, while he re- membered everything else, he frequently forgot them. He cannot be delineated or paralleled. He was loved by ministers and laymen and the Annual Conferences often begged with unusual warmth that he might be sent to them again. He succeeded in part because there was none like him ; he promoted happiness and good cheer every- where and did great good in his day and generation. Henry Spellmeyer was well educated. All his public career was in the pastorate. He was so admired and loved that he was frequently recalled to his charges, all of which were within a small area. After being appointed to important positions he was elected largely for his ability showTi in the conduct of an important denomina- tional responsibility while yet a pastor. He proved a precise and concise Bishop. He never forgot; he never lost his self-control, and everywhere honored the Church 400 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY of Christ, aud in particular that part of it known as the Methodist Episcopal Church, These are they with whom the Church intrusted its deepest, broadest, and most grave responsibility, and who have died in its service. It is not in mortal man to be perfect, as was the Master and Lord. But these faithfully labored in his vineyard, and it brought forth fruit unto eternal life. From their labors they rest; and the remembrance of them is a perpetual blessing to the Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY The Journals of the General Conferences. The successive Disciplines of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Minutes of the early Annual Conferences. Early volumes of the Methodist Review, The Christian Advocate, and Zion's Herald. Alexander, Gross. History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Vol. XI American Church History Series. Asbury, Francis. Journal. Three Vols. New York, Lane & Scott, 1852. Atkinson, John. Centennial History of American Methodism. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1884. Baker, Osmon C. A Guide-Book in the Administration of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, Nelson & Phillips, 1878. Bangs, Nathan. A History of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Twelfth edition, revised and corrected. Four Vols. New York, Carlton & Porter, 1860. Life of the Rev. Freeborn Garrettson, Compiled from His Printed and Manuscript Jour- nals and other Authentic Documents. Fifth edition. New York, Carlton & Porter. Bascom, H. B. Methodism and Slavery. Appeal of the Southern Commissioners. Nashville, Tennessee, Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1846. Bond, Thomas E. Economy of Methodism Illustrated and De- fended. Appeal to Methodists. Clark, D. W. Life and Times of Rev. Elijah Hedding, D.D. New York, Carlton & Phillips, 1855. Crooks, George R. Life of Bishop Mattheio Simpson, of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church. Harper & Brothers, 1890. Drinkhouse, Edward J. History of Methodist Reform. Two Vols. Board of Publication of the Methodist Protestant Church, 1899. Drew, Samuel. The Life of the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D. New York, J. Soule & T. Mason. 1818. Emory, John. A Defense of "Our Fathers." and of the Original Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, Carlton & Porter. 403 404 CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY Emory, Robert. History of the Discipline of the Methodist Epis- copal Church. Revised and brought down to 1856 by W. P. Strickland. New York, Carlton & Porter. Flood, Tlieodore L., and John W. Hamilton (editors). Lives of Methodist Bishops. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1882. Hamline, L. L. Sermons and Miscellaneous Works. Harris, William L. The Constitutional Powers of the General Conference, with a Special Application to the Subject of Slaveholding. Cincinnati, 1860. Hibbard, F. G. Biography of Rev. Leonidas L. Hamline, D.D. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1880. Lednum, John. History of the Rise and Progress of Methodism in America, 1859. Lee, Jesse. A Short History of the Methodists in the United States of America. Baltimore, 1810. Lee, Leroy M. Life of Jesse Lee. McCaine, Alexander. History and Mystery of Methodist Epis- copacy. McTyeire, Holland N. A History of Methodism. Nashville, Tennessee, Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1884. Matlack, Lucius C. The History of American Slavery and Meth- odism from 1780 to IS'fi, and History of the Wesleyan Con- nection of America. Two Parts. New York, 1849. The Anti- Slavery Struggle and Triumphs in the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1881. Merrill, S. M. A Digest of Methodist Law. Cincinnati, Cranston & Stowe. Mitchell, James. Life and Times of Levi Scott. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1885. Neely, Thomas B. The Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1888. A History of the Origin and Development of the Governing Conference in Methodism. Cincinnati and New York, 1892. Paine, Robert. Life and Times of William McEendree. Two Vols. Southern Methodist Publishing House, Nashville, Tennessee, 1874. Phoebus, William. Memoirs of Bishop Whatcoat. Phoebus, George A. Beams of Light on Early Methodism in America. New York, Phillips & Hunt, 1887. Porter, James. A Comprehensive History of Methodism. New York, Phillips & Hunt. BIBLIOGRAPHY 405 Redford, A. H. History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1871. Ryerson, Egerton. Canadian Methodism; Its Epochs and Char- acteristics. Toronto, 1882. Sherman, David. History of the Revisions of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Third edition. New York, Hunt & Eaton, 1890. Simpson, Matthew. Cyclopedia of Methodism. Philadelphia. Everts & Stewart, 1878. One Hundred Years of Methodism. Smith, George G. The Life and Letters of James Osgood Andrew. Nashville, Tennessee, Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1882. Stevens, Abel. History of Methodism. Three Vols. New York, Carlton & Porter, 1858. Life and Times of Nathan Bangs, D.D. New York, Carlton & Porter, 1863. History of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, Carlton & Porter, 1864. The Centenary of American Methodism. New York, 1866. Supplementary History of American Methodism. Strickland, W. P. The Pioneer Bishop; or. Life and Times of Francis Asbury. New York, 1858. Tigert, John J. A Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Nash- ville, Tennessee, Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Tyerman, L. The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., the Founder of the Methodists. Three Vols. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1870. Wakeley, J. B. Lost Chapters Recovered from the Early History of American Methodism. New York, Wilbur B. Ketcham. Ware, Thomas. Sketches of his otcn Life and Travels. New York, 1839. Wesley, John. Works. Seven Vols. New York, Carlton & Porter, 1856. Note. — The foregoing catalogue includes but a minority of the volumes consulted in the preparation of this work. INDEX Adams, Thomas, cited, 178 Africa, mission in, 222; discussion of in Episcopal Address of 1856, 222; argument concerning, 223; vote of Conference relative to, 226 Ames, Edward R., cited, 287, 291, 392 Andrew, James O., cited, 192; connection of with slavery, 258; his explanation of, 258; re- quested to resign office of Bishop, 259; defense of him- self, 263; proposition to defer his case, 265; status of voted by General Conference, 272; re- ported on by committee of nine, 272; address of to pubhc, 277; Bishop Soule's invitation to, 277; cited, 390 Andrews, Edward G., cited, 395 Articles of Religion of Church of England, nimaber of reduced, 50 Asbury, Francis, birth of, 13; missionary to United States, 13; views of, 14; appointed Assistant, 14; cited, 16; Journal of, quoted, 18, 20, 23, 28, 30, 55, 61, 70, 71, 73, 96; removal of from Baltimore to New York, 20; ilhiess of, 20; seclu- sion of, 24; his Baltimore Con- ference, 27; elected Superin- tendent, 48; ordained deacon, 49; just claim to prominence of, 116; hardships of in travel- ing, 194; cited, 388 Atkinson, John, cited, 47 Baker, Osmon C, entrance of into ministry, 203; quoted, 203; cited, 204, 227, 291, 295, 392 Bangs, Nathan, quoted, 12, 53, 57, 60, 65, 96, 109, 116, 130, 186, 231, 241, 242, 243, 245, 268, 339, 345, 346; cited, 101, 107 Baptists, the, cited, 22, 37 Bascom, Henry B., protest of, 271 Beale, OUver, cited, 107 Bell, Thomas, cited, 12 "Binding minute," the, 50; up- held by Coke, 54 Bishop, first use of term, 56; not of "divine origin," 176; use of term by American Methodists, 182; duties of a, 195; powers of a when presiding in General Conference, 202; amenabihty of, 209; provision of Discipline re- garding, 211; resignation of a, 212; life tenure of a, 216; mis- sionary, 222; proposed veto power for, 348-352 "Bishops for races and languages," 354-356 Black, WiUiam, cited, 43 Boardman, Richard, cited, 13, 14, 16, 19 Boehm, Henry, cited, 102 Book Concern, cited, 90 Boundaries of Conferences, estab- hshed, 81; reasons for en- larging, 82 Bowman, Thomas, quoted, 198 Boyer, Caleb, cited, 47 Branch, Thomas, cited, 110 408 INDEX Bruce, Philip, cited, 102, 105, 110 Burke, William, cited, 105, 111 Burns, Francis, elected Bishop, 226, ordained, 227 Burwash, Dr., quoted, 167 Canada, unsatisfactory state of affairs in, 241; adjustment of diflficulties in, 243; claims of relative to Book Concern, 245 Capers, William, appeal of, 257; resolutions introduced by, 270 Cartwright, Peter, quoted, 120, 126, 265, 302 Cassell, Leonard, cited, 110 Chandler, William P., cited, 102 Chartered Fund, establishment of, 83; cited, 90 "Christmas Conference," mem- bers of, 47; proceedings of, 47; not a General Conference, 64 Church in the making, a, 44 Clark, Davis W., quoted, 109; cited, 294, 302, 393 Clergy, English Church, return of to England during Revolution, 37 Coate, Samuel, cited, 112 Coke, Thomas, discussed, 38; invited to confer with Wesley, 39; ordained Superintendent, 40; arrival in America, 42; pre- siding officer at "Christmas Conference," 47; elected Su- perintendent, 48; administra- tion of criticized, 52; letter of to General Conference of 1808, 65; settUng the status of, 83; departure of to preside over English Conference, 86; ap- pearance of at Perry Hall, 174; proposition of regarding ar- rangement of Conference, 202; motions of concerning rules, 362; cited, 388 Colbert, Rev. William, cited, 84; quoted, 85 Cole, LeRoy, cited, 47 Comfort, Silas, cited, 254 Conference, Methodist, origin of, 6; when first called, 6; com- position of, 6; English minutes of, 13; date of first American, 16; date of second, 19; session of 1778, 23; of 1781, 30; ses- sions of 1782, 34; of 1783, 34; twelfth session of, 35 Conferences, Annual, number and times of meeting, 387 Conflict, first ecclesiastical, 24 Constitution, written, creation of, 119; the word, 121; differences between that of Church and the United States, 133; inter- pretation of separate parts of, 137; on ministerial delegates, re- vised, 145; revision of, 321; un- successful attempts to change, 327 Controversies, between Church and seceders, 129 Cooper, Ezekiel, cited, 91, 101,105, 107, 112, 116; quoted, 340-343 Council, the, establishment of, 58; first sitting of, 60; second meet- ing of, 61; a danger to Hberties of the people, 63; objections of Lee answered by, 63 Council of Trent, action of, 171 Country, agitated state of, 33 Creighton, James, cited, 40 Cromwell, James O., cited, 47 Crowder, Thomas, quoted, 260 Day, James R., ordination as Bishop declined by, 213 INDEX 400 Debate, abhorrence of, 380; "with- out debate" illustrated, 380-381) Decisions, by Bishops, 3li!l-373 Declaration and protest from Southern delegates, 270; reply to, 275 Deed of settlement for churches, 83 Delegates, reserve, first appear- ance of, 364 Dickins, John, cited, 23, 2S, 30, 42 Disagreements, 19 Discipline, the, perfecting of, 47; revision of, 00; "notes" on, 124; adoption of, 103; chapter in on slavery changed, 288 District Conferences, series of, 64 Donaldson, Stephen, cited, 173 Draper, Samuel, cited, 107 Dromgoole, Edward, cited, 28, 47 Ellis, Reuben, cited, 2S, 47 Embury, Philip, cited, 8; preach- ing success of, 9 Emigrants, arrival of in New York, 8 Emory, John, quoted, 186; cited, 389' Episcopacy, Methodist, derived from John Wesley, 173; de- fended, 184; different from that of "third order," 188; how it could be abolished, 189; vindi- cation of ordered prepared, 191; consideration of by Bishops, 191 Everett, Joseph, cited, 47 Fisk, Wilbur, ordination as Bishop declined by, 213; cited, 2.52 FitzGerald, James N., cited, 397 Fletcher, John, cited, 40 FoUeson, James, cited, 95 Fonerden, Adam, cited, 173 Forest, Jonathan, cited, 47 Foss, Cyrus D., cited, 390 Foster, Randolph S., cited, 394 Fowler, Charles II., cited, 397 Friends, Society of, citeil, 22 (Jarrettson, Freeborn, receivetl on trial, 20; cited, 28, 31, 43, 47, 101, 237; quoted, 30, 32. 53 (jarrison, William Lloyd, opposi. tion of to slavery, 251 Gatch, Journal of quoted. 22 General Conference, first regular, 64; origin of. 65; relation of Coke to, 65; attitude of Asbuiy toward, 66; when and where held, 67; made permanent. 68; action of concerning Bishops. 68; law-making power trans- ferred to, 69; session of 1796, 81; Journal of ordered pub- lished, 86; session of 1800, 87; session of 1804, 89; dis.satisfac- tion with composition of. 93; inequality of, 03; steps leading to delegated form of, 94; last non-dele,gated, 101 ; great leaders in, 101; concerning perpetua- tion of, 102; momentous tran-s- actions of, 104; method of call- ing a special, 148; power of to depose a Bishop, 123; Coast i- tution of, 128; essentials of a constitutional, 139; changes in ratio of representation in, 140; questions of "seniority" in, 144: dates of convening regulai-, 146; suitability of May for, 147; ready for business, 151; "pow- ers" of, 152; qiionmi in, 152; presidency of, 153; powers re- served by, 199; question of eUgibility of women to seats in, 410 INDEX 309; seats in of four women elected declined, 1513; equal rep- resentation in demanded, 314; such representation in secuied, 317; difficulties of session of 1844, 353; peculiar close of ses- sion of 1812, 365; strict at- tendance in a duty, 374 General Superintendency, a re- vered office, 221 (ieorge, Enoch, cited, 102, 110, 389 cm, William, cited, 47 (ilendenning, WilUam, cited, 47; opposition of to Asbury, 70 (loodsell, Daniel A., cited, 3!)'.) (ioucher, John F., cited, 173 (Ireat presiding officers, proces- sion of, 388-400 Green, A. L. P., cited, 282 Green, Lemuel, cited, 47 (jTuber, Jacob, cited, S!) llaggerty, Jolm, cited, 47 Iliiine, John, cited, 15 llaralii\e, Leonidas Lent, resigna- tion of as Bishop tendered, 214; resignation of accepted, 216; quoted, 217, 263; speech of relative to Andrew, 262; argu- ments of attacked, 262; cited, 391 Hammett, William, secession of, 80 Harding, F. A., appeal of, 257 Harris, William L., quoted, 134; cited, 394 Haven, Erastus O., cited, 30(1 Haven, Gilbert, cited, 395 Hazardous experiment, a, 58 Heck, Barbara, cited, 8, 11 Hedding, Elijah, cited, 101, 108, 192, 244, 260, 389; value of notes of, 203 Hitt, Daniel, cited, 112 Hurst, John F., cited, 396 Indorsements, 103 Itinerant General Superintend- ency, 170 Ivey, Richard, cited, 47 Janes, Edmimd S., cited, 287, 391 Jefferson, Thomus, on parliamen- tary law, 374 John Street, site leased in, 10; place of Coke's first sermon, 42 Joj'ce, Isaac W., cited, 398 Kendall, David, cited, 237 King, John, cited, 13, 14, 16 Kingsley, Calvin, cited, 394 Kobler, Rev. John, cited, 84 Lambert, Jeremiah, cited, 47 Law, parliamentary, the "trick" in, 376; strategy in, 377; un- paralleled free school of, 387 Lay delegation, 290, 298, 307, 312; sentiment concerning in 1852-56, 291; question referred to committee, 292; first "stand- ing committee" on, 292; com- mittee of three relative to, 294 ; convention of advocates of, 294 ; division of popular will con- cerning, 296; preamljle and resolution dealing with, 297; personnel of conflicting depu- tations of, 298; view of eminent Methodists on, 303; votes in Annual Conferences on, 304, 305; plan relative to, 305; new problem concerning, 307; re- lationship of women to, 308 Lee, Jesse, quoted, 19, 22, 26, 31, 34, 69, 84, 98, 212, 360; treat- INDEX 411 ment of, 63; cited, 102, 105, 109; motion of regarding rules, 362 Lee, L. M., quoted, 104, 111 Legislation, equitable methods of, 93 "Log Meeting House," cited, 11 Lord's Supper, the, question con- cerning, 22 Losee, William, oiled, 237 Mallalieu, Willard F., cited. 3!)7 Mather, Alexander, cited, 1.5 Maxfield, Thomas, quoted, 38 McCabe, Charles C, cited, 300 McCIaskey, John, cited, 87, 92, 102, 105, 108, 115, 116 McCHntock, John, cited, IKi McFerrin, J. B., resolution offered by, 271 McKendree, William, cited, 72, 96, 101, 102, 105, 388; influenced by O'Kelly, 77; quoted, 7S, 203; rlectetl IMshop, 117; addressed in Conference by I3isliop As- bury, 202; certificate of ordi- nation of, 219; address of to all Annual Conferences, 243; pure motives of, 344 McMahon, Mrs. Mattic, letter of, 320 McTyeire, Holland N., quoted, 187; cited, 190; on Plan of Separation, 279 Merrill, Stephen M., quoted, 134, 204, 205, 207, 301 ; cited, 394 Methodism, Wesleyan, in Amer- ica, 8; important personages in origin of, 11; American, organ- ized, 16; foundations of, 17; rules governing in America, 17; progressive spirit of, 237; en- tanglements in Canadian branch of, 238 "Methodist," an opprobrious term, 3; awakening in England, 8 Methodist Episcopal Church, or- ganization of, 37, 47; initial years of, 51 ; episcopacy of, 171 ; separation of Canadian Meth- odism from. 237; bisection of. 249, 256. 265. 277; Northern secession from. 256 Methodist Episcopal Churcli. South, establishment of, 277: invitation of to Bishops Soule and Andrew, 27S Methodist Magnzine. The, estab- lishment of, S3; quoted, 180 Methodist Protestant Church, cited, 217 Methodist Quarterly Review, ar- ticle from, 267 Methodists, faith of, 168 Ministers' and Laymen's Union, establishment of, 287; object of, 287 Morris, Thomas A., cited, 192, 256, 278, 287, 391; quoted, 266 Neely, Thomas B., cited, 306; valuable information by, 232; minority report presented by, 313 Newman, John P., cited, 398 Ninde, William X., cited, 396 Office of presiding elder, appear- ance of, 51 O'Kelly, James, cited, 47; con- flict of with Asbury, 65; defeat and secession of, 70; results of the division made by, 75; Church founded by, 76; war of pamphlets concerning, 78; her- esy of, 79; protracted terra of as presiding elder, 197 412 INDEX Olin, Stephen, cited, 261 Omission, unfortunate, 29 Organization, beginnings of, 359 Ostrander, Daniel, cited, 108, 112, IK) Otterbcin, William, cited, 49 Owens, Richard, cited, 11 Paine, Bishop, cited, 9(i. IJol; quoted, 98, 109, :i.>l Parliamentary history, ;5.')7 Pawson, John, quoted, ISO Peck, Jesse T., cited, 262, :59.) Phccbus, Rev. William, (juotcd, 86; cited, 47, 105 Pickering, George, cited, 101, 105, 110, 111 Pierce, George 1''., c|uotefl, 261; views of antagonized, 262 Pierce, Lovick, cited, 25!) Pigman, Ignatius, cited, 47 Pilmoor, Joseph, cited, i:>, 14, 16, 19 Porter, James, (puitctl, ■_'()7 Poythress, ]'"i-anois, cited, 47 Preachers, I'^nglish, unpopularity of, 21 ; self-ordained, 25; ^idinin- istration of saci'ameiit.-: liy, 2() Presbyterians, cited, 22, :57 Presbyterian Church, g(j\ crnment of rence action on, :}:?S: fm-liier legislation on, m5; Hnngs' summary of do- bate on, H45: final disposition of question of, 817 Property, Church, question of ad- justment, 279; conditional reso- lution concerning, 280; begin- ning of litigation, 280; suit relative to, 281; case taken to Supreme Court, 282; decision of Court, 283; pro rata division of ordered, 285; bitterness of liti- gants concerning, 286 Proviso, the, for changing the Restricti\'e Rules, 230 Randle, Josias, cited, 105 Rankin, Thomas, conversion of, 15; arrival of in America, 15; appointed Superintendent, 15; credentials of, 16; vigorous ad- ministration of, 19 Reed, Nelson, cited, 47, 102, 105, 111 Reformation, Protestant, ques- tions raised by, 171 Regulations, committee to frame, 105 Restrictive Rule, the First, 157; the Third, 170, 184, 193, 201, 209, 222; resolution to enlarge the Third, cited, 222; Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, 228-234; Sixth, suggested change in, 273; opinions on proposed change in, 274 Restrictive Rules, method for re- pealing, altering, or adding to the, 230; difficulties in plan s\ibmitted concerning, 231 Revolutionary War, 21; views held by ministers at close of, 172 Roberts, John Wright, elected Bishop, 227 Roberts, Robert R., cited, 102. 388 Roszel, Stephen ('.., cited, 102, 105, 110, 111 Rules and regulations, for gov- erning General Conferences, INDEX 413 360; first regularly constructed Code of, 361; additions to, 362, 364; progressive enlargement of, 361; reduction and increase in number, 366; tiiose of session of 1908, 366; rational use of, 374 Ruter, Martin, cited. 102 Hyerson, William, cited, 24 Sabin, Elijah R., cited, 108 Sacramental controversy, esti- mate of the, 31 Sargent, Thomas, cited, lOS Scott, Levi, quoted. 190; visit of to Africa, 222; cited, 287, 28S. 392 Shadford, George, cited, 1."), 1(5 Shinn, Asa, cited, 102 Simpson, Matthew, resolution of- fered by, 271; cited, 287, 292, 392 Slavery, a troublesome element in Methodism. 249; first general rule against, 249; extraordinary changes relative to, 2.50; or- ganized opposition to, 251; General Conference action con- cerning, 2.52; Southern agita- tion about, 25.5; final changes in Discipline regarding. 28(> Smith, Henry, quoted, 202 Smith, .James, cited, 108 Smith, John, cited, 47 Snethen, Nicholas, argument of concerning abolition of the episcopacy, 131; quoted, 217 Soule, Joshua, cited, 101, 105, 108. no, 111, 116, 192, 266; author of plan of delegated General Conference, 186; ordi- nation as Bishop declined hy, 213; (luoted. 265. 266, 268, letter of to General Conference of 1848, 278; election as Bishop noted, 336; resolution dealing with, 336; a masterful ruler .•unong Bi.^^hops, 389 Sparks, Robert, cited, lOS Si>ellmeycr, Henry, cited, 399 Standards, the, 162 Stevens, Abel, ritrd, 11, 292; quoted, 26, 1.59, 2.52 Strawbridge, Robert, cited, 10, 11, 14 Stringfield, Thomas, quoted. 2()0 Superannuation of Bishops, how determined, 220 Taylor, Thomas, .irrival of. 1 1 ; letter of to Wesley. 11; cited, 252 Thoburn. James M., elected Mis- sionary Bishop, 227 Thomson, Edward, cited, 3!13 Tiedman, Christopher (!., rited, 123 Tigert, John J., cited, 23. 2S, 29, 30, 42, 115, 122; quoted, 186 Time limit, changes in, 197 Union, conditions of, 27 ^'asey. Thomas, cited, 10, 17; arrival in America, 42; travels of, 43 \'oting, law governing, 368 Ward, Francis, cited, 108 Ware, Thomas, cited, 47, 101, 105; quoted, 48; rebuked \>y Asbury, 62; autobiography of, quoted, 62 Watters. William, cited, 23, 28, 31, 47; quoted. 30, 48 Waugh Beverly, cited, 192. 214, 216. 2.56. 265. 2(1(1. 27S, 2S7. 390 Webb, Captain Thomas, cited. 9, 16; licensed as lay preacher. 10; valuable services of, 10; retire- 414 INDEX ment of as British oRicor, 10; active work of, 10; couuiiciidcd, 12; demand made by, 14; ad- dress of to preachers, 15 Wesley, Charles, originator of movement at Oxford, 3; threat- ened with excommunication, .5; controversies of, 178; letter of to ,Iohn Wesley, 179; quoted on "Separation," ISO Wesley, .John, society foinided by, 3; recognition of, 3; ancf^stry jf, 3; dominating personality of, 4; mental and spiritual conflicts of, 4, (ierman Moravians visited by, 4; doctrinal differences of with Whitefield, 5; plan pre- l>ared by, 5; mobs against, T); defended from false accusa- tions, 5; class meeting foimded by, 5; defense of against charge of usurpation, 7; not engaged in forming a eh\irch, 7; letter from, 14; unfor1\ui;ite interfer- ence of, 22; tremendous prob- lem confronting, 37; explana- tory letter of, 41; his choice of Garrettson, and result, 52; op- posed, 54; status of in American Methodism, 57; "Notes, Ser- mons, .Tiul Minutes" of, 163; discrepancies in number of ser- mons of, 165; High Chinch views of, 177; ministers or- dained by, 179; his defense of "Separation," 180; opposition of to name of "Bishop," 188 Whatcoat, Richard, cited, 40, 47, 48, 388; arrival in America, 42; first sermon of, 42; travels of, 43; elected Bishop, 87 Whedon, D. D,, appeal of, 252 Whitefield, George, open-air preaching of, 4 Whittier, John G., antislavery activity of, 251 Wiitworth, Abraham, cited, l(j Wiley, Isaac W., cited, 394 Williams, Robert, cited, 12, 13, 14 Wilson, John, cited, 105 Winans, William, (|uoted, 259, 272; cited, 265 Wright, Richard, missionary to United States, 13; cited, 16 Yearbry, Joseph, cited, 16 Zion's Herald, opposition nf to slavery, 252 Date Due i FACULT' - Mm J r 11 Mi»^- lllil 1 ■ III 11 _ I J^lf'iPll I PL.nn r, ry history 1 1012 00021 0965 iiii^^^^^ i I