L IBRARY 
 
 PRIKETO\. X. J. 
 
 IK)NATIOX UF 
 
 S A M I K J j AG N E W . 
 
 f* ipF PHIUl'KLHHIA. HA. 
 
 BX 8403 .J4 1831 
 Jennings, Samuel K. 1771- 
 1854. 
 
 An exposition of the late 
 
V 
 
MS EXPOSITION ►^^//^/' 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IN THE 
 
 jjHcttjotrtst Episcopal (Sfjurci); 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRUE OBJECTS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED THEREIN, 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 OCEEDINGS BY WHICH REFORMERS WERE EXPEirC«&* r 'W 
 
 BALTIMORE, CINCINNATI, AND OTHER PL«ES; ^ m ^^r Nl. 
 
 PEIHCSTGH 
 
 OR. ;f 1 
 
 A REVIEW i THS q L0 GIC£LJ 
 Methodist Magazine and Quarterly MEe&U&f~-' : ■ 
 
 ON PETITIONS A]^D MEMORIALS. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE APPENDED, 
 
 Remarks on an Article, entitled 
 
 WHICH APPEARED IN THE 
 
 METHODIST MAGAZINE, 8fc. FOR JANUARY, 1831. 
 
 BY A LAYMAN. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN J. HARROD. 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM WOODDY, 
 
 No. 6 S. Calvert street. 
 183]". 
 
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1831, 
 by John J. Haerod, in the Clerk's office of the District Court 
 of Maryland. 
 
\TIIEOLOGIC 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 In presenting a republication of so much of our review as 
 has appeared in the Mutual Rights and Christian Intelligencer, 
 together with a compilation of the papers taken from the Mu- 
 tual Rights, extracts from which have been printed in the Nar- 
 rative and Defence in justification of the expulsion of Reformers; 
 we have acted in obedience to the demands of our friends gene- 
 rally, as made known to us by our late General Convention; and 
 of many individuals who have repeatedly called for a collection 
 of the documents in explanation and justification of the measures 
 which have served to institute and establish the Methodist Pro- 
 testant Church. It would have been much more consistent with 
 our personal ease, having continually pressing professional en- 
 gagements to fulfil, to have retired from the controversy. But 
 the reiterated declarations of the leading men in the M. £. 
 Church, and the repeated publications which have issued from 
 their presses in New York and Baltimore, &c. have had a ten- 
 dency to impose upon the public very erroneous opinions re- 
 specting the motives and labours of the friends of Reform. It, 
 therefore, became our duty, to forego considerations of per- 
 sonal ease or interest, and continue our labours for the cause 
 of truth and Mutual Rights. 
 
 It was our original intention merely to suggest to our readers, 
 the probable existence of a conspiracy for the expulsion of re- 
 form out of the M. E. Church, and to introduce so much testi- 
 mony only, in support of the suggestion, as would serve the in- 
 tended purpose, with the least possible reference to any thing 
 personal. But since the publication of that part of the Review 
 which was printed in the Mutual Rights and Christian Intelligen- 
 cer, a number of essays have appeared, which we think have made 
 it necessary to prefix the introductory chapter. The facts and 
 considerations which this chapter supplies, will prepare the 
 reader very satisfactorily to understand the remaining develope- 
 ments, which constitute the first part of the work. 
 
IV 
 
 Preface. 
 
 The essays which, together with the accompanying notes 
 and explanations, fill up the second part, at the same time that 
 they present the papers to which the chief men engaged in the 
 prosecution of reformers, made objections, will be found to be 
 so full of the proper kind of information, that to the careful 
 reader of the first part, they will present an epitomized history 
 of the struggle through which reformers had to pass, in rousing 
 the attention of the Methodist community to a subject so im- 
 portant. It will be found, moreover, that the papers which 
 were deemed so highly offensive by the friends of aristocratic al 
 power, are well written, and afford good evidence of the abilities 
 of their respective writers. To those who have not read the 
 Mutual Rights, they cannot fail to be greatly interesting, and 
 such is the effect of the arrangement which the occasion has 
 produced, that the whole subject is presented with renewed in- 
 terest, even to such as have been attending to the controversy. 
 
 The propriety of having appended the essay upon the sub- 
 ject of Mr. Asbury's intended Biography, will be obvious to 
 every reader who will consider, that the personal injury which 
 was aimed at us, was expected materially to affect the cause in 
 which we are engaged. We had long ago determined silently 
 to "suffer wrong;" — and so long as it might have been permitted 
 to remain an affair of mere private and individual interest, we 
 were ready to endure, with "all long suffering." But having 
 become conspicuously identified with the just claims and pre- 
 tensions of the Methodist Protestant Church, when our reputa- 
 tion is assailed with design to injure the common cause, we are 
 constrained to appear and answer. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction, - - page i> 
 
 PART FIRST— CHAPTER I. 
 
 Presents a brief account of the true cause of the expulsion of Re- 
 formers, by the Rulers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Bal- 
 timore, - 27 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Statement of preparatory measures, and remarks upon them. The 
 Pitt Street Meeting, &c. - - - 30 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 A statement of the case, as it ought to have been viewed by the Com- 
 mittee, - - - 32 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Presents the absurd and truly ridiculous character of the prosecution, 33 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The prosecution violated all the fundamental rules by which judicial 
 
 proceedings should be regulated, - - - 34 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The District Conference dissolved, in order to place the local preachers 
 under the authority of the Quarterly Meeting Conference, the 
 members of which had been pledged by the vote at Pitt street, to 
 stand by the prosecutions, - - - 35 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Memorial sent up to the Baltimore Annual Conference, - - 37 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Resolutions of the Baltimore Annual Conference, in reply to our me- 
 morial, with strictures, and a copy of a protest, 40 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The secret, unintentionally let out, that one leading object was, the 
 
 destruction of our Union Societies, - - 43 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Some uncertainty how far the agent had previously progressed in mak- 
 ing preparation for the Narrative and Defence, - - 43 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Quarterly Conference unanimously condemn the Mutual Rights, 
 and it is admitted by the Agent, that a majority of them had not 
 read the work at all, 45 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 They did not intend to effect any correction of our manner of publish- 
 ing, &c. but to expel us. Their patience was worn out, - - 46 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 The "friendly interview" sought for by the prosecutors, was an oppor- 
 tunity to make their most arrogant demands, 48 
 
vi Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 The transaction which doctor Bond has named "an underplot," page 50 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The appendage to the "underplot," which is noticed in the introduc- 
 tory chapter, as the collateral plot, - - 51 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 The Destruction of the Mutual Rights and Union Societies, — the Alpha 
 
 and Omega of the prosecutions, 53 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 The Commencement of the Prosecutions, - 56 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 The proceedings illegal in their commencement; — in violation of a posi- 
 tive precept of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, 57 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 The proceedings violate the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church — form of first Protest, 58 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Their specifications proved to be sophistical and unsupported by Dis- 
 cipline, - - 59 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Correspondence with Mr. Hanson. His letters prove that a fair trial 
 was not intended. It was an act of usurpation. A protest the 
 only proper defence, 62 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 A fair trial under existing circumstances, was impossible, 65 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 Declaration that we were expelled without a trial. A memorial makes 
 
 this known to the General Conference, - - 69 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 Some strictures on the proceedings of the General Conference, in view 
 of the memorial. 74 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 It is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt, that there was no misun- 
 derstanding between the Agent or the prosecutors, and the General 
 Conference. The Agency, in course is established, 77 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 The terms or conditions made by the General Conference for our 
 return, were deficient in probity; — they are more marked with 
 cunning than honesty, 81 
 
 PART SECOND.— CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction to an examination of the extracts from the Mutual Rights; 
 or of the offensive papers, for the admission of which into our 
 periodical, we were expelled, 85 
 
 CHAPTER IT. 
 
 Church property altogether under the control of the Bishops, - - 87 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 All the Travelling Preachers at the disposal of the Bishops, 88 
 
Contents. vii 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Mr. Snethen's papers on Church Property, were written for the benefit 
 of the Travelling Preachers, in opposition to the unbalanced power 
 of the Bishops. - page 90 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Travelling Preachers not made better, by this disposition of the 
 Church Property, - - - - 93 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 That part of Mr. Snethen's paper, which the agent says, can only find 
 a parallel in the Romish Inquisitions, - - - 96 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Agent's comment, is a miserable distortion of Mr. Snethen's 
 meaning, ... - - 98 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The high and independent condition of the Bishops, naturally tends to 
 produce an habitual practice of flattery, 99 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The misrepresentations of the Agent and the prosecutors conclusively 
 demonstrated, - 102 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Extracts from Nehemiah on the expediency of a Representation, 104 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Extract of a letter from the Union Society of Baltimore, to a member 
 of the Union Society of Bedford, Tennessee. — Mutual Rights, vol. 
 1. p. 90, 91, 111 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Extract from an answer to Querist by Bartimeus — alias Mr. Shinn, 114 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Extract from a letter to the Editors of the Mutual Rights, forwarded 
 from Alexandria, District Columbia, ... n$ 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Walker's letter to the Editorial Committee, - - 117 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The Minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Church, prove, that the pre- 
 paratory measures which served to establish the power of the 
 bishops and travelling preachers in the United States, were tainted 
 with acts of usurpation, - - - 122 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Luther on Representation; — the paper which the Agent considered to 
 contain "denunciations and invectives, which might have been 
 taken for the ravings of a madman," - - 129 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Tyranny appears to be inevitable in the administration of the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church, - - - - 138 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Persecutions of reformers for joining Union Societies, most incon- 
 sistent with propriety or benevolence. The real design of those 
 Societies, - - - - - 141 
 
viii 
 
 Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Timothy, alias Rev. George Brown's Defence of himself, on account 
 of extracts from his address to the junior Bishop. This paper was 
 written in the year 1827. It was recently revised by request, and 
 forwarded for insertion in this review, - - page 146 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Miscellaneous remarks by Dissenter, published in January, 1827, 162 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Presbyter to the Editors of the Mutual Rights, - - 171 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Reasons in plea for reform in the government of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, by Neale. This paper was published in the number 
 for July, 1827, - - - - 176 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 An address to the friends of reform, by N. Snethen, - - 183 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 The sovereignty of Methodism in the South, - 187 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey's case, 8fc. before the Baltimore Annual Con- 
 ference, ■ 197 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 A short address to the Members of the Baltimore Annual Conference 
 
 by Bartimeus, - 203 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 Proceedings of the Baltimore Union Society, in relation to the Rev'd 
 
 Dennis B. Dorsey's case, - 208 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 Letter addressed to the Rev'd Dennis B. Dorsey, by a travelling 
 
 preacher, - - 210 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 Vindex in controversy with Doctor Bond, - - 215 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 An account of the Rev. VVm. C. Pool's trial before the Baltimore An- 
 nual Conference, ----- 219 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 A difference of opinion no just cause of discord, - - 224 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 Concluding- Remarks, - - - 228 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Bishop Asbury's Life, - - - - 230 
 
Ixisnowextensirely known, that more than thirty ministers and 
 members, of the Methodist E. Church in Baltimore, were ex- 
 communicated for being members of the Union Society, and 
 publishing and patronizing the periodical, which was known by 
 the title "The Mutual Rights, of the ministers and members of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church." It ought also to be known, 
 that this memorable transaction was intended to expel reform 
 out of the church, and that the measures which were adopted, 
 were contrived and conducted, with the hope, that the real ob- 
 ject could be concealed, and the public be induced to believe, 
 the church authorities had only exercised commendable dis- 
 cipline upon those thirty and more individuals, for publishing and 
 aiding in the publication of certain essays and papers, said to be 
 calumnious and inflammatory. The exposition and review will 
 disclose some curious and important things, in respect to the 
 management, by which the men in power accomplished their in- 
 tention; and will satisfactorily unravel the policy, which was 
 expected also to insure the approbation of the community. 
 
 The Editors of the Quarterly Review, #c. have laboured hard 
 to set aside this imputation, and justify the proceedings of the 
 prosecution. 
 
 The Baltimore Annual Conference considered those proceed- 
 ings to have been so commendable as to merit the apellation, 
 of "wholesome and sound discipline." 
 
 To develope the true design of the church authorities, to 
 show how great the injustice done to reformers, and how neces- 
 sary the struggle which brought upon them the displeasure of 
 the government, are the objects and end of the review. 
 
 In conducting our investigations, facts, known to be incontro- 
 vertible, are stated as such. Inferences, taken from facts and 
 circumstances, are so presented, that their value or intended pur- 
 2 
 
6 
 
 port cannot easily be mistaken. In pursuing the obliquities of 
 the prosecution, it has been found necessary, in some instances, 
 to introduce probabilities into the argument; and considering the 
 circumstances in which the reviewer has been placed, this will 
 appear to have been both admissible and proper. 
 
 Certain preparatory movements induced us to believe, that an 
 attempt would be made to sustain the contemplated expulsions, 
 by means of a publication, to be modified as circumstances might 
 indicate; and which, accordingly, turned out to be, the Narra- 
 tive and Defence, &c. &c. 
 
 The incidents which excited attention to this point, and the 
 fact, that the man who was believed to be the chief agent in the 
 business, who made the extracts from the Mutual Rights, and 
 wrote the Narrative and Defence for the prosecutors, were all in 
 view, when the remarks which were made on this point, were 
 written. 
 
 There was positive proof of a conspiracy, for the purpose of 
 securing our excommunication, by an unanimous vote of all the 
 official men in the station. The pains which were taken to gain 
 this point, strengthened the conviction, that the occasion would 
 require a competent agent, to give to the intended operations, 
 their proper direction and effect. Moreover, there were signs of 
 the existence of such an agency, which were not of doubtful 
 interpretation. The review therefore, inevitably turns attention 
 to this matter. 
 
 The printing committee, who superintended the periodical, 
 intended no personal attack upon the preachers, from the Bishops 
 down to the least important individual among them. They de- 
 signed a benefit, and not an injury, to the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. It was their purpose to bring about an improvement 
 in her government, and nothing more. It therefore, became our 
 duty to review the extracts and comments, which were made by 
 the agent of the prosecution, and show, that the alleged calum- 
 ny and inflammatory imputations, which he has placed to the 
 account of the Union Society, are in reality the productions of 
 his own genius; — and, that it required his utmost skill to make 
 the Narrative and Defence, to answer its intended purpose. 
 It was necessary, that it should wear the appearance of a faith- 
 ful history of the citations, the charges and specifications, the 
 character and manner of the Defence of the accused, and of the 
 final decisions; and in order to make the whole, the more to 
 assume the appearance of honesty or plausibility; to take time, 
 
7 
 
 to plan and manage as circumstances might indicate; to intro- 
 duce "an under-plot," and a collateral plot, &c. &c. We there- 
 fore considered it necessary to ferret out and disclose the more 
 important parts of these secret machinations. 
 
 It was deemed highly important, that our views of the pro- 
 ceedings, should be submitted to the public. Because, if we 
 erred in our opinions respecting the design of the prosecution, 
 and of the measures which were taken for the accomplishment 
 of that design; nevertheless, as we had very cogent reasons for 
 adopting those opinions, sensible men will admit, that we ought 
 to have been excused for refusing to appear before a tribunal, 
 which we conscientiously considered, not only illegal, but also dis- 
 qualified to do us justice; and the more especially so, when we 
 did not believe that we had transgressed any known law. If our 
 opinions were right, it will be still more clear, that submission to 
 such a trial as necessarily awaited us, would have been an unpar- 
 donable dereliction of principle and duty. The review will pre- 
 pare the reader to perceive the propriety of our course, and to 
 appreciate the protest of the reformers. 
 
 So far as our exposition has been published in the Mutual 
 Rights and Christian Intelligencer, although its ultimate inten- 
 tion was but imperfectly understood, it has given great offence 
 to those who are implicated; and in order to prevent its effect, 
 another effort has been made, of the same kind, and by the same 
 genius, which brought forth the Narrative and Defence. Doctor 
 Bond, in particular, has taken great umbrage at the mere insinu- 
 ation, that he was the agent of the power party, as well as the 
 writer of the "plain statement of the whole affair, &c." It is 
 perhaps due to Dr. Bond, and the public, that the reasons should 
 be assigned for having exhibited him in that relation to the pro- 
 secution; — for we have no inclination to misrepresent him, or 
 misconstrue his writings. 
 
 The Doctor, in a late publication, says our inferences in respect 
 to this point, were taken from two circumstances only. If those 
 two were all that had weight, it might perhaps be inferred, that 
 the reviewer had indulged in unfounded and reprehensible sus- 
 picion. There are, however, other circumstances, which came 
 into the account. We had in fact, nine or more considerations, 
 which taken collectively, approximate to a demonstration of the 
 reasonableness and truth of our opinion. They are the following: 
 
 1st. When the lay members of the Baltimore station, met in 
 the conference room, a short time previous to the General Con 
 
& 
 
 ference of 1824, and appointed a committee, to prepare an ad- 
 dress or memorial on the subject of a lay delegation to be sub-* 
 mitted to the conference, Dr. Bond, at that time a preacher, in- 
 sisted on being admitted among them, as a layman, that he might 
 be placed on the committee. As he had not then been ordain- 
 ed, his request was granted, and he officiated as secretary. 
 
 The result of their labours was the production of that memo- 
 rable paper, which surrendered all claim to a lay representation, 
 as a matter of right, and proposed to rest the whole subject upon 
 the ground of expediency. In the instant, when that part of 
 their report was read, which contained this fatal proposition, we 
 considered it a known surrender of the cause of reform; and we 
 have continued to view it in the same light, until now. Prior to 
 that time, the Doctor was an active patron to the Wesleyan Re- 
 pository, probably, one of the writers for that work. Since that 
 time, we have not known any act of his, which favoured our 
 cause. This circumstance indicated "disaffection" to the work 
 of reform, and had some influence, we admit, in modifying our 
 feelings in view of the second consideration. 
 
 2d. When the chairman of our printing committee, and Mr. 
 McCaine, were called on to meet Bishop Hedding, in the con- 
 ference room, and answer to his demand of the proper name of 
 Timothy, they found him attended by Bishop George, Rev. John 
 Davis, and doctor Bond. 
 
 This incident occurred some time within the first week in 
 April, 1827. The expulsions in Tennessee had then taken 
 place. Likewise those in North Carolina; and the latter had 
 received the confirmation of the Virginia Conference. More- 
 over, we had received intimations, that the Baltimore Confer- 
 ence, which was then at hand, was expected to deal with Rev. 
 D. B. Dorsey. Under all these stormy appearances, we think 
 the Doctor ought to have excused us, if we then began to think, 
 that something more was agitated in the cabinet, than the single 
 inquiry, who was Timothy. 
 
 3d. Soon after the suspension of the Rev'd D. B. Dorsey, 
 doctor Bond, as the champion of the power party, wrote and 
 caused to be published, "An Appeal to the Methodists, &lc." in 
 opposition to the principles and objects of the Reformers. In 
 the introduction to a "brief review" of this appeal, Mr. Shinn 
 has the following remarks. "How can a man sit down calmly 
 to examine, and impartially to answer a book of sixty-nine pages, 
 when he expects the arm of authority to be upon him, before he 
 
9 
 
 shall have arrived at the middle of his investigation? Our op- 
 ponents have systematically commenced the work of suspension 
 and expulsion; they are using all imaginable efforts to enlist against 
 us the passions of the people; and the doctor's performance, 
 coming out at this time, appears but too well calculated to fan the 
 flame. We may reasonably expect, it will be used for the accom- 
 plishment of this object, as extensively as possible." If so well cal- 
 culated for such a use, with the two preceding reasons in view, 
 were we not pardonable in thinking, the "Appeal, &c." was 
 written for the very purpose mentioned by Mr. Shinn? How- 
 ever much we might have endeavoured to "hope all things," the 
 doctor soon gave us conclusive proof, that our apprehension 
 concerning his agency, was but too well founded. 
 
 4th. Doctor Bond convened the meeting at the corner of Pitt 
 and Front streets. His own account of it is, that his object was 
 to make a publication under the sanction of this called meeting, 
 in defence of the Baltimore Annual Conference, in the case of 
 Rev'd. D. B. Dorsey. The meeting was held on the 7th August, 
 1827, thirty-two days only before we were summoned by Mr. 
 Hanson, to appear and answer to charges, which were preferred 
 by the seven prosecutors. The doctor's publication was made, 
 and it received the sanction of the meeting, with the following 
 preface, viz: "At a very large meeting of the male members of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, in Baltimore City and the East 
 Baltimore stations, exclusive of the members of the Union Socie- 
 ty, convened by public notice given in all our churches, and held 
 in the city of Baltimore on the 7th day of August, 1827; brother 
 William Wilkins being called to the chair, &c. the following 
 preamble, resolutions, and address to the ministers and members 
 of the church in the United States, were freely discussed and 
 adopted, with only three or four dissenting votes." 
 
 A part of the address is as follows, viz: "The opinion of the 
 Conference, that the Mutual Rights was an improper work, was 
 not founded on its being a work on church government, &c. 
 &c. * * * * but it was founded on the fact, that the Mutual Rights 
 was a work, in which anonymous writers were permitted to 
 abuse and defame the travelling preachers — to deprive them, if 
 possible, of the confidence and support of the people of their 
 charge, by holding them up to public odium, and by misrepre. 
 senting both their actions and motives." 
 
 On the 8th September, 1827, we received information, that 
 charges had been preferred; and a part of the second specifr 
 
10 
 
 cation reads thus: — "The Mutual Rights of the ministers and 
 "members, &c. contains much that inveighs against the Disci- 
 pline, &c. ; and that is abusive or speaks evil of a part, 
 if not most of the ministers of that church," &c. &c. Is it not 
 clear to the most ordinary apprehension, that when this large 
 meeting, almost unanimously, voted for the part of the ad- 
 dress above quoted, doctor Bond, who had called the meeting, 
 written the address, and caused it to be freely discussed, had by 
 this measure, secured their approbation of the intended charge 
 as stated in the specification? The large meeting voted, that it 
 was a fact, that writers were permitted in the Mutual Rights, 
 to abuse and defame the travelling preachers, &c. by misrepre- 
 senting both their actions and motives. The prosecutors charged 
 us with publishing, in the Mutual Rights, * * # much that is 
 abusive or speaks evil of a part, if not of most of the min- 
 isters, &x. 
 
 In another part of the address, and which in like manner, had 
 the vote- of doctor Bond's called meeting, we find the following, 
 viz: "The present agitations may be consequent upon some 
 general declension, in reference to the strict administration of 
 that wholesome discipline, which governed our fathers, and 
 distinguished them as c a peculiar people.' The present storm 
 may be necessary to defecate and purify the church from Laodi- 
 cean, lukewarm professors." Hear what the doctor's address 
 proposed, and for which he obtained the approbation of almost 
 the whole of this large meeting!" " Strict administration of dis- 
 cipline to defecate;" that is, to purge off the dregs, and by so 
 doing, to purify the church from lukewarm professors. Can any 
 reader fail to see, the proof of an agency, making preparation 
 for our expulsion? 
 
 The doctor called a large meeting, which was attended by al- 
 most the whole of the male members of the church, including 
 in course, the official men, and so secured their vote, upon 
 points which involved all that was necessary, to ensure success, 
 in the contemplated "defecation" of the church. Surely it was 
 an act of the utmost preparatory importance; and, if there were 
 no other testimony, this one measure proves, that he was, not 
 only an agent, but a very provident and efficient agent, by whose 
 management in this single instance, we were obliged to know, 
 that we were condemned, before we were cited to trial. 
 
 5th. About one week after the prosecutions were commenced, 
 doctor Bond, "ventured alone and without the knowledge of 
 
11 
 
 the prosecutors, upon the business of negotiation." He "had 
 not yet relinquished the hope, that some conciliatory course 
 might be devised, by which the necessity of further proceedings 
 before the constituted authorities of the church, might be 
 removed." In narrating and defending about this affair, thus 
 far, the doctor wrote according to the truth of the case. He 
 wrote what he felt on the subject. "He ventured upon the 
 business of negotiation:" that is, to take the management of 
 the business into his own hands. He hoped, that he would be 
 able to devise a conciliatory course, which would put an end to 
 the necessity of further proceedings. With this intention, he 
 proceeded like an autocrat, to prescribe the terms which he saw 
 fit to "devise." But in order to conceal the true extent of the 
 power, which he felt himself at liberty to exercise, he appended 
 to the terms which he dictatorially offered, a clause, a kind of 
 rider, under the authority of which, in case of his detection, he 
 intended to claim the privilege of being considered a mere 
 mediator, who had not consulted either of the parties. See Nar- 
 rative and Defence, pages 24 and 25. The reader will find this 
 part of doctor Bond's agency, resumed in another place and 
 treated to all necessary extent. 
 
 6th. When doctor Green arrived in Baltimore, he having been sent 
 for to perform a part in the great drama of "defecation," doctor 
 Bond had immediate notice of his arrival, with a request to meet 
 him at Mr. Warfield's. In the course of the evening, doctor 
 Bond found it convenient to attend; and the two doctors were 
 together till a very late hour. On the following morning, we re- 
 ceived doctor Green's first communication, dated 15th January, 
 1828. In this letter he says, "I have not mentioned this subject 
 to any of your stationed preachers;" leaving us to infer, as a 
 thing of course, that he had mentioned it to doctor Bond only. 
 
 This inference seems to be still more reasonable, because we 
 had an opportunity to see his communication, addressed to the 
 president and members of the Quarterly Conference, then in 
 session, which was dated 16th January, 1828, and reads as fol- 
 fows, viz: "Whereas certain charges have been preferred, &c. 
 * * * and whereas I, as a disinterested member of said church, 
 have volunteered as a mediator, &c. * * * # as there is a negotia- 
 tion now pending, between doctor Jennings and myself, in re- 
 lation to terms of reconciliation between said parties, &c. * * * * 
 and as such a reconciliation is desirable, and has been sought on 
 your part, with anxious vigilance, and would now be hailed by 
 
12 
 
 each one of you, &c. * * Doctor Green had no proper 
 authority for this assertion. In fact it was not true. If the un- 
 qualified mandate of the prosecutors, to dissolve our Union So- 
 cieties and discontinue our periodical, was seeking reconciliation, 
 we must admit they sought it, in that manner; and if one ap- 
 plication in this unlawful and repulsive way, was a proper ex- 
 pression of "anxious vigilance," this evidence of vigilance was af- 
 forded. Nothing bearing, even the name of reconciliation, had 
 been intimated, excepting the terms dictated by doctor Bond to 
 doctor J. S. Reese. These terms were all that any one of them had 
 ever proposed; we were obliged, therefore, to come to the con- 
 clusion, that doctor Bond had made doctor Green acquainted 
 with this circumstance, whilst they were together, the first night, 
 at Mr. Warfield's. Hence it appears, that although doctor Bond 
 had acted alone in his attempt at devising means of reconcilia- 
 tion, he had prepared doctor Green to say in his letter, which 
 afterwards was to be published in the Narrative and Defence, 
 that a reconciliation had been sought on the part of the church 
 authorities "with anxious vigilance." This circumstance was 
 calculated to tell to great advantage. The church had sought 
 for a reconciliation with the reformers, ,{ with anxious vigilance," 
 whilst the reformers, on their part, had continued to treat the 
 church authorities with "proud contempt." 
 
 On the 16th January, 1828, when replying to doctor Green, 
 we indulged a hope, that all was fair. But his second commu- 
 nication of same date, which was the day following his inter- 
 view with doctor Bond, presented terms, which let us know, that 
 he was nothing better than a sub-agent, who had come to act as 
 an auxiliary to doctor Bond. The terms which he submitted, per- 
 haps we ought to have said which he dictated, were in substance 
 identical with those proposed by doctor Bond to doctor Reese. 
 See Narrative and Defence, pages 124, 125. In a summary, 
 they were as follows, viz: 
 
 1st. To suspend the publication of the Mutual Rights, until 
 the result of our memorial to the General Conference shall be 
 known. Or if it be continued, "it shall be conducted by a com- 
 mittee, in whose appointment the friends of the present ad- 
 ministration and the friends of Reform, shall have an equal 
 part, &/C. &-c. 
 
 2d. That the Union Society shall be dissolved, until the result 
 of your memorial, &,c. &>c. shall be known. 
 
13 
 
 Doctor Bond's terms, in substance, were as follows, viz: See 
 Narrative and Defence, page 25. 
 
 1st. "When the convention shall have terminated its session, 
 the Union Society shall be dissolved and not re-organized, in 
 the present or any other form, until after the next General Con- 
 ference." 
 
 2d. The Mutual Rights, if continued at all, shall be strictly 
 confined, &c. &c. * # * each number in the proof-sheets, or the 
 materials before they are printed, shall be submitted to three per- 
 sons, chosen mutually by the reformers and the committee, who 
 have preferred charges, &lc. * * * who shall be authorized to ex- 
 punge all exceptionable passages therefrom." 
 
 The reader is requested to consider, that doctor Bond's terms 
 were prescribed to us, before the meeting of our convention. 
 Those of doctor Green after the convention. He will make al- 
 lowance for this difference, and he cannot fail to perceive the 
 near affinity of the terms dictated to us, by these two doctors. 
 We are now told, that doctors Bond and Green, were closeted 
 upon another subject, and even that doctor Green so carefully 
 regarded the principles of neutrality, in view of his delicate 
 mediation, that he declined any conversation on that subject. If 
 we rightly understand the signatures of the "anonymous writers," 
 who of late, are engaged on the part of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, "to speak evil of ministers," but who have nothing to 
 fear from the seven prosecutors, seeing they are on the side of 
 power, doctor Bond passed this compliment, upon his coadjutor, 
 doctor Green. We must be excused, in claiming the privilege 
 of placing this to the same account, on which we have entered 
 a similar item, which occurred about the time when our mediator, 
 who left his home "with intention to volunteer, &c." "without 
 being solicited to do so by any one," — was announced to the 
 Quarterly Meeting Conference. He and doctor Bond had been 
 together the greater part of the preceding night; and yet, when 
 notice was given of his arrival, &c. doctor Bond arose in Quar- 
 terly meeting and inquired, "Who is this doctor Green?" Is he 
 the man who preached, #c. #c? 
 
 All such matters could be conducted "without any itinerant 
 suggestion or influence whatever." And these "gentlemen" 
 may succeed in persuading the people of their fellowship, that 
 they practised no obliquities; — in the mean time, all disinterested 
 persons will admit, that we had too much cause to doubt their 
 8 
 
14 
 
 candor, and consider them the secret agents of the government; 
 the more certainly so, when we now state openly, as we might 
 have done at the commencement of the review, that doctor 
 Green, himself, told Rev'd. Mr. F. Stier, that he was sent for. 
 Moreover, one of the doctor's pupils, gave similar information 
 to Mr. J. J. Harrod's family. 
 
 7th. After the expulsions had been accomplished, agreeably 
 to the intention "to defecate the church," so clearly "indicated," 
 by the address and vote of the Pitt street meeting, Doctor 
 Bond wrote the Narrative and Defence, in justification of "that 
 wholesome discipline which governed our fathers, and distin- 
 guished them as a peculiar people." This fact, is itself, an irre- 
 sistible proof of the doctor's agency. Indeed, few agents have 
 manifested a warmer interest, or greater zeal. And judging from 
 the high commendations which have been bestowed on it, by the 
 editors of the Christian Advocate, &C, at New York, those who 
 were most deeply interested, considered the agency to have been 
 executed most admirably. 
 
 8th. Another consideration, which had weight in inducing the 
 opinion and belief, that doctor Bond took an active part in plan' 
 ing and managing matters, was the marked caution which he 
 evinced, in order to escape the imputation. We will explain, by 
 referring to two or three of the occurrences of those times. 
 
 1. In his attempted negociation with the Union Society, 
 through doctor Reese, he "wished it to be distinctly understood 
 that he acted alone and as a mediator, and that he had not con- 
 sulted with any of the old side brethren on the subject, &c. &c." 
 By the by, as he felt himself at liberty to "devise" and dictate 
 terms, which might accomplish all the purposes of the prosecu- 
 tion, and so "remove the necessity of further proceedings, &,c." 
 there was no need of consultation. 
 
 2. When our protest was advertised, as in the instance of 
 doctor Reese, above stated, so in this, he was looking on with 
 "anxious vigilance;" and perceiving that the publication of the 
 protest called for his help, he gave to Mr. Samuel Harden "the 
 first suggestion of the necessity" of submitting to the public, a 
 "plain statement of the whole affair," so soon as the trials should 
 be ended. Perhaps if we knew all, we might say, he dictated, 
 that such a publication should be announced, in order to coun- 
 teract "our novel procedure." 
 
 Our friends know, that immediately after our interview with 
 Mr. Harden, we told them, that a publication would be made by 
 
15 
 
 the power party, with intention to justify their proceedings. It 
 is an affair of very small moment, that Mr. Harden has ventured 
 to contradict our assertion that we learned their intention as to 
 their contemplated plain statement, &,c. from him. In their at- 
 tempt to avoid Scylla, they have run into Charybdis. The doctor 
 thought it important to get away from Harden's unintentional 
 disclosure; but in managing the affair, it escaped his notice, 
 that he was furnishing proof positive of his agency in the case. 
 He says, he gave to Mr. Harden, the first suggestion of the ne- 
 cessity of such a measure. Surely his own testimony may be 
 safely admitted. 
 
 3. Dr. Bond was the writer of the Narrative and Defence, 
 and notwithstanding he has said, the part he took in aiding the 
 prosecutors, was generally known, and to no one better than to 
 the writer of this Review, it is a fact, that we knew nothing 
 more about it than will be found in this publication. We think 
 it probable, however, that the review provoked the public ac- 
 knowledgment, that he was the writer. Would it not have com- 
 ported more strictly with candor and truth, if he had affixed his 
 own proper signature to the work? It would then have been 
 concluded as follows, viz. 
 
 THOMAS E. BOND, 
 for the seven prosecutors. 
 
 And every reader would have been prepared to judge how 
 far, laymen, unassisted, had been the agents in the "defecating" 
 work. Instead of this plain and honest procedure, the names 
 of the seven prosecutors are all subscribed, as if they were the 
 authors of the book. 
 
 9th. Dr. Bond's agency is fairly deducible from the disingenu- 
 ousness of the Narrative and Defence. Although an avowed 
 "plain statement of the whole affair," perhaps a more unfair ex- 
 parte account of things, has not been published in the United 
 States. This imputation will be supported by the review of the 
 extracts and comments which will be seen in the sequel. It is 
 not intended, however, to confine the charge of disingenuous- 
 ness to the extracts and comments. It is stamped upon the 
 face of the book, more or less, upon almost every page. We 
 will select one example, which for the present may serve as an 
 illustration of our complaint touching this point. Our pro- 
 test was based upon his "appeal to the Methodists, &-c." and the 
 address which he caused to be issued from the Pitt street meet- 
 
16 
 
 ing. No subject, therefore, could have been more familiar to 
 him. That protest presented a very important difficulty to the 
 prosecution, which he ought to have met and answered fairly. 
 The subtile evasion, to which he had recourse in this particular, 
 is the example of subterfuge to which we now invite attention. 
 See Narrative and Defence, pages 30, 31, 32, and 33. 
 
 The second part of our protest, which was formally entered 
 before the extraordinary tribunal, constituted by the Baltimore 
 station for the purpose of securing our expulsion, and the pub- 
 lication of which, induced doctor Bond to give "the first sug- 
 gestion of the necessity of publishing the Narrative and De- 
 fence," was drawn up in the following words, viz: "I now enter 
 my protest, because of the impossibility of a fair and disinterest- 
 ed trial, — for that, my sentence is already pronounced, by the 
 men who are to sit in judgment. For confirmation of this, I 
 refer to doctor Bond's book, (Appeal to the Methodists, &c.) 
 pages 44, 45. 'The history of this controversy,' says he, 'bears 
 irresistible testimony to the position, that a profession of reli- 
 gion will not save us from the consequences incident to oppo- 
 sition and contest among the professors. Let any man look 
 over the pages of the Wesleyan Repository, and the Mutual 
 Rights, and doubt this position, if he can. He will see the 
 merciless gladiators, cutting and thrusting without pity or remorse. 
 He will see a periodical work, * * * which the heat of debate, 
 and the mortification of disappointed ambition, has converted 
 into a vehicle of anonymous slander and misrepresentation, fyc. <Src.' 
 ********** And I am warranted in saying, that the sentence 
 here pronounced in doctor Bond's book, is likewise the sentence 
 of every active old-side man in the station. Of these official 
 men, who are to judge of my case, it certainly is. For proof, 
 I refer to the pamphlet, whose manuscript, written by doctor Bond 
 and the rest of the committee, had the sanction and vote of the 
 meeting, at the corner of Pitt and Front streets; a meeting of 
 the old side brethren, when and where, these three brethren of 
 the committee, acted and voted with them, as they themselves now 
 admit. Read (the address,) on pages 2 and 3. 'The opinion 
 of the conference, (Baltimore Annual Conference is meant) that 
 the Mutual Rights was an improper work, &c. &c. * * * was 
 founded on the fact, that the Mutual Rights was a. work in which 
 anonymous writers were permitted to abuse and defame the travel- 
 ling preachers, fyc. fyc. ****** by misrepresenting both their 
 actions and their motives.' Here 13 proof positive, that the Mu- 
 
tual Rights, is already under sentence of condemnation. And 
 I am constrained to say, this semblance of a trial, is intended to 
 condemn me, in like manner." The difficulty which this protest 
 presented has never yet been met; and it i3 impossible to recon- 
 cile it with the principles of common justice, much less with 
 those of christian benevolence. In order to escape it, the Doc- 
 tor says, "the protests chiefly rested on the want of conformity 
 in the appointment and in the proceedings generally; to the 
 practice which obtains in courts of criminal jurisprudence." 
 Every reader must perceive that this statement is not true. Our 
 protest rested on the notorious fact, that all the men concerned, 
 had prejudged our case. Having made the above misrepresenta- 
 tion, he makes a fine flourish in view of it, affecting to shew how 
 reformers, "after their fashion," would bring the church into all the 
 uncertainties of the law. "Instead of the little book of disci- 
 pline, give them as a substitute, massy folios of common law, 
 and statute law, with commentaries of learned length and re- 
 ports of ponderous magnitude," — "ecclesiastical lawyers," — 
 "courts," judges, clerks, &c. &c. "to keep them to all the rules 
 of special pleading, and legal technicalities." This learned dis- 
 play may have entertained the friends of the prosecution. In 
 view of our protest, it is without meaning, except only, that it 
 "indicates" a probability, that doctor Bond was the author of the 
 charges and specifications. He proceeds to inform us that the 
 prosecuting party "considered the church judicatories, as mere- 
 ly moral tribunals, in which a few plain pious men were deemed 
 capable of deciding, whether an accused brother had violated 
 his religious or social obligations." * * They think "that men 
 of plain common sense, with the necessary piety and integrity, 
 were fully competent to judge in such matters, both of the law 
 and the fact." And what does all this signify? We suppose 
 this is the Doctor's argument to prove, that the three local 
 preachers selected to condemn us, possessed enough piety and 
 integrity; or perhaps, that they possessed all that was "necessa- 
 ry," to fit them to join in the preparatory meeting, vote for "de- 
 fecating" the church of the publishers of the Mutual Rights, and 
 then sit in judgment to confirm their own previous decision. 
 This procedure, according to the Doctor, is such, as "men of plain 
 common sense" with the "necessary piety and integrity" will pur- 
 sue. We are constrained to pray, "from such expressions of 
 common sense, piety or integrity, good Lord deliver us!" After 
 all these and other fancies equally evasive, at length he affects to 
 
IS 
 
 march right up to the difficulty. "In the cases under considera- 
 tion, the objections were, first, that the members of the commit- 
 tees, &c. at a meeting held at doctor Roszel's academy, partici- 
 pated in the appointment of a committee to prosecute. Secondly, 
 that they had voted for certain resolutions and an address, at 
 the Pitt street meeting." He denies, however, that such commit- 
 tee was appointed; and says they were requested to inquire into 
 the causes which had produced the existing agitations, &c. &c. 
 It matters not. The seven men were sufficiently "indicated" by 
 the request, to feel themselves called to the service of the prose- 
 cution. In doctor Bond's view of things, however, there seems 
 to have been a difference. 
 
 "The second objection," respecting the vote at Pitt street, he 
 admits, "is more specious, and requires particular consideration." 
 In view of this, it appears that the Doctor and we are of the 
 same opinion. "It requires particular consideration." At said 
 meeting, all the official men had voted it to be a fact, that the 
 Mutual Rights had published much, that abused or spoke evil of 
 ministers. On our trial, the same men are appointed to inquire, 
 whether it is indeed a fact. Now let us see how the Doctor 
 meets it, after admitting that it needs "particular consideration." 
 "In the address complained of," says he, "no individual is nam- 
 ed, as being responsible for the publication in the Mutual Rights, 
 nor is any opinion given, that the writers or publishers of that 
 work, ought to be expelled from the church." 
 
 Can it be, that doctor Bond expected his readers to accept 
 this as an explanation? The prosecution charged us with "speak- 
 ing evil of ministers" — because we aided, &c. in "the publica- 
 tion of the Mutual Rights, which contains much, &c. # * that 
 is abusive, or speaks evil of a part if not most of the ministers," 
 &/C. The address asserts it to be a fact, that the periodical, 
 the Mutual Rights, was rightly considered to be an improper 
 work, because in it, writers were permitted "to abuse and defame 
 the travelling preachers;" — the pretended offence for which the 
 Doctor and his aids intended to expel us, and for which they did 
 expel more than thirty of us as soon as they could, and save ap- 
 pearances. But as they did not read out the names of the contem- 
 plated victims, nor say they intended to expel us; as they only 
 voted the necessity of 1 'defecating ' the church of luke-warm 
 members, they would have us to admit, that all was in accordance 
 with the law of Christ, "as ye would that men should do unto 
 you, do ye likewise unto them." As the Doctor says, the com- 
 
19 
 
 mittee, although they voted for the address, had not prejudged 
 the cases of the accused on the charges preferred against them, 
 we must succumb and say, "so let it be." In order to expose 
 clearly, the sophistry which he intended to serve his turn, in this 
 case, let us inquire what ought to have been the proper subject 
 of investigation before the court of inquiry. Had they prosecut- 
 ed the writers of the objectionable papers, individually, the Edi- 
 torial committee were bound to surrender the proper name of 
 each, or answer in his stead. Or if they had intended to prose- 
 cute the committee, either individually or jointly as Editors, 
 their names were known, having been publicly announced every 
 year. The inquiry, therefore was not who were the writers, nor 
 who were the publishers. It was only necessary to ascertain, 
 whether the Mutual Rights did or did not "contain much that 
 is abusive or speaks evil of a part, if not most of the ministers, 
 &c. &c." The prosecutors asserted the affirmative, and it was 
 their business to support that affirmation, by the necessary testi- 
 mony. Those who stood charged would have asserted the ne- 
 gative, and in the event of a trial, it would have been incumbent 
 on them to justify their papers or publications. 
 
 Although the Doctor endeavoured to escape by shuffling up 
 this substitute for an explanation, he seems to have been impell- 
 ed by a sense of justice to return to the only correct view of the 
 subject, and concluded by saying, "whether the decisions 
 which these committees have given in the cases submitted 
 to them, have been just, will be left to the reader after he shall 
 calmly and dispassionately have read the extracts from the Mu- 
 tual Rights, upon which those who preferred the accusations re- 
 lied to sustain them." And if the reader will be contented with 
 doctor Bond's "extracts," and his comments upon them, it is very 
 probable that he will also be satisfied, that the decisions of the 
 committees were just. How many have already been satisfied 
 with the accounts given of these matters in the Narrative and 
 Defence, we know not. But all such are liable to a very morti- 
 fying censure; inasmuch as it will appear to have been an affair 
 of no importance with them, how great the departure from prin- 
 ciple and correct procedure, which marked the conduct of the 
 men who sat in judgment, and prevented the accused from making 
 a proper defence; all that was necessary to secure their approba- 
 tion, was, that the prosecutors or their agent for them, was ready 
 to tell a plausible ex-parte story. For it will be demonstrated by 
 the review, that we were insulted by a mere mock-trial, and that 
 the extracts upon which the Doctor relies for the justification of 
 
20 
 
 their proceedings, are garbled fragments only, of the essays from 
 which they are taken, caricatured by his comments, and fitted up 
 for the special purpose, of sustaining the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in the outrage practised upon us, with intention to ex- 
 terminate reform. 
 
 We might have said, that we had ten reasons and more for con- 
 sidering doctor Bond an agent in the prosecution of the friends 
 of reform. We will notice one fact only in addition. He was 
 at the pains to attend the General Conference, at Pittsburg, the 
 distance of 280 miles. What other business might have con- 
 curred, to make his attention there necessary at that time, we 
 know not. But we had information from our friends, that his exer- 
 tions were continued, until the General Conference had decreed 
 the terms and conditions for the re-admission into their fellow- 
 ship of such of us, as might be disposed to submit to them; — 
 the same terms in effect, which he had attempted to impose upon 
 us through doctors Reese and Green, as will be clearly seen in 
 the conclusion of the review. 
 
 Taking all these circumstances and considerations into the ac- 
 count, can it be thought, that the strictest law of charity was trans- 
 gressed, in admitting the opinion that Dr. Bond was a concealed 
 agent of the power party, and the fast friend of the government 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church; or in signifying our appre- 
 hension, that by means of the two first meetings, one at Mr. 
 William Brown's, the other at doctor Roszel's school room, a 
 conspiracy was organized, and by the management of doctor 
 Bond, in calling the third meeting at Pitt street, and obtaining 
 an almost unanimous vote, that conspiracy was extended and 
 strengthened, insomuch, that the leading men of the two sta- 
 tions of the city, were all pledged to help him to "defecate the 
 church," of the friends of Mutual Rights? 
 
 The Doctor says, this account of the part he acted in the drama 
 of "defecation" is intended to be "a personal insult without pro- 
 vocation." That "gentleman" has thought it necessary to com- 
 mence a personal attack on us, expecting to divert the attention 
 of the public from our review, the effect of which he foresees 
 and fears. We have no time for personal contests, and it has 
 been a source of regret, that the introduction of doctors Bond 
 and Green, by name, was necessary. But we found them 
 amongst the most prominent dramatis personam in the perform- 
 ance of the grand display, of the manner how the "fathers" ex- 
 ercised a strict administration of wholesome discipline, and dis- 
 
21 
 
 tinguished themselves as a peculiar people." They were very 
 desirous to make the public believe, that the whole performance 
 was conducted without "any itinerant suggestion or influence 
 whatever;" and we paid to each of them, so much attention only, 
 as the intended exposition required, and no more. We were 
 particularly compelled to acknowledge the importance of the 
 part which doctor Bond had to perform, and in the execution of 
 which he acquitted himself so well, that we thought he richly 
 deserved a benefit. He says of it, himself, that to have equall- 
 ed our account of it, would have required the talents of a Tal- 
 leyrand, or a Metternich. Surely then, we offered no insult to his 
 understanding. We considered him the fast friend of the gov- 
 ernment of the Methodist E. Church. And this, it is presumed, 
 is now one of his chief boastings. And as he was pleased to de- 
 vote himself, after his own manner, to the support of the prose- 
 cutions, we assure our readers, that no part of his conduct, 
 pending the whole of that transaction, was as reprehensible in 
 our estimation, as is his recent attempt to conceal his agency. 
 After having acknowledged, that he called the meeting at Pitt 
 street, for the purpose of publishing under the sanction of the 
 male members of the two stations, a defence of the Baltimore 
 Annual Conference, in the case of Rev'd D. B. Dorsey. After 
 having acknowledged the part he took in preparing, reading 
 and discussing the address which denounced the Mutual Rights, 
 and signified the necessity of discipline, "to defecate" the church, 
 &,c. After admitting that he made the extracts from the Mutual 
 Rights, and wrote the Narrative and Defence, in justification of 
 the "defecation," so soon as it had been accomplished by the 
 unanimous vote, which the call of the meeting was intended to 
 secure, we are obliged to think his further attempt at conceal- 
 ment, has the appearance of being at variance with christian 
 candor. 
 
 He has endeavoured to elude the imputation of his agency, in 
 regard to his having written the Narrative and Defence, by al- 
 ledging, that the papers, from which the extracts were made, had 
 been previously "indicated," in the charges and specifications, 
 which had been prepared for the prosecutions. Those papers 
 may have been previously indicated, and yet we are excusable, 
 even now, in suggesting the possibility, that he aided in making 
 out that "indication," with intention to comment on those parts 
 of them, which he thought he could use to advantage; first, for 
 4 
 
22 
 
 accomplishing the intended "defecation" of the church, by an 
 unanimous vote of the Quarterly Meeting Conference, "a major- 
 ity of which body had not read the Mutual Rights at all;" and in 
 the second place, to satisfy the Methodist people, who in like 
 manner were expected to see the extracts only, and without 
 "reading the Mutual Rights, to adopt the conclusion furnished 
 to their hands by the Narrative and Defence: and so by one 
 effort, make all believe, that the church was greatly benefitted by 
 his "defecation." It is unimportant who indicated the papers, 
 and the merit of the Review is not in the least diminished, if 
 we erred in supposing that the attention of the Bishops had been 
 called to them by the Doctor, some months before hand, because 
 it is known by the circumstances of Rev'd D. R. Dorsey's case, 
 that the Baltimore Annual Conference and the Bishops who at- 
 tended that conference, did turn attention to the subject, and 
 clearly made known their disposition towards the Mutual Rights. 
 Or if the proceedings of the conference were not sufficiently 
 notorious by other means, doctor Bond's address, which was 
 read and discussed at the Pitt street meeting and afterwards 
 printed, fairly disclosed the fact, that the condemnation of the 
 Mutual Rights by the church in Baltimore, would be in accord- 
 ance with the views and previous decision of the Annual Con- 
 ference. 
 
 One of their writers, doctor Bond, it is presumed, says "Having 
 slyly assigned to doctor Bond, the contrivance and arrangement 
 of the fearful conspiracy against reformers, Doctor Jennings 
 now introduces him, as condescending to manage an under-plot, 
 by proposing terms of compromise to the Union Society, which 
 was afterwards to make a figure in the Narrative and Defence." 
 As doctor Bond has attempted to shew "great delinquency, in 
 our manner of touching this point, let us examine it again with 
 more care. The statement, as it was printed in our review, is 
 as follows, viz: "But before the trials commenced, doctor Bond 
 took occasion, on his responsibility, to offer terms to the Union 
 Society, which if accepted, he ventured to engage for the prose- 
 cutions, that they should be dismissed." And to make his 
 charge of delinquency the more conspicuous, he exhibited his 
 imaginary contrast, in two opposite columns. It was his inten- 
 tion, to leave an impression on the minds of his readers, that 
 unguardedly and in violation of truth, we had asserted that 
 he gave a pledge, when he was careful to be understood as act- 
 ing the part of a mediator. And as he did, in preparing the 
 
23 
 
 Narrative and Defence, so in this case, he makes his charge of 
 delinquency look very specious. We reply, that neither the 
 nature of the engagement, nor the value of the "pledge," was 
 the burden of our story. It was our leading intention, in 
 view of that part of the transactions of the day, to show how 
 important doctor Bond felt himself to be, in respect to the prose- 
 cutions: — that he acted as the chief man. And to make known 
 our reasons for taking such a view of his importance, we refer- 
 red our readers to the Narrative and Defence, pages 24 and 25. 
 There doctor Bond, speaking of himself, says, "he had not re- 
 linquished the hope, that some conciliatory course might be 
 devised, by which, the necessity of further proceedings before the 
 constituted authorities of the church, might be removed." '*** "and 
 that he ventured alone and without our knowledge (the 
 prosecutors are meant) uroN the business of negotiation." 
 In accordance with this statement, made by the doctor himself, 
 and in perfect agreement with the impression which it made on 
 our minds, it is said in the review, that "he took occasion, on 
 his own responsibility, to offer terms to the Union Society." So 
 far from being untrue, is this comment upon the doctor's state- 
 ment, that it is not as strong as it ought to have been. Instead 
 of having said "he took occasion to offer terms," it ought to have 
 been said, he took occasion to dictate terms. As to any thing 
 that the brethren, generally, knew antecedent to that circum- 
 stance, doctor Bond had not made his appearance. It is ob- 
 vious, however, from his own statement that he was on the alert 
 waiting for the time proper for his entrance, when by some device, 
 he alone, without the knowledge of the seven prosecutors, might 
 render further proceedings before the constituted authorities of 
 the church, unnecessary. And here it may be proper to remark, 
 that the terms which he "devised" and intended, and hoped to 
 be able to impose upon us, first through doctor J. S. Reese, in 
 the way of this "under-plot," and next in the way of a collateral 
 plot, by the intervention of doctor Green, were the same which 
 were again held out by Mr. Hanson, to the "defecated" victims; 
 and finally, by the General Conference, as the only conditions of 
 our return. And every intelligent reader, on examining these 
 terms, the "device" of doctor Bond, will find, that they are so 
 "devised" that had we acceded to them, when proposed by him, 
 "further proceedings before the constituted authorities of the church," 
 would indeed have been unnecessary. But why did the review 
 present an "unequivocal assertion" that these terms contained a 
 
24 
 
 "pledge," that the prosecutions should be dismissed? Let it be 
 remembered, that in our apprehension, doctor Bond was a chief 
 agent, though concealed. We therefore, in reading the account 
 which this agent gives of himself, find him saying, that "without 
 the knowledge or consent of the prosecutors, he ventured alone 
 upon the business of negotiation" Again in presenting his dic- 
 tatorial terms, he says "J am disposed to use my personal influ- 
 ence to procure a suspension of proceedings before the church, 
 upon the following conditions;" and he told doctor J. S. Reese, 
 it was his opinion, if the Union Society would come to the terms 
 which he proposed, the prosecutions would be dismissed. 
 Moreover, doctor Bond told a very respectable citizen, not a 
 Methodist, that he was authorized to make the overture of terms 
 to the Union Society, which he presented to doctor John S. 
 Reese. As he did this, as he "ventured upon the business of ne- 
 gotiation alone and without the knowledge of the prosecutors ," and 
 was nevertheless authorized to do it, we ask, who but those high 
 in power, and yet out of sight in the transaction, could have 
 given him the authority? We know that Bishop George was 
 acquainted with the intended "defecation," whilst as yet the pre- 
 parations were making, and we cannot forget, that doctor Bond 
 and Bishop George attended Bishop Hedding, when the proper 
 name of Timothy was demanded. 
 
 Contemplating the subject according to this view, we would ask, 
 wherein consists our delinquency? Let us examine the subject 
 in still another light. The object of the prosecution, according 
 to our candid apprehension, was, to depose and annihilate re- 
 form. The terms "devised" by doctor Bond, if they had been 
 received, could not have failed to have accomplished this pur- 
 pose. But if they were obliged to rely upon the intended ''de- 
 fecation" although it had received the vote of the Pitt street 
 Meeting, yet it was possible, and the doctor could foresee the 
 possibility, that our prediction to Mr. S. Harden might be fulfilled; 
 and after all their care and pains and "unanimity " in effecting a 
 "defecation," Reform might continue to be very troublesome 
 to them; as it has been, in fact, and will continue to be. But if 
 the doctor's device could have taken effect, all would have been 
 hushed into silence. And who but such a Talleyrand of an 
 agent, would have conceived a device so cunning? And if the 
 Union Society, had been silly enough to have been captivated 
 by it, can the reader be persuaded to believe, that he was not 
 ready tl to engage for the prosecution, that it should be dismissed for 
 
25 
 
 an advantage so great! The agent, believe us, understood the 
 object of his negotiation too well not to have secured it, if it had 
 been in his power. And besides, all these considerations to dis- 
 prove the accusation of delinquency, we did not pretend to 
 quote the words of doctor Bond, in the terms and conditions 
 which he devised and prescribed; we stated only our view of their 
 meaning-, and referred the reader to the Narrative and Defence, 
 pages 24 and 25, that he might judge for himself, whether our 
 view was correct; — whether a negotiation, thus undertaken, by 
 such an agent, did not imply engagement on his part, for the ful- 
 filment of the terms dictated by himself. 
 
 The doctor has accused us, with having commenced a per- 
 sonal attack upon him, without provocation. The reader will 
 find, we have in no instance departed from the subject of our 
 controversy; — in no particular, indulged in personal remarks, ex- 
 cept only when he is personally identified with the question at 
 issue. And as we hold him implicated, as one of the chiefs in 
 the prosecution, as he was, in fact, the writer of the Narrative 
 and Defence, it is useless for him to say we commenced the at- 
 tack upon him. In a paragraph of that work, on page 66, he 
 says, "doctor Jennings * * * * ought to have reflected, that as 
 one of the editorial committee of the Mutual Rights, he had 
 assailed the spotless reputation of men, who labored in the min- 
 istry * * * perhaps before he was born. * * * If there were any 
 just grounds for the accusations, we should be grieved. * # * But 
 when these accusations are totally destitute of truth, and only 
 got up to subserve a party purpose — we cannot and dare not be 
 silent. * * * That the allegations were not believed even by 
 those who made them, is sufficiently obvious." 
 
 If this paragraph, which is one only out of many similar instances 
 of attack, contained in the Narrative and Defence, was not a per- 
 sonal attack on us, because we were a part of the editorial com- 
 mittee; then, nothing said of doctor Bond in the Exposition or 
 Review, is personal in respect to him, since he bore so important 
 a part in the prosecution. With this concern we found him as- 
 sociated, and therefore have paid our respects to him; — and that 
 because it was not possible otherwise, to do justice to the sub- 
 ject. Apart from the transactions by which we were expelled 
 from the Methodist Episcopal Church, we have no intention of 
 troubling him or any of his party. 
 
AN EXPOSITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF THE LATE CONTROVERSY, &C. PROCEEDINGS BY 
 WHICH REFORMERS WERE EXPELLED, &-C. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Presents a brief account of the true cause of the expulsion of Reform- 
 ers, by the rulers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore, 
 
 The readers of the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, 
 new series, No. 1. having no other information than can be collected 
 from that review, the "Christian Advocate and Journal," &,c. of 
 course, nine-tenths of the Methodist people will be induced to be - 
 lieve, that the Reformers of this city, of Cincinnati, of Pittsburg, 
 Lynchburgh, &c. &,c. in their late efforts to obtain the right of re- 
 presentation in the legislative department of the church, contend- 
 ed for a very different purpose.— That their main object was, to 
 secure to themselves, what Mr. Emory is pleased to call, "the sweet 
 liberty of inveighing and endeavouring to sow dissentions, with- 
 out restraint;" of comparing Methodist preachers with the ancient 
 Druids, the despots of Babylon, Egypt, and Tartary, &,c. — That 
 for their unchristian conduct in asserting this kind of liberty, they 
 were expelled. That when they were called on by the church, to ac- 
 count for such unwarrantable conduct, they held the church au- 
 thorities in "stubborn," and "proud contempt;" — refusing to obey 
 citations to appear before inferior tribunals, or despising the right 
 of appeal to the higher. That, therefore, their cases were not en- 
 titled to the consideration of the Annual or General Conferences, 
 although the latter condescended to propose terms of reconcila- 
 tion and peace. That on the whole, they have no right to com- 
 plain. — And that the Presbyterians, &c. by permitting reform 
 preachers to occupy their pulpits, have refused to acknowledge the 
 
28 
 
 regularity of the proceedings, by which they were suspended and 
 expelled; when at the same time, no proof of the contrary had 
 appeared, but the complaints of such disciplined and deposed 
 members. 
 
 Every impartial reader of the Mutual Rights knows this, to be a 
 gross misrepresentation of the whole affair. And considering the 
 extensive circulation and influence of the Magazine and Quarter- 
 ly Review, it seems to be necessary to meet the unmerited asper- 
 sion, with an exposition of the whole transaction. This is the 
 more necessary, because there are thousands of our friends who 
 have not seen the fourth volume of Mutual Rights, which contains 
 the principal documents. There are other reasons, which will be 
 obvious in the sequel. As it respects us, the call for such a devel- 
 opment as we are able to give, seems imperious, because 
 
 quseque ipse miserrima vidi, 
 
 Et quorum pars magna fui.- 
 
 It has been the steady purpose of Reformers, from the com- 
 mencement of their labours, to inculcate such views of church pol- 
 ity as are consistent with Christian liberty. They have insisted on 
 the rightful claims of the people to self-government. And they 
 have been particularly desirous to remove out of the way of the 
 ministers of the gospel, all temptation to assume unwarranted au- 
 thority, or a proud elevation over their brethren. So long as they 
 could have entertained a hope of effecting any meliorating change 
 in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they would 
 have been willing, that it should have been brought about in a gra- 
 dual manner, and would have been satisfied with the most moderate 
 concessions, that reasonably could have been accepted. They 
 were particularly solicitous, that the General Conference might 
 take the lead, in a work so important, and secure to themselves 
 the high claims to just respect, which such a dignified course of 
 conduct was calculated to procure. With such views and feelings 
 they sent up memorials to the General Conference of 1824. The 
 point which they urged more particularly, was the right of the peo- 
 ple to a representation in the legislative department of the church. 
 The bishops and Conference replied by a circular, saying, that if 
 any departure from the institution as they had received it from 
 their fathers, were intended, they must be pardoned, "if they knew 
 no such right, if they comprehended no such privilege." This was 
 a declaration of their unqualified determination to retain their 
 power, undiminished. The only hope of Reformers for accom- 
 plishing any thing from that time, rested upon their success in 
 gaining the attention of the people. 
 
 A periodical, entitled the Wesleyan Repository, had been issued 
 in monthly numbers, for three years preceding the Conference, the 
 principal writers for which had taken much pains, to prove to the 
 travelling preachers, that the true interest of the church required 
 the concession of a lay delegation. The work, however, was 
 greatly opposed by those, whose best interests it was intended to 
 subserve. It was, therefore, thought advisable, that it should give 
 
29 
 
 place to the Mutual Rights; and with intention to counteract a 
 similar opposition to this periodical, and secure the greater unani- 
 mity amongst the Reformers generally, Union Societies were insti- 
 tuted, in various places, and recommended to the friends of reform 
 generally. Aided by these necessary arrangements, the cause soon 
 assumed a more systematic form, and produced a more extensive 
 and obvious effect. After a perseverance of about three years, 
 all who understood the subject, were well convinced, that the same 
 measures continued, would extend the work throughout the Unit- 
 ed States. All were satisfied by the evidence daily afforded, that 
 a sufficient circulation of the Mutual Rights, sustained by a cor- 
 responding organization of Union Societies, would soon produce 
 an impulse in favour of correct principles, which would be irresis- 
 tible. For the same reason, the travelling preachers and the friends 
 of power, considered it necessary to bring about the destruction of 
 measures, which they were obliged to see, were becoming every 
 day more formidable. But as the publication had been permitted 
 to go on without interruption for so many years, and as it was con- 
 fidently believed that the people of these free states, would not sus- 
 tain an open attack upon the liberty of speech and the press, Re- 
 formers generally supposed that the intimations given of an inten- 
 tion to charge them with a breach of discipline, with "inveighing" 
 and "speaking evil of ministers," were without foundation. In 
 this, however, they were greatly mistaken. The wise ones were 
 maturing their plan of operations, and at length, they satisfied them- 
 selves, that extracts might be made from the Mutual Rights, which, 
 with their intended comments, would be considered so offen- 
 sive, as to ensure the condemnation of the periodical, with the 
 Methodist community, and justify the expulsion of its editors and 
 patrons. They concluded too, judging from other facts, when in- 
 dividuals had been subjected to church censure, that the characters 
 and influence of their intended victims, would be so entirely de- 
 stroyed, that their expulsion would rid the church of further trou- 
 ble on the score of reform. 
 
 In order to bring about the official death of the local preachers, 
 with the least observation, and prepare the people to give them up, 
 most quietly, the preachers in charge of the Baltimore city stations, 
 excluded them from their pulpits as unworthy of public confidence; 
 and justified themselves to inquiring friends, by representing them 
 as bitter enemies of Methodism, and dwelling with great emphasis 
 on their late interference in the case of the Rev. D. B. Dorsey, 
 who had been censured by the Baltimore Annual Conference, and 
 left without an appointment for one year. For the dread offence 
 of having recommended the Mutual Rights, and for having dared 
 to assert his rights in the presence of the Conference, he was sub- 
 jected to these penalties. The editorial committee, with intention 
 to prevent such tyrannical proceedings, on any subsequent occa- 
 sion, had published an account of them. This was particularly 
 offensive to the travelling preachers, and perhaps served to hasten 
 the contemplated expulsion of reform out of their borders. 
 
30 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Statement of preparatory measures, and remarks upon them. The 
 Pitt Street Meeting, fyc. 
 
 When the leaders in this drama, were in readiness, they collect- 
 ed together in Dr. Roszel's school-room,* a number of those sup- 
 posed to be favourable to their views, and selected seven of their 
 most distinguished members, to act as prosecutors, who were to 
 attend to the preparation of the intended charges and specifica- 
 tions, and proceed to our expulsion. And that our exclusion, and 
 not our trial with intention to do us justice, was intended, will 
 fully appear in the sequel. Before they began to cite us, it was 
 determined to call a general meeting of the party, together with 
 as many of the prosecutors as were then in the city, at the old 
 Baptist church, at the corner of Front and Pitt streets, where they 
 united in a common vote "that the opinion of the Conference, that 
 the Mutual Rights was an improper work, was not founded on its 
 being a work on church government, &c. but it was founded on the 
 fact, that the Mutual Rights was a work, in which anonymous 
 writers were permitted to abuse and defame the travelling preachers; 
 to deprive them, if possible, of the confidence and support of the 
 people of their charge, by holding them up to public odium, and 
 by misrepresenting both their actions and their motives." 
 
 By this public vote, all the active members came to a common 
 understanding, that the Mutual Rights had properly come under 
 the condemnation of the Annual Conference, and that this sen- 
 tence had the approbation and sanction of the whole party. In 
 this unanimous sentence, the seven prosecutors, the three local 
 preachers who afterwards sat in judgment on the cases of the 
 ten local preachers, as also, the committee, who in the like man- 
 ner sat in judgment on the twenty-two members who have been 
 expelled, were all present and voted, and of course virtually 
 pledged themselves to stand by the prosecution. I may add here, 
 that the paper which contained the above opinion of the Annual 
 Conference, gave notice of the contemplated purpose to "defe- 
 cate" the church. 
 
 After having made such ample preparation, every body must 
 perceive, that nothing more remained to be done, but to get up 
 such charges as should accord with the preparations; then take us 
 one by one, identify us with the Mutual Rights, and the whole 
 business of our condemnation was settled. The formality of 
 charges and specifications, appears to have been necessary, merely 
 to save appearances, make the act officially an act of the church, 
 and lead the community into a belief, that the Reformers had been 
 accused righteously, tried in due form, fairly condemned and justly 
 punished. 
 
 *They had held a previous private council, at the house of Mr. William 
 Brown, deceased. 
 
31 
 
 Knowing as we did, that these arrangements were previously made, 
 when summoned to appear and answer, it was as clear to our minds 
 as a sunbeam, that we were called upon, not to be tried, but to be 
 excommunicated. And as the excommunication of a few individ- 
 uals, could not answer the purpose which the party had in view, 
 we were obliged to see with equal clearness, if they were permit- 
 ted to succeed, in this way, in Baltimore, that similar measures 
 would be taken against Reformers, upon a scale sufficiently ex- 
 tended, to effect their excommunication throughout the whole ex- 
 tent of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 We could not consent to be tried before a tribunal, constituted 
 for this purpose. To have done so, and by our own act to have 
 given sanction to their proceedings, would have been to sacrifice 
 principles, which every American and every Christian is bound to 
 hold more dear than life. We therefore entered our protest, un- 
 der conviction, that such a court could not have admissible juris- 
 diction in the case. The very circumstance, that it had become 
 necessasy to make the intended prosecution an affair of the party, 
 in order to carry it on, to all candid and well informed minds, must 
 be conclusive proof that a church court had nothing to do with 
 the subject. The dispute in question, involved interests of great 
 public importance, which the decision of such a court could not 
 finally dispose of or settle, and upon which its sentence could have 
 no adequate effect. And we did hope that the higher authorities 
 of the church would sustain our protests, and wipe off the stain 
 which this unprincipled transaction was tending to fix upon it. 
 This we had good reason to expect, in as much as by the circular 
 which issued from the General Conference of 1824, the bishops 
 and Conference assured us, they "rejoice, that the institutions 
 of our happy country are admirably calculated to secure the 
 best ends of civil government," adding, "with your rights as 
 citizens of the United States, the church disclaims all inter- 
 ference." The "liberty of speech and of the press;" the liber- 
 ty to assert our ecclesiastical rights and privileges; the right 
 to investigate and communicate the results of our investigations 
 into the administration, and especially into the mal-administra- 
 tion of men in office and power; — these are some of the most im- 
 portant privileges, which are guarranteed to us by the Constitution 
 and Bill of Rights of the United States and of the state of Mary- 
 land, and of course are rights, with which "the church disclaims 
 all interference." And yet this prosecution was an attack, which by 
 men with right views of the Constitution of the United States, 
 will be considered an act of treason against our civil and religious 
 liberties, at the same time that it trampled under foot and dishonor- 
 ed this sacred pledge, given us by the bishops and General Con- 
 ference. 
 
 It is said there was no intention to infringe upon our rights in 
 any of these respects, but to call us to account for a licentious 
 abuse of those rights. This is the aspect which our prosecutors 
 are desirous their proceedings should wear. This, Mr. Emory 
 would present as the "gist" of the offence. 
 
32 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 A statement of the case, as it ought to have been viewed by the committee. 
 
 We were accused as editors, &c. of a periodical. The princi- 
 pal design of the periodical was to shew, that in the organization and 
 administration of the government of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, there are infractions made upon the natural and Christian 
 rights of whole classes of her members. Under the protection of 
 the Bill of Rights, and Constitution of the United States, and the 
 State of Maryland, we asserted our right to take on us this office, 
 and under the grand charter, which comprises and confirms the 
 Christian rights of every member of the church of Christ, the 
 Holy Word of God, we claimed the right, as members and as 
 ministers of the church, to examine and "try all things;" — the 
 government, its administrations, its practices; and to communicate 
 through a periodical, the result of our investigations. It was our 
 right and privilege as editors, to judge respecting the merits of any 
 paper offered for insertion, and particularly to judge, whether it was 
 intended "to speak evil of ministers." It is true we were liable 
 to err, and if we erred, in the judgment of any brother, he had a 
 right as well founded as our own, to make a becoming representa- 
 tion of our mistake; which done, there existed an obligation on 
 our part, to make such correction as might have been reasonably 
 and properly required; and this we always were ready to do. 
 
 Had the brethren waited on us. with a view to any such correc- 
 tion, they would have been received in love, and as far as their de- 
 mands were reasonable and proper, they would have been granted. 
 But they never took any step of this kind. 
 
 The meetings preparatory to the accomplishment of our excom- 
 munication, preceded any call upon us, in relation to the Mutual 
 Rights. And when the prosecuting committee were ready to 
 make a specious attempt to justify themselves in their intended 
 course, they waited on us, to let us know, that we must desist from 
 the publication of the Mutual Rights, and abandon the Union Society, 
 or they would proceed against us. 
 
 From this conduct, it is obvious, that a correction of the manner 
 of our publications, had no place in their thoughts. 
 
 The attack was made upon reform, and the design was to secure 
 a continuance of the absolute power of the travelling preachers, 
 by expelling out of the church, the friends of reform. The ques- 
 tion at issue was an affair of opinion, and could not be settled 
 righteously in this way. The court of inquiry in the first instance, 
 was tainted with partiality and injustice. The judge, the Rev. Mr. 
 Hanson, had written his opinion in a letter to Mr. Jacobs, of 
 Alexandria — "I am disposed," said he, "to view the greater part 
 of them, [the Reformers,] as holding a relation to the church, to 
 which in justice and propriety, nay even in charity itself, they are 
 no longer entitled." 
 
33 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Presents the absurd and truly ridiculous character of the prosecution. 
 
 The judge, the prosecutors, and the committee, were all of one 
 party, and had all prejudged our case. If a majority of Reform- 
 ers had been permitted to sit in judgment, they would certainly 
 have decided in our favour. The whole court were anti-reformers, 
 and they decided against us. And now we ask, what information 
 has been gained by the inquiry and the decision of this court? 
 That anti-reformers are opposed to our views, and had rather turn 
 Reformers out of the church, than permit investigation to go on 
 in it. And does this settle the question? Reformers have been la- 
 bouring to prove that they have a just claim to a representation in 
 the legislative department of the church. Anti-reformers sat in 
 judgment on their claim, and expelled the claimants from their 
 communion for asking it and daring to produce evidences in proof 
 of the importance of its being granted. And all the while, that 
 these formalities and severities of a church court were going on, 
 it was still a question of opinion. And what is worse, it was 
 making the opinion of the three local preachers, who sat as our 
 committee, to be the measure of the judgment of the whole Me- 
 thodist Church on the great question at issue.* It was even worse 
 than this. It was declaring to the world, that great polemical 
 questions are settled in the Methodist Episcopal Church, by ex- 
 pelling those who dare to think differently from the travelling 
 preachers, and that the travelling preachers can enlist their mem- 
 bers to sustain them in it, even to the withholding from their peo- 
 ple, the liberty of speech and of the press. 
 
 How obvious is it, that a party difference cannot be settled 
 righteously in this way! When any question which is agitated con- 
 cerns none, but those who are permitted to act in the case, it might 
 be put to the vote of a majority. For example, if no one out of 
 the station of Baltimore, had been interested, a meeting of all con- 
 cerned, might have effected a temporary arrangement, by putting 
 the question to vote in a friendly manner. But all communities 
 are forever changing, both in their constituent materials, and in 
 the opinions of their members. Of course the very nature of hu- 
 man society, implies the necessity of freedom of inquiry and of 
 opinion; — and no arrangement, short of a frequently elected dele- 
 gation, for the purpose of regulating conventional principles and 
 rules of conduct, can maintain a form of church or state govern- 
 ment, which shall do equal justice to the opinions of an extensive 
 fellowship. Hovv very far therefore, would even the vote of a ma- 
 
 *These three preachers, were John W. Harris, Samuel Williams and Tho- 
 mas Basford. We thought them well meaning- men; but as to their qualifica- 
 tions for sitting in judgment on a case of so much moment, we must say, we 
 pitied their temerity. All who know them, will testify, that they can barely 
 sustain themselves as local preachers in the Methodist' Episcopal Church, of 
 the most ordinary attainments. 
 
34 
 
 jority of the Baltimore station, have fallen short of doing justice to 
 the opinions of our vastly extended community! And ought not 
 the sense of justice of the people or preachers to have led them 
 to admit, that the friends of reform had the right to inquire and 
 think, as well as they? 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The prosecution violated all the fundamental rules by which judicial 
 proceedings should be regulated. 
 
 It is settled in this country and in Great Britain, that in all judi- 
 cial proceedings, the tribunal which determines both the law and 
 the fact, should be impartial. According to judge Blackstone, 
 "should be like Caesar's wife, not only pure, but unsuspected." 
 Hence the establishment of certain rules of the courts, to guard 
 against the want of integrity; — against the prejudices and partiali- 
 ties to which all human tribunals are liable. 
 
 Upon any trial for the least offence, which can be charged by 
 the most enlightened and impartial grand jury, not an individual of 
 those who served on such grand jury, can be legally permitted to 
 act and determine as one of a traverse jury, upon the guilt of the 
 persons so charged. Not one would be permitted in this country, 
 even if the whole grand jury had been composed of bishops, pre- 
 siding elders, itinerant or local preachers, trustees or stewards. 
 Yet in this case, after taking the vote as it was done, at the meet- 
 ings at Roszel's school-room, and at the corner of Pitt street, 
 where all seived as grand jury-men, they were under the necessity 
 of dropping the intended prosecutions, or of exhibiting the novel 
 proceeding, of making up all their committees, out of the men 
 who had previously decided and published their decision on the 
 case in question; which every reflecting man in the nation, will 
 consider out of character. For nothing can be more rational, than 
 to believe and expect, that those who voluntarily preferred charges, 
 would declare the charges true, which they themselves had with 
 great assiduity prepared. 
 
 Again, it is an important rule in criminal proceedings, that the 
 law in all penal cases, shall be construed strictly and rigidly, 
 against the government and in favour of the accused. Considering 
 the circumstances and the materials, in view of the men who con- 
 stituted the court of inquiry, what prospect had the accused, of 
 availing themselves of the benefit of this rule? In fact, every 
 question was decided against them. 
 
 Another indispensable rule, is, that the character of the offence, 
 as charged, shall be made out so specifically, as to enable the ac- 
 cused, not only fully to comprehend its nature, but clearly to per- 
 ceive, what evidence may be necessary for him, on trial; that he 
 may not be liable, either to mistake, or to be entrapped in prepar- 
 ing for and making his defence. In this case, we had the absur- 
 
35 
 
 dity of a vague reference to all that is published in three large 
 octavo volumes, and part of a fourth, in extenso, and more partic- 
 ularly to fifteen long essays, containing more than one hundred and 
 fifty pages, with not one sentence definitely specified. Nay more, 
 when some of the accused requested that the offensive papers 
 might be read, in order that the supposed defamatory words might 
 be designated, it was peremptorily refused by the court.* 
 
 This is a faithful description of the view which we we recompell- 
 ed to take, of the official members of the city station. It was a 
 time of excitement; and the colouring may be sufficiently strong, 
 but it is honest, and as free from prejudice, as possible in existing 
 circumstances. Here, we leave them for a little, until we shall have 
 taken a brief notice of the District Conference, the tribunal before 
 which, we were willing and prepared to appear upon the merits of 
 the case. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The District Conference dissolved, in order to place the local preach- 
 ers under the authority of the Quarterly Meeting Conference, the 
 members of which had been pledged by the vote at Pitt street, to 
 stand by the prosecutions* 
 
 It was known to us, at least two months before hand, that it was 
 a part of the plan of the dominant party, to dissolve the District 
 Conference, and compel the suspended local preachers, to appear, 
 for trial, before the Quarterly Conference; — before the same men, 
 who had with one consent, prejudged our case and published their 
 judgment, in the famous pamphlet which issued from their Pitt and 
 Front street meeting. We also knew, that if a majority of votes in 
 favour of a dissolution of the conference, could not otherwise be ob- 
 tained, the coloured preachers would be called on to vote. The 
 editor of the Review says, it has been affirmed that they voted, and 
 it has been denied. Had he turned to the Narrative and Defence, 
 page 112, he would have read the following statement, made by the 
 prosecuting agents of the church. "He [the President, Rev. Joseph 
 Frye,] then requested that all who were in favour of the motion 
 would rise up, and stand till they were counted; nineteen white 
 members and ten coloured, arose in favour of the motion." It gave 
 us but little concern, that the coloured men also had been enlisted 
 against us. But, the transaction went far to satisfy us that we had 
 taken a true view of the object of men in power, and that we were 
 correct in our former declaration, that the prosecution was put in 
 
 * These rules or principles, by which the jurisprudence of our country is 
 regulated, are in perfect accordance with the dictates of common sense. They 
 are introduced in this place, to show how the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 authorities regard principle, when it is at variance with the designs of men 
 in power. 
 
36 
 
 motion by "persons at a distance, high in authority."* Some ob- 
 jection was made, to the propriety of calling on the coloured 
 preachers to vote in the case; when one of them arose and declar- 
 ed in justification of his rights, that he and others had waited on 
 the Bishop, when he was last in the city, and the "Bishop told us, 
 said he, to go to Conference and insist on our rights; for we had as 
 good a right to vote, as any man in the Conference; and if he were 
 in the chair, he would call to order and put down any one who 
 would oppose our right to vote." The transaction afforded addi- 
 tional proof, of a concerted design, in which the bishops, presiding 
 elder, the preacher in charge ot W est Baltimore station, and the 
 whole body of official men, were confidently expected to sustain 
 their proceedings. 
 
 We have good cause to believe that the prosecutors, or at least, 
 the agent, knew they would be sustained by the General Confer- 
 ence; and, as shall be shewn more distinctly by and by; that 
 they relied upon the Narrative and Defence, which they intended 
 to publish. 
 
 We considered it to be inconsistent with our responsibilities to the 
 friends of reform, in view of the great question at issue, to ac- 
 knowledge the legality of the prosecution before the committee, or 
 court of inquiry, and therefore we had entered our protests. Nor could 
 we see any good cause for changing our course. We therefore 
 determined not to appear before the Quarterly Conference. The 
 brethren in like circumstances were of the same opinion. All 
 concluded it would be a waste of time, and an improper avidity of 
 humiliation, to wait upon the Conferenee to hear a formal condem- 
 
 • This was our view of the affair at the time when it occurred and when 
 we commenced our Review. "We have since learned, that Franc'13 Watkins, 
 the coloured man who so boldly asserted his right to vote on the occasion, by 
 his manner, made an impression that he had recently received such instruc- 
 tion from Bishop George. In this there was a mistake. Some friends of the 
 prosecutions, had waited on the coloured preachers, and urged them to be in 
 place and vote. We are now of the opinion, that the Bishop's view of their 
 privileges, had been presented for their encouragement, until Watkins and 
 others, had associated it with the pending transaction. In confirmation of 
 this conjecture, on an application made to him about the first of the present 
 year, for his own account of the matter, he replied, perhaps hastily, that he 
 had reference to an interview, he and others had with the Bishop, not a very 
 long time before the District Conference. But when requested to make a 
 statement of it in writing, he asked for time, to see Mr. Hanson, &c. and re- 
 turned with a written reply, referring the interview with the Bishop, to some 
 time between 1824 and 1826. On application to John Fortie, he produced a 
 journal, kept by himself, by which it appears, that it took place in March, 
 1826. In course, it was not intended for the occasion to which it was applied; 
 and F. Watkins had piobably by the influence above noticed given to it an 
 erroneous association. It is, however, a matter of no importance, although 
 the agent would wish now to have it so. If this incident had not occurred 
 at all, the issue would have been the same. Independent of this, we knew, 
 that Bishop George approved the prosecutions, and took pains to predispose 
 some of our friends to approve our expulsion, when it should be accomplish- 
 ed. Besides, the final decision of the General Conference, has put the sub- 
 ject altogether at rest. By that act, the prosecution with all its absurdities 
 and severities, received the approbation of the Bishops and Conference. 
 
37 
 
 nation of the Mutual Rights, when it was already known that 
 its condemnation was certain. All concluded, that the General 
 Conference, when they should be made acquainted with these cir- 
 cumstances, even if every member of the Conference should be 
 hostile to reform, for the credit of Methodism and their own repu- 
 tation, ought to interpose, reverse the decision of the Quarterly 
 Conference, and devise some plan for our restoration; — one in 
 which we could safely and honorably concur. 
 
 At the time appointed, the Quarterly conference met, and after 
 having exhibited an extra scene, which occupied several days, in 
 which a certain Dr. Green was the ostensible actor, who affected 
 to have come an unsolicited and disinterested mediator, and whose 
 terms for our return to submission, we shall have occasion to notice; 
 the Quarterly Conference proceeded to the reading of the selec- 
 tions made from the Mutual Rights, adding we presume, their sapi- 
 ent comments, as published in the Narrative and Defence; and so 
 effectually did they answer the intended purpose, "that on motion 
 for our expulsion, there was not a dissenting voice." 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Memorial sent up to the Baltimore Annual Conference. 
 
 Agreeably to our contemplated course, when the time for the 
 meeting of the Annual Conference was approaching — in April, 
 1828, we prepared and sent up the following 
 
 MEMORIAL TO THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 "This memorial of the undersigned, late ministers and members 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of Baltimore, and 
 who have recently been expelled from the fellowship of said church, 
 respectfully sheweth, that we believe we have been unjustly de- 
 prived of our membership, for the following considerations: 
 
 First. We consider it to have been a grievous encroachment 
 on our rights, to require us to withdraw from the Union Society, 
 and to demand the suppression of the Mutual Rights, as the only 
 condition on which we could avoid a church prosecution. 
 
 Second. We consider it to have been a violation of the dis- 
 cipline, and an unjustifiable neglect of a well known duty of the 
 preacher having the pastoral charge of the station, to have receiv- 
 ed accusations against us and summoned us to trial, without 
 having previously used all his personal influence to restore and 
 preserve peace. 
 
 Third. We consider it altogether inconsistent with any proper 
 sense of justice, that we should have been subjected to trial for 
 publishing papers, the authors of which, being members and minis- 
 ters of our church, were left unmolested; although the names of 
 6 
 
38 
 
 some of the writers were made public, and no demand had been 
 made for the names of those who were not known. This con- 
 sideration is greatly strengthened by the fact, that some of the papers 
 to which exceptions were raised, had been published two or three 
 years previously, and daring all that time the characters of such of 
 us as were official members, had been regularly passed, without ex- 
 ception, by the quarterly meeting conferences, of which our prose- 
 cutors were members. 
 
 Fourth. We consider it altogether unreasonable that the preach- 
 er in charge, did not allow time to the chairman of the editorial 
 committee, to correspond with the writers of the papers complain- 
 ed of, before he was compelled to appear and answer; — thereby sub- 
 jecting him and all of us, to the necessity of entering our protests 
 against the illegality and injustice of the procedure. 
 
 Fifth. We consider it very objectionable, that after the question 
 upon church government had produced so much excitement, as to 
 lead to the acknowledged formation of two parties; one party 
 should have been permitted to enlist the church authorities, to aid 
 them in the expulsion of the other party; — which of course pro- 
 duced the reproachful consequence, that the whole of the pro- 
 ceedings were inevitably conducted in an exparte manner. 
 
 Sixth. When cited to trial, the committee ought to have been 
 devoid of partiality or prejudice; this we presume will not be de- 
 nied; — but the fact was far otherwise. The preacher in charge se- 
 lected the two committees from brethren who had previously voted 
 at a select meeting, that we were "enemies of Methodism." 
 Moreover, when asked by the Rev. Mr. Hanson, if we had any 
 objection to the committee, and after their own acknowledgment 
 that they had voted as aforesaid, yet Mr. Hanson declared them 
 fully competent, and they were retained, notwithstanding our so- 
 lemn protestations against such a procedure. 
 
 Seventh. We consider it highly objectionable, that although the 
 preacher in charge was respectfully requested, in accordance with 
 the general if not universal practice, of all the courts of enlighten- 
 ed jurisprudence, to direct the reading of the particular words, 
 sentences, paragraphs, or sections, which were to be relied on, as 
 proof of objectionable matter; yet Mr. Hanson, in reply to the 
 request to order the reading of such parts of the Mutual Rights, 
 as were expected to sustain the charges, declared it could not be 
 admitted, and the committees were permitted to retire with all 
 their prejudices, taking with them the Mutual Rights, in extenso, 
 on which to form their decision, without having given an oppor- 
 tunity to the accused, to explain, or even to remove wrong im- 
 pressions; and this consideration acquires additional strength, from 
 the fact, that the explanations of the writers themselves, which 
 ought to have been had in the case, were also precluded, the un- 
 deniable importance of which, will still more fully appear, by re- 
 ference to a late paper, written by the Rev. Mr. Shinn, in reply to 
 the Narrative and Defence, &c. and to facts which transpired in 
 the course of the trials, &c. 
 
39 
 
 Eighth. Had we been required to correct any thing that was er- 
 roneous, in previous numbers of the Mutual Rights, or to apolo- 
 gize for any severity of expression, or to explain, or to rectify any 
 thing that might have led a reader into error, we hereby declare, 
 (as was declared in some of the protests,) that we should most 
 gladly have done so, both as a matter of duty, and for the sake of our 
 brethren, but these were not the conditions proposed to us, either 
 by our brethren, who accused us, or by the preacher, who expelled 
 us. They required us to abandon the Union Society, and to suppress 
 the Mutual Rights, the most proper medium through which the 
 evils complained of, if they really existed, could be corrected. 
 
 Ninth. It may be asked, why did not the lay members appeal 
 to the Quarterly Conference? To this we answer, that having 
 protested against the legality of the whole proceeding, we deemed 
 it improper. The impropriety of an appeal to that tribunal, must 
 have appeared with irresistible force to any, knowing as we did, 
 that nearly all of its members had been actively engaged in getting 
 up the prosecution, and had united in condemning us in their Pitt 
 street publication. 
 
 Your memorialists forbear to state numerous other facts de- 
 veloped in the course of the prosecutions and trials, calculated in 
 their tendencies and issues, not only to degrade us, but to widen 
 the differences among brethren; and to bring lasting, and just re- 
 proach on the co-ordinate executive branches of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 We, therefore, request the conference, in the name of Him 
 whom we all profess to serve; — by their attachment to the principles 
 of righteousness and the interests of their lacerated Zion, to inter- 
 pose and restore us to the enjoyment of our former standing in 
 the church of our choice and affections, from which, we have 
 been unnaturally severed. Thereby they will render us an act of 
 justice, and insure to themselves, an ever during acclaim from the 
 virtuous and the good. 
 
 Your memorialists would finally state, that no malevolent affec- 
 tion has place in their souls, against either of the prosecutors, 
 preachers, or committees. 
 
 At the same time, justice and propriety demand your imme- 
 diate investigation of the official conduct of the Rev. J. M. Han- 
 son, and that of the Rev. Joseph Frye, in reference to our particu- 
 lar cases. 
 
 That the great Head of the church may direct your deliberations 
 in this, and all other matters which are interwoven with the best 
 interests of Zion, is the sincere prayer of your memorialists. 
 
 Baltimore, April, 1828. 
 
40 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Resolutions of the Baltimore Annual Conference, in reply to our me- 
 morial, with strictures, and a copy of a protest. 
 
 To this memorial, the Conference in their wisdom and fraternal 
 wishes to recover us, returned the following resolutions, in reply. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS 
 
 Passed by the Baltimore Annual Conference, in reply to the memorial of the 
 expelled brethren. 
 
 1. Resolved by the Baltimore Annual Conference, in Conference 
 assembled, That ministers or members of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, who do not obey the citations of the church to appear be- 
 fore inferior judicatories, in cases of accusation or complaint; or 
 who neglect to avail themselves of the intermediate appellate judi- 
 dicatories, for redress of alleged grievances, are not entitled to 
 come before higher judicatories, either as appellants or complain- 
 ants. 
 
 2. That to sanction or countenance a contrary course of pro- 
 ceeding, would in the judgment of this conference, be subversive 
 
 Of WHOLESOME and SOUND DISCIPLINE. 
 
 3. That if the suspended local preachers in Baltimore, on the 
 dissolution of the district conference, had appeared before the 
 quarterly meeting conference, as cited, and objected to the juris- 
 diction of that body, if they thought proper to do so; in such case, 
 on an appeal, this conference would have fully considered and de- 
 cided on the whole subject, embracing the question of the legality 
 of the dissolution of the Baltimore district conference and the ju- 
 risdiction of the quarterly meeting conference. But as those local 
 preachers preferred to pursue a different course, and one, in the 
 judgment of this conference, both irregular and disorderly, mak- 
 ing inflammatory appeals to the public, declaring that they had no 
 other alternative, and that a church court, even if righteously con- 
 stituted, could not be considered to have admissible jurisdiction in 
 such a case, this conference judge it both useless, and inconsis- 
 tent with correct and necessary principles of discipline and order, 
 in these circumstances to take further cognizance of the subject. 
 
 4. That the secretary be, and he hereby is directed to furnish a 
 copy of the preceding resolutions to Dr. Samuel K. Jennings, and 
 others, signers of the communication from Baltimore, addressed 
 to the Conference. 
 
 Carlisle, Penn., April 18, 1828. 
 
 Is not this a queer thing? If the local preachers had "appeared 
 before the quarterly meeting conference and objected," they would 
 have been permitted to complain and appeal. We had sent in a 
 formal protest, addressed to the presiding elder, as will be seen 
 presently, but as we failed in this act of homage, as we disregard- 
 
41 
 
 ed this important formality of the courts of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, as we failed to appear before their honours, it was fatal 
 to our cause!! 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 TO THE REV. JOSEPH FRYE, PRESIDING ELDER. 
 
 "We the subscrbers, having been informed by your note of the 
 12th instant, of your intention, to bring before your quarterly meet- 
 ing conference of the Baltimore city station, the charges and speci- 
 fications heretofore alleged against us, and on which the church 
 authorities of this station, have already once acted and ordered our 
 suspension; and that you say, this will be done because the "dis- 
 trict conference refused to hold its regular session." We hereby 
 inform you that as the district conference met, was legally organ- 
 ized, and for one whole day and more continued in session, ac- 
 cording to Discipline, it was, therefore, your duty to have continu- 
 ed the session until the business was finished. Instead of this, you 
 arbitrarily received a vote of the minority of the attending white 
 members, for a dissolution of the conference, and pronounced it 
 dissolved, accordingly. 
 
 We, therefore, protest against your right to bring the charges 
 and specifications alleged against us, before the quarterly meeting 
 conference. 
 
 1st. Because we consider you have acted without law or prece- 
 dent; and that the provision to which you refer, as made by the Dis- 
 cipline, has in view those districts only, in which the local preach- 
 ers "shall refuse or neglect to hold the regular sessions" of their 
 district conferences. In this case, the preachers had actually met 
 and commenced their regular session: moreover, a majority of the 
 white members in attendance, were in favour of continuing the 
 conference. 
 
 2d. In thus arbitrarily compelling us to appear before the quar- 
 terly conference of the Baltimore city station, you would subject 
 us to the great injustice, of being tried by men,, who were our pro- 
 secutors and judges in the first instance, together with those, who 
 had virtually pledged themselves to sustain the prosecutions: first, 
 by appointing said prosecutors at the meeting, held in RoszePs 
 school room; and secondly, by their vote for the publication of the 
 Pitt street Address, in which they publicly declare us to be the 
 "enemies of Methodism." 
 
 3d. Besides, in consequence of the course that you have pursu- 
 ed, the tribunal, designated by the Discipline, as the place of trial 
 for local preachers, and before which we were ready to appear, 
 ceases to exist; and you have no authority to bring us to trial be- 
 fore any other; our condition is altogether novel, and not within the 
 limits of the jurisdiction of a quarterly meeting conference. Our 
 case necessarily makes its appeal to the general conference, since 
 there is no other tribunal which can have a right to say what shall 
 be done, when a presiding elder shall have pronounced a district 
 conference dissolved, notwithstanding a majority of those interest- 
 
42 
 
 ed, shall have actually met, for the purpose of holding their regu- 
 lar session, declaring themselves meanwhile opposed to a dissolu- 
 tion. 
 
 4th. The illegality and impropriety of having counted the votes 
 of coloured men, in deciding a question of this sort, within the 
 limits of the state of Maryland, we presume will not be questioned 
 Samuel K. Jennings, Thomas M'Cormick 
 Daniel E. Reese, Luther J. Cox, 
 James R. Williams, John S. Reese, 
 John C French, John Valiant, 
 
 William Kesley, Reuben T. Boyd. 
 
 Baltimore, 16th January, 1828." 
 
 This paper was of no worth with the Annual Conference, be- 
 cause the local preachers had not "appeared" before the quarterly 
 meeting conference. 
 
 After all these things, can any candid reader believe that the An- 
 nual Conference acted the part of an impartial tribunal, or that they 
 pronounced a just judgment? We gave to that body, a faithful 
 account of the conduct of the prosecution, as we honestly viewed 
 it. And is it to be believed that a body of disinterested ministers of 
 the gospel, perhaps seventy, if not one hundred in number, could 
 have come to the unfeeling conclusion, that we were not entitled to 
 one word of complaint, because we had not been sufficiently re- 
 spectful towards prosecutors and judges, of whom we had complain- 
 ed, under circumstances so glaring? We did believe conscientious- 
 ly, that these men had forfeited our confidence; that they could not 
 have been impartial; and of course were disqualified to sit in judg- 
 ment upon our cases. We therefore, solicited the interference of 
 the Conference. But our supplications were of no avail. Those 
 ministers of the sanctuary, notwithstanding the great love which 
 they professed for us, thought it necessary to treat us, with these 
 hard resolutions, in order to prevent the "subversion of wholesome 
 and sound discipline." 
 
 It is the judgment of the Baltimore Annual Conference, that the 
 proceedings of the Baltimore station, in our prosecution and ex- 
 pulsion, are fair expressions of wholesome and sound Episcopal 
 Methodist discipline!* I am compelled to believe that these men 
 expected their resolutions to be sustained by the "Narrative and 
 Defence;" by the official book which contains the testimony as ex- 
 tracted from the Mutual Rights, so pressed and moulded by the ex- 
 planations and pleadings of the prosecution, as to fit them to the 
 intended purpose. And this was readily done. There was no offset. 
 They had it all in their own hands. They managed the matter as 
 they wished, and then, in this book, published a "plain statement 
 of the whole affair;" — a history of this conspicuous instance of 
 wholesome and sound Episcopal Methodist Discipline! 
 
 * With intention to 1 'defecate," &c. ! ! 
 
43 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The secret, unintentionally let out, that one leading object was, the 
 destruction of our Union Societies. 
 
 This standard volume informs us, that "the formation of the 
 Union Society was in fact, the organization of a schism, and that, 
 had no Union Society been established, the discussion of the va- 
 rious projects of reform might have gone on, without producing 
 any general excitement in the church; whereas, organizing these 
 societies, incorporated the spirit of party." See Narrative and 
 Defence, page 12. This is an acknowledgment of the truth of 
 our statement. We are here informed what was in reality the 
 "gist" of our offences. And it will be made very evident that the 
 destruction of these societies and the discontinuance of the Mu- 
 tual Rights, were the real objects to be accomplished, and that, 
 because they considered these the only effectual means for secur- 
 ing the attention of the people. — the means, but for which, "no 
 general excitement in the church could have been produced." 
 
 To accomplish the intended devastation of these offensive (be- 
 cause they were efficient) works of reformers, it was important, to 
 find some one, a fast friend to the government of the church, 
 having sufficient zeal, and a competent degree of ingenuity, so to 
 manage matters, that in the event of a refusal on the part of the 
 reformers, to receive the dictates of the intended prosecutors, and 
 a consequent recourse to expulsion, the Methodist Episcopal 
 community and the world, might be made to believe, that the 
 church took no authoritative step to prevent reform; — that the pro- 
 secutions were entered upon and carried into effect, by lay brethren, 
 "without any itinerant suggestion or influence whatever;" they 
 (the lay brethren) being offended, not with our labours to bring 
 about reform, but with the manner in which we were endeavour- 
 ing to accomplish our object. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Some uncertainty how far the agent had previously progressed in 
 making preparation for the Narrative and Defence. 
 
 We are not informed with positive certainty, that the entire plan 
 of the intended book, was laid, antecedent to the appointment of 
 the seven prosecutors; but we are fully satisfied, that some one or 
 more, had been employed in making the selections from the Mu- 
 tual Rights, which constitute the pith of the Narrative and De- 
 fence. It is very probable, that they were made and submitted to 
 the five Bishops, and some other distinguished travelling preachers, 
 who were in the city, a short time before the first caucus was held 
 at Mr. William Brown's. And we cannot avoid the supposition, 
 
44 
 
 that it was previously understood, that this selection when it 
 should appear, would serve to justify a course of prosecutions and 
 expulsions, if that should become "necessary" for the accomplish- 
 ment of their object. The knowing ones had their eyes on this, 
 when they met at Dr. Roszel's school-room. And when we called 
 on Mr. Harden, and took occasion to intimate the possibility of 
 scandal to the Methodist Episcopal Church, if they should go on 
 with their contemplated prosecutions; he said in reply, "we are 
 prepared to meet all consequences, and when we shall have wound 
 up our proceedings, and laid before the public, such extracts from 
 the Mutual Rights, fyc. as we shall be able to make, together with 
 our comment upon them, we have no doubt about being sustained by 
 the public."* 
 
 With this view of things, we are prepared to understand why 
 there was such a disinclination to hear the reading of the excep- 
 tionable papers, when called for, by brethren on their trial, and why 
 Mr. Hanson declared it unnecessary. 
 
 With a strong conviction of the correctness of this view, a few 
 days after having read our protests, &,c. before the seven prosecu- 
 tors, the preacher in charge, and the committee, we considered it 
 our duty to publish them. This publication was immediately fol- 
 lowed by a notification of the intention of the prosecutors to "pub- 
 lish a plain statement of the whole affair." 
 
 "Doctor Samuel K. Jennings having endeavoured to forestall the 
 opinions of the Methodist public, by publishing the proceedings in 
 his case, before the decision of the Committee could be known — 
 all who feel any concern in the matter, are respectfully requested 
 to suspend their judgment, until the proceedings shall have termi- 
 
 * Mr. Harden has given a certificate, contradicting- this statement; and al- 
 leges, that he could not have had any allusion to the Narrative and Defence, 
 because they had not at that time determined to publish such a Narrative and 
 Defence, nor until the publication of our protest had made it necessary: 
 And to sustain himself, he appeals to his coadjutors in the prosecution. This 
 conversation had with Mr. Harden, was published in October, 1828, whilst it 
 was fresh in our recollection; and many of our friends know, that we report- 
 ed it to them, immediately after it took place. We still assert it to be true, 
 as then published. There was no witness present. We affirm and appeal 
 to our publication made more than two years ago. He denies, and sustains 
 himself by a declaration, that they had not then determined to publish the Nar- 
 rative and Defence. Here we are at issue. Immediately after our publica- 
 tion appeared, Mr. Harden came out with his contradictions, and claimed a 
 "faithful detail, and correct statement of all the leading points * * * the 
 whole truth." And then in view of the whole truth, took his imaginary ex- 
 ceptions. We reviewed his paper and proved by himself, that we did not differ. 
 What we wish the reader to observe particularly, is, that Mr. Harden in view 
 of the whole truth, did not then pretend to deny this very prominent item. We 
 will not say that he did not then foresee, that a denial of this "leading point" 
 would be necessary, to save the reputation of the agent. But we will say, 
 he acted unadvisedly, and cannot have been well informed, respecting the 
 hazard and difficulty of attempting to prove a negative: moreover, that he 
 must have great reliance upon his weight of character. We will only add, 
 that he himself has seen fit to suspend the scale and compel us to be con- 
 tented, to let the public judge. 
 
45 
 
 nated, when a plain statement of the whole affair will be pub- 
 lished. 
 
 George Earnest, Alexander Yearley, 
 
 Jacob Rogers, John Berry, 
 
 Isaac N. Toy, Fielder Israel. 
 Samuel Harden. 
 October 3, 1827. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Quarterly Conference unanimously condemn the Mutual Rights, 
 and it is admitted by the Agent, that a majority of them had not 
 read the work at all. 
 
 The "plain statement" turned out to be the Narrative and De- 
 fence. The selections introduced into it, were read before the Quar- 
 terly Conference, "and such was the effect produced by the reading 
 of the passages from the Mutual Rights, on which the charges rest- 
 ed," together with the agent's comments on them, "that although 
 much difference of opinion was known to have previously existed 
 among the members, in reference to the cases before them, there 
 was no dissenting vote on the motion to expel." This appear- 
 ance of unanimity was thought important, in order to make the 
 Narrative and Defence, look by so much, the more respectable. 
 To secure this unanimity, Mr. Hanson removed six class leaders, 
 and by so doing, "cleared the way for an unresisted exercise of 
 the intention of the government party." 
 
 The intention was, to make~fhe impression that the prosecu- 
 tions were not only instituted and conducted by i( lay brethren" 
 but that these lay brethren were unanimous; of course that they 
 were altogether in the right, and Reformers altogether in the 
 wrong. For how could the entire body of official members of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of Baltimore, the great 
 seat of Methodism, be unanimous on a subject so momentous, if 
 there were any possible room for doubt? There was deep policy 
 in securing this unanimous vote. But unhappily for the scheme, 
 the means which were used to bring it about, serve to lay it open 
 to public view. 
 
 On the 29th page of the Narrative and Defence, the same which 
 records this wonderful unanimity, we read, "It is now ascertained, 
 that a great proportion of the Conference, so far from having made 
 up their opinion before the trials, ****** had not even read the 
 Mutual Rights at all, and therefore could not have made up a pre- 
 mature verdict." This is an important disclosure. It is an ac- 
 knowledgment, that the Narrative and Defence contains all that 
 "a great proportion of the Conference" knew about the Mutual 
 Rights, consequently all that they knew about the designs, opera- 
 tions, or offences of Union Societies or Reformers. That they 
 had heard just so much, as our prosecutors saw fit to read, and no 
 more. That they had heard their own side only, without correc- 
 
46 
 
 tion or contradiction. The prosecutors who had been appointed 
 by them, had made out charges and specifications to correspond 
 with the selections previously made. And having now officially 
 given to them their intended personal application, they submitted 
 the whole to the Conference; and of course, they all with one ac- 
 cord approved their own handy work, and affixed to it the seal, of a 
 unanimous vote for our expulsion. What a triumph! What a 
 memorable unanimity!! 
 
 To give to this unanimity the more importance, the Narrative 
 and Defence says, a great proportion of them, had not read the 
 Mutual Rights at all; and therefore, could not have made up their 
 opinion before the trials. Here, without intending it, they ac- 
 knowledge that they ought to have read the work, before they 
 made up their opinion. But they must have forgotten, that a great 
 proportion of these same men, had united in the vote at the Pitt 
 and Front street meeting, where they reiterated and adopted the 
 opinion of the Annual Conference, "that the Mutual Rights was 
 an improper work ### *, a work in which anonymous writers were 
 permitted to abuse and defame the travelling preachers," &lc. &c. 
 bearing witness against themselves that they had made up an 
 opinion before the trials, and that, when they did it they had not 
 read the work at all! And here they acknowledge, moreover, that 
 they commenced their prosecuting operations under the influence 
 of the opinions of the Conference, although they have told the 
 world in this same Narrative and Defence, that the prosecutions 
 were instituted and carried into effect by lay brethren, "without any 
 itinerant suggestion or influence whatever." 
 
 After all these acknowledgements it is very obvious, that "a 
 great proportion of these men" moved under the direction or in- 
 fluence of the master spirit. They confided the cause to those 
 who would manage it, expecting to be sustained by the intended 
 Narrative and Defence. For, surely, they could not have known 
 the ruinous fact, that this "plain statement of the whole affair" is 
 nothing more than an exparte account of matters, and that in view 
 of the Mutual Rights, as a whole, the extracts and comments, pre- 
 sent a very incorrect account of the spirit and works of the friend3 
 of reform. That this is the fact, will be seen by the careful and 
 candid reader, before we shall have concluded this review. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 They did not intend to effect any correction of our manner of publish- 
 ing, Sfc. but to expel us. Their patience was worn out. 
 
 It is not probable that our prosecutors foresaw, that a dissolu- 
 tion of the District Conference, would lead to a resolution on our 
 part, not to appear before the Quarterly Conference, and by so 
 doing, afford them the opportunity of reading their extracts, with- 
 out oppositon or contradiction. But they were prepared, and had 
 
41 
 
 no doubt of an "unanimous vote for our expulsion." This unan- 
 imity, in aid of the Narrative and Defence, was to enable them, 
 the more certainly to persuade the Methodist community, that the 
 expulsion of the reformers was not at all intended to interdict the 
 freedom of speech and of the press, but was a godly execution of 
 "wholesome and sound discipline." That Ihey were moved, by the 
 very pious and laudable design, of correcting the licentious abuses 
 of liberty, practised by the Union Societies. The merits of this 
 pretension, shall be more fully examined. 
 
 Two things can be demonstrated. 1st. They had no intention 
 to correct the manner of our publications. 2d. They did not in- 
 tend to permit us to remain in their fellowship, unless we would 
 consent to give up reform. See their Narrative and Defence, 
 page 17. 
 
 After a dissertation on our resolutions respecting the proceed- 
 ings of Baltimore Annual Conference, in Rev. D. B. Dorsey's 
 case, they say, "it was evident now, to the most incredulous, that 
 these measures could not be the work of reformers, but of revolu- 
 tionists. Their object could not be to amend, but to destroy." — 
 All hope of returning peace was now cut off, and those, who all 
 along discouraged the enforcement of discipline on the offenders, 
 ###*** De g an reluctantly to yield to the absolute necessity of the 
 measure. In fact, human patience, even the meekness of Chris- 
 tianity" [as far as it had influence over the official members of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of Baltimore,] "could en- 
 dure no more." That is to say, it was considered necessary on all 
 hands, to put down the reformers; "to enforce the disciple on these 
 offenders." What else could they do? Their patience was worn 
 out. Their meekness, that peculiar grace of the christian, had been 
 put to a test, so severe, that it, too, had failed. No preacher, 
 itinerant or local, nor lay member, had ever in person, or by letter, 
 expressed to us any dissatisfaction, respecting the spirit or manner 
 of the papers that had been published in the Mutual Rights, al- 
 though their patience and meekness had been so sorely tried, for 
 almost four years: except only, that bishop Hedding called on us 
 a short time before the prosecutions were instituted, for the proper 
 name of Timothy. The name of Timothy was given to the bishop; 
 and that unimportant transaction, includes the whole of the cor- 
 respondence, which the rulers of the church ever sought, or con- 
 descended to hold with us, all the time that their patience and 
 meekness were wearing out! 
 
 On page 18, Narrative and Defence, we read, "And they," the 
 committee appointed to prosecute, "determined forthwith to visit 
 the members of the Union Society to admonish them of their error, 
 and expostulate." They could not have been in very good 
 frame of mind, to undertake fraternal visits and persuade brethren 
 to give up reform, when, by their own confession, the labours of 
 reformers had put their patience to the rout, and their "meekness 
 could endure no more."!! Here we pause to consider, that the pa- 
 tience of these administators of wholesome and sound discipline was 
 worn out, but not by having "taken us individually alone," and 
 
48 
 
 expostulated with us without effect, till our "obstinacy" had worn 
 out their patience; — not by having taken with them one or two more 
 and with pains in brotherly love, laboured again and again, to excite 
 in us the desired repentance. There was no disposition for such 
 procedure. There was "an absolute necessity to enforce the dis- 
 cipline on the offenders." They had no thought of making peace; 
 "all hope of returning peace was now cut off." Their peace making 
 graces "could endure no more," and like other angry masters, they 
 now determined to command the'peace, and enforce it too; — to com- 
 pel us to be submissive or expel us out of the church. 
 
 It was soon rumored abroad through the city, that such a reso- 
 lution had been adopted; in consequence of which, one of our 
 brethren, a local preacher, had an interview with a distinguished 
 member of the prosecuting committee, and requested information 
 on the subject. "You and your friends," said he, "are members of 
 the Union Society, and say you will not leave it. — You publish the 
 Mutual Rights, and say you will not discontinue that publication. — 
 You also say you will not withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. Now we are reduced to one of two alternatives; either to 
 let you remain members of the church, and go on peaceably pub- 
 lishing the Mutual Rights, by which you agitate the church, or 
 expel you. We have come to the determination, to take the latter 
 alternative, and expel you." As might have been expected, every 
 member of the Union Society was roused at the threat of being 
 subjected to such magisterial Coercion: and whilst they were de- 
 liberating how they were to meet an attack of this sort, if it should 
 be made, which they could hardly believe would be attempted, all 
 their doubts were ended by the following note, which had the sig- 
 natures of the seven prosecutors in due form, and was addressed 
 to Mr. John Chappell, President of the Union Society. 
 
 "The undersigned, believing that the members of the Baltimore 
 Union Society, have violated the discipline of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, and being desirous to have a friendly interview with 
 them individually, previous to instituting charges against them, if 
 necessary. We respectfully request to be furnished with the names 
 of the members of said Union Society." 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 The "friendly interview" sought forty the prosecutors, was an oppor- 
 tunity to make their most arrogant demands. 
 
 We were now officially informed, that the church officers had 
 already organized their prosecuting committee, with intention to 
 institute charges "if necessary." It only remained for us to be in- 
 formed, on what ground the necessity would be made to rest, in 
 order to judge of their entire design. And this information was 
 soon furnished by the prosecutors, who proceeded to make their 
 visits. Two of the seven waited on the writer of this review. 
 
4<J 
 
 See Narrative and Defence, page 20. It was not their object, as 
 may be seen by reading their book, to ask in a friendly way, nor 
 even authoratively to require, any correction of some one or more 
 of the essays which had been published; nor to require the names 
 of any of the writers of them; nor to ask or require any change in 
 the manner of conducting the periodical. They came to let him 
 know, that it was "necessary" that he should use his influence to 
 effect a dissolution of the Union Society, or withdraw from it, and 
 cease to publish the Mutual Rights. "In as much" said they "as 
 the Union Society and Mutual Rights, have become so completely 
 identified with the evils of which we complain, we deem it indis- 
 pensable, that you should dissolve your connexion with them." 
 The points upon which the necessity turned, were now presented. 
 The Union Societies had "incorporated the spirit of party." 
 Through their aid, the Mutual Rights had produced much excite- 
 ment, and bid fair to extend it far and wide. The reformers were 
 not children, whose works were likely to be abortive. They had 
 employed ways and means, which were not to be resisted. It was 
 "necessary" therefore, that they should be met by the arm of power 
 and compelled to obey the dictates of their masters. In the most 
 unqualified manner imaginable, the two prosecutors let him know, 
 that their opinion must regulate his conduct, and that obedience on 
 his part was "indispensable." And yet they said "they did not 
 wish nor require him, to make a sacrifice of conscience or of prin- 
 ciple." He might call himself a reformer, and speak, write and 
 petition, "in a temperate and christian like manner, in favour of 
 reform!!" That is to say, he must do what they had commanded; 
 and although he had laboured much, for four years, to establish 
 Union Societies, and give effect to the periodical, he must instant- 
 ly, at their bidding, turn round and destroy the one, and disgrace 
 the other, and then, save his reputation, and conscience, and self 
 respect, if he could, by calling himself a reformer still. And if he 
 would let them be judges of what he might say, and write, and 
 petition, after this explanation of what they deemed necessary, he 
 might still speak, and write, and petition!! He felt commiseration 
 for the men, who in their great zeal to maintain the power of the trav- 
 elling preachers, gave such proof, how little they understood them- 
 selves, when they talked about making a sacrifice of conscience or 
 principle. These men, under circumstances so highly offensive, 
 waited on him; not to ask in a becoming manner, what they had 
 a right to ask, the correction of any misstatement, which they were 
 ready to specify and prove to be incorrect, but to dictate a destruc- 
 tion of all our labours, and to let us know, that we must obey their 
 commands, or expect expulsion! They probably considered it a 
 godly visit. We viewed it at the time, as an insolent interference 
 with our rights, as christians and American citizens. And we now 
 say, the "wholesome and sound discipline" which they were prepar- 
 ing to execute, was a conspiracy against the rights of reformers, 
 for which intelligent Methodists throughout the United States, 
 ought to be ashamed, since it has had the sanction of the General 
 Conference. 
 
50 
 
 We ask the intelligent reader, now carefully to consider the de- 
 mand, to which, in their opinion obedience was so "necessary," so 
 absolutely indispensable? Had it been any affair of individual in- 
 terest or of individual misunderstanding, it would have been an 
 easy task for us to have suffered wrong. Even, if it had been a 
 misunderstanding, which extended no farther than that portion of 
 the Union Societies, which resided in the city of Baltimore, im- 
 portant as the effect would have been, we should have considered 
 it a duty to signify to them our readiness, to endeavour to be ac- 
 commodating. But the case was altogether different. The editorial 
 committee had been engaged in the publication of the Mutual 
 Rights, nearly four years. During the whole of that time, we had 
 been of the committee. Our list of subscribers had been greatly 
 extended, and was receiving daily accessions. Thousands read 
 our paper with interest. The Wesleyan Repository had been so re- 
 sisted by the friends of power, that that it had become necessary to 
 exchange it, for the Mutual Rights. Experience had demonstrated 
 the necessity of sustaining the periodical, by the organization of 
 Union Societies. Such, indeed, had been their effect, that we 
 were entirely satisfied with our prospect of success, and the pro- 
 ceedings of the power party prove, that they were no less appre- 
 hensive of the ultimate result. Were we not bound by every con- 
 sideration of justice and propriety, to say to them in reply, that we 
 considered their attempt at coercion, in this matter, altogether out 
 of the way? In fact, if obedience had been the price of personal 
 safety, the price would have been considered too dear. It is be- 
 lieved, we would not have yielded the rights for which we contend- 
 ed, under existing circumstances, to have saved our lives. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 The transaction which doctor Bond has named "an underplot." 
 
 Very soon after this visit, the intended charges were laid before 
 the preacher. But before the trials commenced, doctor Bond took 
 occasion, on his own responsibility, to offer terms to the Union 
 Society, which if accepted, he ventured to engage for the prosecu- 
 tions, that they should be dismissed. See Narrative and Defence, 
 pages 24, 25. 
 
 The first intention of this overture, was, if the Union Society 
 would agree to meet it with their approbation, to accomplish the 
 same objects, the dissolution of the Society, and the destruction or 
 neutralization of the Mutual Rights. "The Union Society shall be 
 dissolved" said he in his proposals, "and not re-organized in the 
 present or any other form." And all papers intended for publica- 
 tion in the Mutual Rights, "shall be submitted to three persons, 
 chosen mutually, by the reformers and the committee who have pre- 
 ferred charges against some of them, who shall be authorized to ex- 
 punge all objectionable passages therefrom." Of course no paper 
 
51 
 
 could have been published unless it had the approbation of men, 
 in the confidence of the worst enemies of reform. And every 
 candid reader must see, that such an arrangement was more offen- 
 sive, than the demand made by the prosecutors themselves. What 
 man, not under the influence of blind passion, could have pro- 
 posed to his fellow citizens, terms so degrading? But these pro- 
 positions were not terms of a brotherly compromise, offered in the 
 true spirit of conciliation. Charges were already preferred against 
 us, and the dread consequences of excommunication were held up, 
 in terrorem, over our heads. So that these appearances of accom- 
 modation, were in reality inquisitorial dictations, of the most offen- 
 sive kind, made the more repulsive, by the obliquity which marked 
 the manner of their introduction. 
 
 There was also a second intention in making these overtures. 
 If the Union Society should reject these terms, then this kindly 
 interference of the doctor, was to make a fine figure in the Narra- 
 tive and Defence, and be additional proof of the "obstinacy" of 
 reformers. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The appendage to the "underplot" which is noticed in the introduc- 
 tory chapter, as ihe collateral plot. 
 
 For the same purposes, and to give still greater formality and 
 notoriety to their pretensions to make peace, doctor Green was sent 
 for. They would then be prepared to say, that these two doctors, 
 both disinterested, had used their influence to prevail on the reform- 
 ers to accept terms of reconciliation, but they had "obstinately" 
 rejected them both. 
 
 Had doctor Green come to use his influence in reviving the pa- 
 tience and meekness of our prosecutors: — had he exerted himself to 
 dissuade them from their tyrannical and repulsive proceedings, that 
 they might seek an understanding with us, upon principles of 
 equality and brotherly love, then indeed he would have merited the 
 reputable appellation of a mediator. But, as he came to reiterate 
 the same offensive proprositions, which were obviously intended to 
 effect the utter destruction of reform, we were compelled to con- 
 sider him an insidious enemy. And that his mediatorial proposi- 
 tions, were drawn up under the influence and advice, if not the 
 dictation of doctor Bond, we can have no doubt. A note was 
 picked up among the papers swept from the conference room, ad- 
 dressed to doctor Bond, bearing date the same day that doctor 
 Green wrote his first letter. It was to inform doctor Bond that 
 doctor Green had arrived, and to request him to come up to dinner 
 or soon afterwards. And, although doctor Green says in his se- 
 cond letter, C 'I set out from my family and my home, with intention 
 to volunteer as a mediator in this case, without being solicited to 
 do so, by any one. Yet he was sent for. 
 
52 
 
 After the receipt of the last letter addressed to us by doctor 
 Green, we wrote the following general reply, which perhaps he did 
 not receive. At any event, it is not recollected with certainty, 
 whether it was forwarded. It is now published, because it presents 
 the subject of his correspondence and mediation, in the light in 
 which we then viewed it. 
 
 "January, 1829. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 "As you addressed to me, your letters of introduction, to what 
 you saw proper to offer as your volunteer work of mediation be- 
 tween the contending parties, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 you will permit me to trouble you with one in the conclusion. 
 
 "Your first was written in a style and manner, which very much 
 prepossessed me in your favour, and led me to expect, that, as you 
 had come a hundred miles to volunteer as a mediator, you would 
 inquire into the amount of our grievances; take measures to hear 
 our explanation of the principal occasions which had produced 
 those publications, which, it is alleged, provoked the old-side bre- 
 thren to institute their prosecutions; inquire into the propriety or 
 impropriety of their proceedings; — by an equal consideration of 
 the claims or complaints of each, and a dignified, impartial and 
 christian like attention to both, ascertain which side had greatest 
 cause of complaint, and in full view of the whole, act the part of a 
 real and trust-worthy mediator. But I am sorry to say, that your 
 second communication compelled me to change my opinion: — 
 That it destroyed all my hopes. For instead of any thing like a 
 mediation on just and equal principles, you made it obvious, that 
 you had volunteered, to unite your talent and influence, with the 
 power and authority of the city station, with an intention to induce 
 reformers to receive the same dictates, which we had unanimously 
 considered tyrannical, had firmly rejected, and in view of which, 
 had determined to become martyrs for the cause of emancipation 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Indeed, I am not at all sur- 
 prised to learn from a brother, who obtained the information from 
 yourself, that you had spent much of your time with doctor Bond; 
 because the terms which you offered, were in substance and in their 
 intended effect, the same that he had assumed the liberty to offer 
 to us, on his own individual account. 
 
 "I must frankly say to you, that the pains you have taken must 
 be considered by all well informed men, to have been produced, 
 not by any wish in the character of a disinterested mediator, to do an 
 act of equal justice to us and the prosecutors; but by an intense zeal 
 to save the church from merited scandal; either by bringing us to sub- 
 mission, and by so doing, justify the "constituted authorities of the 
 church;" or in case of failure in that purpose, afford them an oc- 
 casion to say, we were obstinate and perverse, in refusing an over- 
 ture of peace. I hope, sir, you will not flatter yourself or your 
 party, (for you must excuse me in identifying you with our adver- 
 saries,) that because you have seen fit to call your dictates, honoura- 
 ble terms of reconciliation, that disinterested men will consider them 
 
53 
 
 in that light. The world will know by the first exposition of the 
 transaction, that you have evinced no concern for the honour of 
 reformers, but the utmost solicitude for that of the men in power. 
 But what is most strange and most strongly confirms the truth of 
 the above imputation, is the fact, that when your own judgment 
 had led you to anticipate our intention to propose a committee on 
 our part, to meet a similar committee on the part of the Quarterly 
 Meeting Conference, and which was rejected on the part of the 
 prosecution, you persevered in offering your own offensive propo- 
 sals to the oppressed brethren, in your letter to the chairman of our 
 committee. 
 
 I repeat it sir, if you left home with intention to be a media- 
 tor; by mingling with our persecutors, either imperceptibly or by 
 design, you forgot the object of your visit, and undertook the office 
 of a minister for the ty?annical party, in order to aid them in their 
 endeavours to establish their authority over us, in a measure to 
 which we had refused to submit. It is very clear, that the object 
 was to secure an acknowledgment of guilt on our part, in order to 
 justify "the constituted authorities of the church," and at the same 
 time, effect the destruction of all our means of future success; — 
 and thus save the Methodist Episcopal Church from her deserved 
 reproach, and retain to her the same dominion with unabated 
 authority. But, sir, your party has taught us to be wary, 
 and by the blessing of God, we have escaped your snare. With 
 sincere good wishes for your personal happiness, and the most ardent 
 prayers, that the men in power may see their mistake, I subscribe 
 myself, S. K. J. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 The Destruction of the Mutual Rights and Union Societies, — the 
 Alpha and Omega of the prosecutions. 
 
 The two prosecutors officially appointed to wait on us before 
 citing us to trial, said, inasmuch as the Union Society and Mutual 
 Rights, had become so completely identified with the evils of which 
 they complained, they deemed it indispensable that we should dis- 
 solve our connexion with them. 
 
 On the evening of our trial, Mr. Israel, on the part of the prose- 
 cution, came out in the same open and candid manner in which 
 he gave the desired information when called on by brother James 
 R. Williams, and said, "we regret that this course was unavoida- 
 ble; we had no other alternative; we were driven to this course. 
 We have been told by the members of the Union Society, that they 
 must have lay delegation. They also say, they never will withdraw 
 from the church. Lay delegation we believe, is not practicable or 
 expedient. With these views, we never can agree; we are as dis- 
 tant as the poles. The Mutual Rights has produced wranglings, 
 disputations and divisions; it has produced two parties. Every 
 8 
 
54 
 
 religious community has a right to form its own discipline; and its 
 members are not at liberty to disturb it. While they remain mem- 
 bers of the church, they have no right to form, or be members of 
 the Union Society." These laconic sentences; — his communication 
 to J. R. Williams, with respect to their determination to expel us; 
 together with the requisition of the prosecutors officially made to 
 us, by which it was declared indispensable that we should dissolve 
 our connexion with the Union Society and Mutual Rights, prepar- 
 ed us to know with certainty, that our views were correct, and that 
 we had only to choose between the most disgraceful submission to 
 their dictates, and expulsion from their fellowship. 
 
 After hearing our protests, the prosecutors were ready, without 
 any proper investigation, to turn over the whole affair, en masse, 
 charges, specifications, and Mutual Rights in extenso, three entire 
 volumes and part of the fourth, to the committee, to carry home 
 with them, to read at their leisure, to cogitate and to confer, until 
 they should be ready to decide, whether we had or had not a right 
 to form and be members of the Union Society, or to publish the 
 Mutual Rights: or more properly to be ready when called on, to 
 perform their part in executing the "wholesome and sound disci- 
 pline" which was intended to secure our expulsion, by an "unani- 
 mous vote," even if the most of them should not have found it 
 convenient to read the Mutual Rights at all. 
 
 We know not when the committee made their report. In the 
 mean while, their other preparations were going forward. Dr. Bond 
 had an opportunity to submit his propositions, as before specified. 
 And then came doctor Green, the object of whose visit has been 
 stated. The interference of these two Doctors proves, that they 
 greatly desired the destruction of the offensive institutions, to be 
 brought about entirely at our expense. If they could have prevail- 
 ed on us to accept their terms, which would have been a "surren- 
 der at discretion;" then the prosecution would have been justified, 
 the rectitude of all their measures admitted, and in course, "their 
 responsibilities would have set very lightly upon them" And con- 
 sidering how prolific their ingenuity in preparing their indictment; 
 their charges so precise and so fully embracing the objects they were 
 intended to accomplish, we are not surprised, that doctor Green 
 was employed to second doctor Bond, in his endeavours to per- 
 suade us to submit, and in the attempt at persuasion, so to manage 
 and conduct his correspondence that in the event of a failure with 
 us, it might constitute a part of the Narrative and Defence, and co- 
 operate with all the other things which constitute that book, to 
 make an impression on the public mind unfavorable to our cause. 
 They were very desirous, that their proceedings should be thought 
 in accordance with l< wholesome and sound discipline" Reformers, 
 however, were not to be wheedled by their ingenious devices, and 
 the quarterly meeting conference proceeded to read the garbled ex- 
 tracts; and, as was intended, condemned us "without a dissenting 
 voice." 
 
 The following extract from a copy of their decree, as officially 
 furnished, confirms the foregoing views. 
 
55 
 
 "Resolved, thirdly, that the Rev. Samuel K. Jennings be expel- 
 led from the Methodist E. Church, unless he withdraw, forthwith, 
 from the Union Society, and promise not to be engaged hereafter, in 
 any publications that inveigh against our discipline or government, 
 or speak evil of ministers," &c. A copy of these resolutions was 
 sent to each of the expelled preachers and members: See Narra- 
 tive and Defence, page 29. It is true the Mutual Rights is not 
 named in the resolution. This was carefully avoided, not only in 
 this, but in all their subsequent papers. The work had then been 
 officially condemned, so that the resolutions not only included the 
 Mutual Rights, but every other possible publication, intended to 
 find fault with the discipline or the government of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 The above decree was soon followed by a letter from the Rev'd 
 James M. Hanson, which, after giving his views of the trial, &c. 
 concluded as follows: — "You must therefore, plainly perceive, that 
 the only ground on which expulsion from the church can be avoid- 
 ed, is an abandonment of the Union Society, with assurances that 
 you will give no aid in future to any publication or measure calculat- 
 ed to cast reproach upon our ministers, or occasion breach of union 
 among our members. 
 
 Be good enough then, my brother, to answer, in writing, the fol- 
 lowing plain and simple questions: 1st. Will you withdraw forth- 
 with from the Union Society? 2d. Will you in future withdraw your 
 aid from such publications and measures, as are calculated to cast 
 reproach upon our ministers and produce breach of union among 
 our members?" [Mutual Rights or any other paper or book, or any 
 thing else of whatever kind, which can promote reform.*] 
 
 James M. Hanson. 
 
 From the whole evidence it is indubitable, that in the beginning 
 of the prosecution, and in its conclusion, they had one fixed and de- 
 terminate purpose to accomplish, which was, the destruction of the 
 Union Society and the Mutual Rights. There was no desire on 
 their part to rectify our opinions. If we would have agreed to the 
 demolition of those two things, we might afterwards have called our- 
 selves reformers; so said our prosecutors; so says the Narrative and 
 Defence. But at any event, those were to be destroyed. And it is 
 now as clear to our minds as any other proposition, that the selec- 
 tions were made, not to review and demand a correction of any 
 paper; but to heap together in their own way, the things which 
 they could use to the best purpose, in the construction of the Nar- 
 rative and Defence, and by it, make the people believe we had so 
 far outraged all order, that they were warranted in expelling us, af- 
 ter their own manner. And yet we believe these men had a zeal 
 for God, in all this absurd procedure. 
 
 The seven prosecutors, the preacher in charge, towards whom 
 we have never felt any personal hostility, although he seems to 
 think otherwise; the local preachers who sat as the committee of 
 
 * In annexing the explanation contained within the brackets, we only wish 
 that the reader may mark the comprehension of the resolution. 
 
56 
 
 inquiry in our cases, and the members of the Quarterly Meeting 
 Conference, all seem to be satisfied in the opinion, that there was 
 sufficient evidence in the Mutual Rights to prove us guilty of hav- 
 ing enveighed against the discipline and spoken evil of ministers 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Such is the nature of their 
 hierarchy, that Methodist ministers are unavoidably identified with 
 their discipline and government. Hence when fault is found with 
 any part of their system or its administration, a Methodist, com- 
 monly considers, not only one, or a few, but the whole body of the 
 itinerant ministry to be assailed. The zeal of these men for the 
 honor of their establishment, regulated by the influence which the 
 principal leaders had over them in the transaction, seemed to have 
 turned their chief attention to the necessity of getting the church 
 rid of the influence of reform. Hence their ingenious pains to 
 identify the evils of which they complained with the Union Society, 
 and Mutual Rights. They intended to dissolve the one and suppress 
 the other, and so put an end to the investigation: but still, they felt it 
 necessary, if possible, to make the pubic believe that their only ob- 
 ject was to restrain or punish the licentiousness of the press; and 
 that they had no objection to a temperate investigation into the prin- 
 ciples and practices of ecclesiastical government. But we shall show 
 that in their zeal for the government, they forgot the proper design 
 of "wholesome and sound discipline." That they were so eager- 
 ly intent upon the chase of reform out of their borders, that they 
 overlooked the course prescribed by the word of God, for effecting 
 the reformation of the offenders, and that it was their glaring de- 
 parture from the rules of conduct by which they ought to have been 
 regulated; — their executive usurpation of legislative authority, and 
 that too intended to have an ex post facto operation, that subject- 
 ed us in self defence, to the unavoidable necessity of protesting 
 against their procedure. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 The Commencement of the Prosecutions. 
 
 The prosecution commenced with the following citation, viz: 
 
 Baltimore, Sept. 8th, 1827. 
 "Dear Sir, — You are hereby informed, that charges have been 
 preferred against you, by the following persons: J. Rodgers, S. 
 Harden, J. Berry, I. N Toy, A Yearley, G. Earnest, and F. Israel. 
 As it is desirable for the satisfaction of all who feel an interest in 
 the matter, that a hearing should be had as soon as practicable, it is 
 hoped that Tuesday evening next, at 7 o'clock, will suit your con- 
 venience. Yours, respectfully, 
 
 James M. Hanson." 
 
What a fearful aspect does this citation wear! A posse commi- 
 tatus of seven leaders, stewards, and trustees, all united to give 
 their charges weight!! Never did the government of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church in Baltimore, assume such a formidable ap- 
 pearance!!! We wrote to Mr. Hanson, requesting a copy of the 
 charges, which was sent on Monday evening, the 10th of the month. 
 The charges were as follows: 
 
 •*The Rev. Samuel K. Jennings is charged with endeavouring to 
 sow dissentions in the society or church, in this station or city, 
 known by the Methodist Episcopal Church, and with the violation 
 of that general rule of the Discipline of the said church or society, 
 which prohibits its members from doing harm; and requires them to 
 avoid evil of every kind; and especially, with violating that clause 
 of said general rule, which prohibits speaking evil of ministers." 
 
 These charges exhibit a formal statement of "the evils of which 
 they complained," and if he was chargeable with the alleged of- 
 fences, he was so chargeable as an individual, without any implica- 
 tion of the Union Society. The offences, so far as they had exis- 
 tence, were committed by the publication of certain papers in the 
 Mutual Rights, the specification of which, was all that was neces- 
 sary or proper. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 The proceedings illegal in their commencement; — in violation of a 
 positive precept of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 If these general charges, "the evils of which they complained," 
 had been accompanied with definite references to the words, sen- 
 tences, paragraphs, or sentiments which they deemed exceptiona- 
 ble, as the specifications, without the attempt, sophistically to 
 identify them with the Union Society and Mutual Rights, and es- 
 pecially if the two prosecutors had not made their previous de- 
 mand, the accusation would have had the appearance of a personal 
 prosecution, and we should have been bound to appearand answer, 
 in the customary way. But even under such circumstances we 
 should have had great cause of complaint, because they had not 
 proceeded according to the word of God, which directs that an at- 
 tempt should first have been made to obtain a satisfactory explana- 
 tion, in a private and friendly manner. If any brother had aught 
 against any one of us, it was his duty to have come to such indi- 
 vidual himself alone. And why himself alone? Because brethren 
 are equal, and such an interview, to do any good, must take place 
 on terms of equality, christian love, forbearance, and all long suf- 
 fering. And any man who is not furnished with these pre-requisite 
 graces, is unfit to minister reproof. Instead of regarding this rule, 
 with becoming reference to its divine authority, they came two 
 together and made a demand, for doing which, they had no author- 
 ity from the word of God, or from the book of Discipline; a de- 
 mand, which shall be shewn in the sequel, they themselves have 
 admitted they had no right to make. 
 
58 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 77ie proceedings violate the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church— form of first Protest. 
 
 We had good cause of complaint, also, because they had not 
 proceeded, as the Discipline directs. According to the general 
 rules, upon which they pretended to base their charges and speci- 
 fications. "If there be any, who habitually break any of them, (the 
 General Rules,) let it be known unto them, who watch over that 
 soul, as they who must give an account. We will admonish him 
 of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season." 
 Who are they who say this? The travelling preachers. They make 
 these promises. They have given the pledge, that the preacher in 
 charge, whoever he may chance to be, in whatever circuit or sta- 
 tion, shall perform this duty. And it is clear, that the duty proper- 
 ly devolves on the preacher in charge, who is appointed by the 
 bishop and conference, to watch over the souls which pertain to his 
 pastoral oversight. Mr. Hanson was bound by the general rules, 
 if he had been informed that we had transgressed any of those 
 rules, to have first admonished us, and then to have borne with us 
 for a season, before they could have proceeded according to the 
 Discipline, to subject us to church censure. But this was not done; 
 and we shall shew in the sequel, that he had already disqualified 
 himself to do his duty. After all these glaring instances of default, 
 in their proceedings, when we appeared in obedience to the cita- 
 tion, above stated, we were informed by the prosecutors, that they 
 "had nothing personal against Dr. Jennings; that they entertained 
 for him the highest respect. But the Mutual Rights, had pro- 
 duced wranglings, disputations, and divisions." And the members 
 of the church "while they remained members, had no right to form 
 Union Societies, or be members of them." After these declara- 
 tions made by the prosecutors, with the charges and specifications 
 before us, we were obliged to see, that the prosecution was not in- 
 tended to be personal, but to effect the destruction of Union So- 
 cieties and the Mutual Rights, and that in order to accomplish this 
 purpose, they had resorted to the device of identifying them "with 
 the evils of which they complained." For such a course of pro- 
 cedure we knew there was no existing rule of Discipline. And as 
 the intended decision, was to have a general effect, according to 
 their design and expectation nothing short of an entire destruction 
 of reform, we entered our protest in the following words: 
 
 "A church court cannot have admissible jurisdiction, in any 
 case, the merits of which, necessarily involve questions and inter- 
 ests of great public importance, which it has not the power to dis- 
 pose of or settle, and upon which, its sentence can have no ade- 
 quate effect. Its jurisdiction is, and forever ought to be, confined 
 to cases of immorality, heresy, and the settlement of differences 
 which may chance to occur between two or more individuals, on 
 account of some personal altercation which such individuals are not 
 
69 
 
 prepared to adjust by agreement, between themselves. In affairs 
 of this sort, the church has a Scriptural and common-sense right to 
 interfere, because the whole effect of her decisions in such cases is 
 completely within the control of her authority and influence. But 
 the charges and specifications to which we are called to answer, so 
 deeply involve the interests, rights, and privileges of thousands, in 
 many different places throughout the United States; — interests, rights 
 and privileges of vast and national importance, that in despite of 
 sophistry, they will be considered by disinterested judges, to con- 
 stitute a case entirely new, and for which, no adequate provision is 
 made in our code of discipline. The general conference has never 
 yet fairly deliberated on the fundamental principles involved in it, 
 and therefore, there is no law to regulate your proceedings, or jus- 
 tify your decision. 
 
 "The manner in which this prosecution has been gotten up, is 
 altogether new, and unknown to the oldest Methodist now living. A 
 catalogue of the names of seven, the most important official men 
 in the station, Stewarts and trustees, men of wealth and influence, 
 in one phalanx of prosecutors, might have served to intimidate the 
 fearful, or perplex the ignorant, and it may have some affect upon 
 the minds of the men appointed to act as the committee, but it 
 does not change the true character of this prosecution. It carries 
 with it, prima facie evidence, that they themselves consider the case 
 new, and one which requires new measures. It proves that they 
 were at their wits' end to bring forward their cause, dressed in a 
 garb, which might give it the appearance of familiarity; — of an old 
 acquaintance of the judiciary of this station. But a discerning com- 
 munity, whose eyes are anxiously turned upon these proceedings, 
 will understand the subject, and will sustain us in ouxprotests against 
 such unheard of acts and doings — against the competency — against 
 the right of this tribunal, to try the questions which are involved 
 in this case; and if this court, shall proceed, notwithstanding this 
 protest, we will consider it an executive usurpation of ex post facto 
 legislative authority. But we sincerely hope, that whilst we are as 
 yet at the threshold of this undertaking, brethren will reconsi- 
 der their purpose, dismiss the prosecution, and not set up a prece- 
 dent, which of all others, is the most dangerous to the pulic wel- 
 fare and safety." 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Their specifications proved to be sophistical and unsupported by 
 
 Discipline. 
 
 The correctness of the foregoing views will appear still more 
 clearly, on a careful examination of the two specifications, which 
 were intended to sustain their attempt, to make out the identifica- 
 tion so necessary, to give to their proceedings the appearance of 
 legality. Specification 1st. "Because the said Samuel K. Jen- 
 
60 
 
 nings, while a member and a local preacher of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church aforesaid, did heretofore attach himself to, and be- 
 come a member of the Society, called the Union Society of the city 
 of Baltimore; which Union Society, is in opposition to the discipline, 
 in whole or in part, of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid." 
 
 This specification is a piece of scandalous sophistry. It pre- 
 supposes the existence of two rules of discipline, which had no 
 being. The first supposition is, that the discipline prohibits the 
 formation of Union Societies. The second supposition is, that 
 the discipline forbids the members, and more particularly the local 
 preachers, to "attach themselves to, or become members of such 
 Union Societies." As this is a point of great importance, we will 
 be indulged in proceeding in a further examination of it, with tech- 
 nical exactness. The specification, may be considered, to contain 
 two syllogisms. The first would read thus. The discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, prohibits the formation or existence, 
 of Union Societies. This is the major proposition. The minor 
 in course, would read thus: But a Union Society has been formed 
 in Baltimore. Then comes the conclusion. Therefore the Union 
 Society in Baltimore, is in opposition to the discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. We deny the truth of the major 
 preposition, and demand the proof; the chapter and paragraph, of 
 the discipline, which contains the prohibition. It is not to be 
 found. 
 
 The second syllogism would read thus. The discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church forbids the members, and particular- 
 ly the local preachers of that church, to attach themselves to, or 
 become members of the Union Society. This again is the major 
 proposition. Then comes the minor in course: But "Samuel K. 
 Jennings, while a member and local preacher of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church aforesaid, did heretofore, attach himself to, and 
 become a member of the society, called the Union Society of the 
 city of Baltimore, which Union Society is in opposition to the dis- 
 cipline," &c. The conclusion is, therefore; the said Samuel K. 
 Jennings, has violated this rule of discipline. We deny the truth 
 of the major proposition and demand the proof. It cannot be pro- 
 duced, and these prosecutors have themselves admitted it. See 
 Narrative and Defence, page 28. "The committee with whom the 
 conference committee were intended to negotiate, were appointed 
 by the Union Society, a body not recognized by our discipline; and 
 of whom the church could demand nothing.^ With this acknow- 
 edgement staring them in the face, we say again, this first specifi- 
 cation is a piece of scandalous sophistry, devised for the special 
 purpose, of making out their unlawful and forced identification. 
 
 The prosecutors must bear with us a little, while we exhibit 
 them, at cross questions with themselves. In the specification, they 
 say, "The Union Society is in opposition to the discipline, in whole 
 ox part, of the Methodist Episcopal Church." In the Narrative and 
 Defence, they say "The Union Society is a body not recognized by 
 the discipline." It follows in course, then not prohibited. And yet 
 they seem persuaded, that Union Societies, must be in opposition 
 
Gl 
 
 to the Methodist Episcopal Church, if not in whole at any event 
 inpart. They were like Peter in Dean Swift's tale of the tub. If 
 the necessary opposition, could not be established by any known 
 and promulged rule, they could make it out by some rule of con- 
 struction. It was all in their own hands, and they did make it 
 cut. 
 
 Let us now try the merits of the second specification, which 
 reads thus. "Because the said Samuel K. Jennings, as a member 
 of the said Union Society, directly or indirectly, either by pecunia- 
 ry contributions or his personal influence, aiding, abetting, co- 
 operating or assisting in the publication and circulation of a work, 
 called the Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, printed under the direction of an 
 editorial committee (of which the said Samuel K. Jennings is, or 
 lately was one) appointed by, or who are members of the Union 
 Society aforesaid, which work or publication, called the Mutual 
 Rights, &lc. contains (among other things) much that inveighs 
 against the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid, 
 in whole or in part, arid is in direct opposition thereto; and that 
 is abusive or speaks evil of a part if not of the most of the minis- 
 ters of that church. The general tendency of which work or pub- 
 lication, has been, to produce disagreement, strife, contention and 
 breach of union among the members of said church, in this city 
 or station. 
 
 So much of this second verbose specification, as relates to per- 
 sonal accusations, we postpone for subsequent consideration, and 
 confine ourselves at present, to the part which is intended to "iden- 
 tify the Mutual Rights with the evils of which they complain." 
 Here we have another instance of the same kind of sophistry. 
 The specification proceeds, as if the first had been established, 
 intending to make the Union Society and Mutual Rights, of- 
 fenders in common with "the said Samuel K. Jennings," who 
 was "a member of said Union Society." The sophistry of this 
 crafty device, consists in the supposed establishment of two 
 points which were without foundation. It supposes the first 
 specification to have been established, and takes for granted 
 the existence of a rule of discipline, which forbids the publication 
 of any book or periodical, in which any essay or paper, shall ever, 
 on any account, be admitted, that shall be considered to "inveigh 
 or speak evil of ministers." The major of the proportion would 
 read thus: The Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church for- 
 bids the publication of any book or periodical, &c. as above. 
 Then the minor would be, the Mutual Rights is a periodical which 
 contains such papers. The conclusion; therefore, the Mutual 
 Rights is forbidden by the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. We deny the truth of the major and demand the proof. 
 But they were so confident, that they had fully succeeded in their 
 policy, that on their first approach, they came to demand a surrender 
 of the Union Society and Mutual Rights. "It was indispensa- 
 ble that we should dissolve our connexion with them." That is, 
 9 
 
62 
 
 we must submit to the heaviest penalty of which the case could 
 admit; — the very same penalty, which they required as the satisfac- 
 tion for the church, for the offences of which they pronounced 
 us guilty, and for which they condemned us "by an unanimous vote." 
 And yet it is "strange, passing strange," that these same men, 
 when more cool and dispassionate, acknowledge they had no right 
 or authority, to make any such demand. See Narrative and De- 
 fence, page 28. "How were the committee to know, what satisfac- 
 tion to require for the church, of those, whom the church had not yet 
 officially decidedtobe guilty of any offence at all." And yet before 
 trial, without any official decision, they demanded what would have 
 been in effect, a discontinuance of all further efforts to bring about re- 
 form, a violation of our engagements as editors of the periodical with 
 more than fifteen hundred subscribers, and an acknowledgement of our 
 having transgressed laws that had no existence and that the prosecu- 
 tors had acted correctly as Christians and as Methodists, in all these 
 unreasonable and unjust things. 
 
 After collating those demands with the verbose and cunningly 
 devised charges and specifications, and connecting the whole wiih 
 the known previous arrangements to secure an unanimous vote for 
 our expulsion, the propriety of appearing before our accusers, ex- 
 cept for the purpose of entering our protest, will be clear and un- 
 questionable. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Correspondence with Mr. Hanson. His letters prove that a fair trial 
 was not intended. It was an act of usurpation. A protest the 
 only proper defence. 
 
 Whilst we were meditating as to the proper course to be pursu- 
 ed, a second note was sent to Mr. Hanson, of which the following 
 is an extract, 
 
 "I have to say to you, that the nature of my defence, will 
 
 make it imperiously necessary for me to correspond with the several 
 writers, for the publication of whose papers, as one of the editors 
 of a periodical work, I am called to give an account. This cir- 
 cumstance, together with other very important parts of my intend- 
 ed defence, will necessarily require a good deal of time. A proper 
 sense of justice on the part of the executive, therefore, will cer- 
 tainly protect me against the violence of being urged to too hasty 
 a hearing. 
 
 I am, &c. S. K. J." 
 
 Rev. James Hanson. 
 
 The following is an extract from Mr. Hanson's reply. 
 
 "I am no less astonished, that you should think it all im- 
 portant to your intended defence, to have a correspondence with 
 the writers of those pieces, which the brethren, above alluded to, 
 
63 
 
 have designated. The sentiments and expressions which are deem- 
 ed exceptionable, have been published to the world, and speak for 
 themselves. With the writers for the "Mutual Rights," scattered 
 as they are over the continent, the charges in question have no 
 immediate concern: nor is it easy to see, how these writers are to 
 render you any assistance. They can furnish no testimony, — they 
 can undo nothing, that you as a member of the editorial committee 
 may have done; and without designing to flatter, I may be permitted 
 to say, they can place the subject in question, in no light, in which 
 it has not appeared to your mind, seeing that it has been with you 
 a subject of close and deep deliberation for several years. Under 
 these impressions, and desirous, for the good of all concerned, to 
 bring the matter to as speedy an issue as is consistent with a pro- 
 per sense of justice, it is deemed altogether unadvisable to fix 
 upon any period for investigation, beyond Monday 17th, at 7 
 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 I am, &c. James M. Hanson. 
 
 This second appointment allowed us five days of grace to pre- 
 pare for trial. But it is evident from the face of the letter, that 
 his mind was already made up upon the subject, and that he 
 had no expectation of a trial upon the merits of the papers; — that 
 he intended to make no inquiry after the writers of them, nor to 
 afford any opportunity of obtaining from them any explanation. 
 Besides, at the time we had in possession a copy of a letter from 
 Mr- Hanson to Mr. Jacobs, of Alexandria, a short extract from 
 which was read with our protest, to prove that he could not act 
 the part of an impartial judge. We now give a more extensive 
 extract: 
 
 "I was sorry my dear brother, extremely sorry, to find you, 
 
 in your communication to the Union Society, sometime since, 
 identifying yourself with a set of men, who are, I have no doubt, 
 the most decided and violent enemies, that our church has on 
 earth; — men who have spared no pains, and paid no regard to any 
 of those maxims, which ought to govern the conduct of christians 
 towards one another, in striving to render the church odious in the 
 eyes of mankind. And who are those mighty reformers, after all 
 the mighty dust, that has been raised? Why, a few men who have 
 retired from the hardships of an itinerant life; 2d, a set of men, who 
 have never contributed in any considerable degree, either to the 
 organization or prosperity of the church, and whom their quarterly 
 conferences would never have recommended as proper persons to 
 be licensed to preach, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, had it 
 been known, they would take the course they have taken.. 3d, A 
 few travelling preachers, some of whom perhaps have been disap- 
 pointed, in not getting into the General Conference. -4th, 
 
 A few of the laity, who by great names and pretty sounds, 'lay 
 delegation and Mutual Rights' for instance, have suffered them- 
 selves to be led away,"&>c. "More than two years ago, I was 
 
 led to fear there was corruption at the very root of radicalism, and 
 although I had rather favoured some of their views, I felt and avow- 
 
64 
 
 ed the most decided opposition, to others. Since my appoint- 
 ment to this station, I have had an opportunity of observing their 
 movements more closely, and making myself better acquainted 
 with their spirit, and I hope I shall not offend my brother Jacobs 
 (whom I yet sincerely love) when I tell him, that I am disposed 
 to view the greater part of them, as holding a relation to the church, 
 to which in justice and propriety, — nay even in charity itself, they 
 are no longer entitled."* Compare Mr. Hanson's commenting re- 
 ply to the note asking an opportunity to correspond with the writers 
 of the exceptionable papers, with this, his letter to Mr. Jacobs, 
 and who will say his judgment was not made up, or that he was 
 not disqualified to sit in judgment upon our cases? Compare the 
 previous arrangements to secure "an unanimous vote" with the 
 demand of the two prosecutors for the destruction of the Union 
 Society and Mutual Rights, and then look at the sophistry of the 
 charges and specifications, and who will doubt the predetermina- 
 tion of all concerned on the side of the government, to expel us, 
 if we would not consent to give up the Mutual Rights and Union 
 Societies. In view of the whole of these matters, we considered 
 the prosecution in all its circumstances, unlawful, and calculated 
 to scandalize the church; we therefore met the prosecution with 
 a solemn protest. 
 
 The sophistry of the device for identifying the charges, &c. 
 with the Union Society and Mutual Rights, has been made evident 
 to common sense. Hence it appears that this surreptitious mode 
 of procedure was expected to supply the want of a rule of dis- 
 cipline to justify their proceedings; and in course, that it was "an 
 executive usurpation of legislative authority," intended to have an 
 ex post facto operation. It brings to our recollection, an occur- 
 rence which took place in one of the upper counties of Virginia, 
 about thirty-eight years ago. A county-court lawyer, who had long 
 had great influence over the court, was urging a point in favour of his 
 client with very great earnestness, when the opposite council arose 
 and objected to the whole argument, on the ground, that it was 
 not sustained by common or statute law, or any act of the State 
 Legislature. The zealous advocate replied, "Gentlemen of the 
 jury, that can make no difference as to the merits of this cause; 
 
 * The reader will bear in mind the fact, that this preacher, after "thinking 
 evil" of us for more than two years, and justifying his evil thoughts by a 
 closer observation for several months, having become our pastor, and we 
 think, having been placed over us that he might "maintain wholesome dis- 
 cipline" amongst us, but who never in all that time, had called on any one 
 of us in person or addressed us by letter; this man sat in judgment with his 
 court, to expel us for "speaking evil of ministers." He had said of us, that 
 we "paid no regard to any of those maxims which ought to govern the conduct of 
 christians towards one another, &c. Was it not evil speaking of us, to say we 
 paid no regard to any law of Christ? Could he have said any thing more 
 comprehensive? As to christian maxims, we were perfect out-laws. Ac- 
 cording to this mode of "divine expounding." A travelling preacher may 
 say what he pleases, of those under his pastoral care; — being an "expounder" 
 he is not bound to be a keeper of the maxims which ought to govern the con- 
 duct of christians towards another! !" 
 
65 
 
 for if what I have advanced is not the law, it ought to be the law, 
 and what then is the difference?" So with the prosecutors in our 
 case: they appear to have thought, if there is no rule in the Dis- 
 cipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church which forbids the exist- 
 ence of Union Societies, or the publication of periodicals favoura- 
 ble to the work of reform, there ought to be such a rule, and what 
 was the difference? 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 A fair trial under existing circumstance, was impossible. 
 
 It is probable, that the government party were of opinion that 
 we entered our protests, because we wished to evade a trial. This 
 mistake, it is hoped, will now be corrected; as a fair trial, under 
 the existing circumstances of the case, was absolutely impossible. 
 For the present we dismiss the consideration of the identifying 
 specifications, and return to the general charge so far as it admits 
 of personal application. We were accused of speaking evil of 
 ministers, in the character of Editors of the Mutual Rights. And 
 for the proof, reference was made to numbers 1, 7, 25, 27, 29, 30, 
 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37, of that periodical. 
 
 Now suppose we had consented to be tried as the prosecutors 
 proposed, what plea could we have entered in the case? Even 
 admitting that we had been misguided in our judgment in respect 
 to the character and abilities of the writers, and had erred material- 
 ly as to the true spirit and meaning of their papers: admit all this — 
 and would it have been a proper course, for us, the editors, to have 
 plead guilty to the papers of those writers, without first having writ- 
 ten to them for their views? Suppose, again, the writers to have 
 been such men as Mr. Snethen, Mr. Shinn and others, notorious 
 for integrity and truth, on whose judgment we could rely, and who 
 in course were always ready to answer for themselves, — would it 
 have been right, in view of all these considerations, for us to have 
 plead guilty to charges predicated upon their papers? Would it 
 have been proper for us to have entered the plea of justification, 
 and offered the truth in evidence, when we were not permitted to 
 correspond with them on the subject of their papers respectively? 
 Every reasonable man will perceive what ought to have been done, 
 had the church court been disposed to dispense justice. The 
 prosecutors were not ignorant of it. See Narrative and Defence, 
 page 76. "The doctor's defence, then, ought to have been a very 
 different thing from what we find it. Instead of declaiming on re- 
 form, and the iniquity of endeavouring to prevent it, he should 
 have set himself to prove the truth of the allegations, made by him 
 and his associates, against our Bishops and other ministers. If he had 
 shewn them to be true, the charge of evil speaking could not have 
 been sustained," &,c. Then it follows, from their shewing, that 
 "we ought to have set ourselved to prove the truth of the allega- 
 
66 
 
 tions made by our associates." And how were we, how were the 
 editorial committee to do this, without the help of the writers? 
 We wrote to Mr. Hanson, stating, "that the nature of our defence 
 will make it imperiously necessary for us to correspond with the 
 several writers, for the publication of whose papers, as editors of 
 a periodical work, me are called to give an account" — adding that 
 this would require time. Mr. Hanson, the judge and ruler of the 
 court, replied, "With the writers for the 'Mutual Rights,' scattered 
 as they are over the Continent, the charges in question have no im- 
 mediate concern; nor is it easy to see how these writers are to ren- 
 der you any assistance. They can furnish no testimony. They can 
 undo nothing that you, as a member of the Editorial committee, 
 may have done," &lc. 
 
 We were cited to trial on the 7th of September, to appear on the 
 10th. The time was extended to the 17th, beyond which, said 
 Mr. Hanson, "it was deemed altogether unadvisable to fix upon 
 the period for investigation. 
 
 Two points were thus previously settled by the judge. First, 
 that in view of the intended course of proceedings, the court had 
 pre-determined that the writers of the papers had no immedi- 
 ate concern with the charges in question, And secondly, that 
 "they could furnish no testimony." They say we ought to have 
 set ourselves to prove the truth of what our associates," the writers, 
 had alleged. By whom were we to prove it? Not by the writers, 
 said Mr. Hanson, nor by any testimony that they could have fur- 
 nished. The "writers of the papers have no immediate concern 
 with the charges" — "they can furnish no testimony." And in or- 
 der to foreclose the possibility of obtaining or offering any such 
 testimony; — the only testimony of which the case could have ad- 
 mitted — he limitted the period allowed us to prepare for our de- 
 fence, to the 17th — one week only — when he knew the writers 
 were " scattered over the continent." 
 
 With such unquestionable information, with respect to the spirit 
 and intention of the prosecution, thiee things "rested upon us 
 with the force of moral obligation." 
 
 1. We owed to ourselves sufficient respect to avoid a sophistical 
 snare, intended to fix on us the scandal of "evil speaking " without 
 affording us any possible means of defence or escape. 
 
 We owed to Reformers throughout the United States, they 
 being absent, a refusal on our part to acknowledge them guilty of 
 evil speaking, especially when we were officially informed by Mr. 
 Hanson, that no opportunity would be allowed us to give them 
 notice of the sweeping charges, which were to settle the principles 
 by which every man of them would be liable to excommunication, 
 at the nod of the travelling preachers. 
 
 3. We owed it to the Methodist Episcopal Church, to give them 
 an opportunity or an occasion, by the interposition of the General 
 Conference, to disavow and correct such unwarrantable and unjust 
 proceedings. And from what has been submitted, our readers 
 cannot fail to perceive that the only alternative left us, was to 
 enter our protest against their surreptitious attempt to make a sub- 
 
8/ 
 
 stitute for law; — against their unjustifiable arrangements to secure 
 our condemnation by an unanimous vote; — and against the avow- 
 ed prejudice of the preacher in charge. It must be particularly 
 clear that we would have done ourselves and our cause, irreparable 
 injustice to have submitted to such a mock trial, when we had cer- 
 tain information that it would terminate in our condemnation, upon 
 a charge for publishing papers, as editors of a periodical, when at 
 the same time we were not only not permitted to correspond with 
 the writers of those papers, but were also informed by the judge of 
 the court, that they could be of no service to us; — that they could 
 afford us no testimony. 
 
 If our laymen had not been placed under the protection of the 
 protest, we now know by the subsequent developement of facts, 
 that condemnation awaited them, by "an unanimous vote;" and 
 that nothing but the publication of the protest, could have pre- 
 vented an impression, almost universal, that they had been righte- 
 ously expelled. If the Local Preachers had gone to trial, upon 
 the premises, it is equally clear, that we would have shared the 
 same fate. It is true, we might have appealed to the Annual Con- 
 ference: But what would that have availed us? The fate of Rev. 
 D. B. Dorsey, who had only recommended the Mutual Rights, too 
 well foretold what would have been the decision of that body, upon 
 our appeal. The fate of our memorial let us know how they would 
 have disposed of our case. Notwithstanding all the glaring impro- 
 prieties which so amply justified our protest, the Annual Confer- 
 ence decreed, that in as much as we had dared to protest, and had 
 not submitted to be caught in their snare in ihe inferior judicatories, 
 we were not entitled to the poor privilege of uttering a complaint, 
 much less of presenting an appeal. To have countenanced our 
 protest, in the judgment of the Conference, would been "subversive 
 of wholesome and sound discipline." And after the Annual Confer- 
 ence had condemned the Rev. D. B. Dorsey, and the Quarterly 
 Meeting Conference, in the City of Baltimore, had condemned the 
 Local Preachers by "an unanimous vote," would not a reversion of 
 the sentence have been doubly "subversive of the wholesome and 
 sound discipline?" It is obvious that an appeal to the Annual Con- 
 ference would have been worse than useless, because it would have 
 given the General Conference a better apology for refusing us a 
 hearing, if a majority of that body were disposed to enter into the 
 views of the Annual Conference. 
 
 The ultimate and chief design of the protest was to ascertain 
 whether the Methodist Episcopal Church, as a body, were prepared 
 to sustain the proceedings of the prosecution, which was gotten 
 up in Baltimore station, and which, in the Narrative and Defence, 
 the prosecutors say, was instituted "without any itinerant sugges- 
 tion or influence whatever." 
 
 The great impropriety of proceeding against the Editors of the 
 Mutual Rights, and not against the writers of the offensive papers, 
 must be obvious; especially, as we could neither plead guilty, nor 
 justify, in reply to the charges. It it equally obvious, that an 
 honest intention to do justice and try the charges upon the merits 
 
68 
 
 of the publications, would have led to the prosecution of the 
 writers, and not the Editors unless they had refused to give up the 
 writers' names. But the prosecutors in this case, included many 
 members of the Union Society, who were neither Editors nor 
 writers, and they found us all equally guilty, and all were condemn- 
 ed for the same things! They knew who were some of the prin- 
 cipal writers, and by a proper application to the committee might 
 have known them all. They referred to papers written by Mr. 
 Snethen; in course they knew he was one: why did they not bring 
 him to trial? Or if they were determined to hold us implicated 
 with him, why did they not give us time to call on him? He in- 
 formed the public, that if at any time before these trials, notice 
 had been given him, either verbally or by letter, or in the Mutual 
 Rights, no man need to have been prosecuted or expelled on his 
 account. "I would," said he, "have taken all my burden on my 
 own shoulders." — "As the case now stands, I am not convinced, 
 that I have misstated any fact — or that I have drawn false infer- 
 ences from my premises." Mutual Rights, Vol. IV. page 351. 
 
 They knew Mr. Shinn was also one. Why did not they prose- 
 cute him? Why expel more than thirty members of the Union So- 
 ciety, because his papers were published in the Mutual Rights, 
 and permit him, unmolested, to take his seat in the General Con- 
 ference? — They knew if he were called on to answer for himself, 
 or if they gave us time to write and receive his answer, in explana- 
 tion of his papers, that they would be obliged to meet something 
 like the defence which was published in the Mutual Rights, Vol. 
 IV. page 257 — 287. Why did they not demand the name of Vin- 
 dex and prosecute him? They knew that of these men, each for 
 himself, could defend his papers, and heap disgrace upon any 
 that would dare to bring him to trial. It suited their purpose bet- 
 ter to identify the evils of which they complained with the Union 
 Society and Mutual Rights." — With the writers for that work, 
 "scattered as they are over the Continent, the charges in question," 
 said Mr. Hanson, "have no immediate concern." The immediate 
 concern of the prosecution was by means of "the charges in ques- 
 tion," supported by their own comment on the papers, without 
 explanation, to ensure "an unanimous vote for turning us all out 
 of their fellowship, as the publishers and patrons of the periodical. 
 Whether the writers could justify or not, was no part of the ques- 
 tion, and gave them "no immediate concern." The leading pur- 
 pose of the prosecution, was to expel us all, unless we would 
 "withdraaw forthwith from the Union Society, and promise not to 
 be engaged, hereafter, in any publications that inveigh against our 
 discipline or government," fyc. 
 
69 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 Declaration that ice were expelled without a trial, A memorial makes 
 this known to the General Conference. 
 
 Having given our views of the transaction by which so many 
 local preachers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 were excommunicated, with the real, though covert intention, to 
 put a stop to the work of reform, but with the avowed and osten- 
 sible intention, to bring to trial and punish the editors and patrons 
 of the periodical, for "inveighing," &c. and "speaking evil of 
 ministers." We now make our appeal to all well informed chris- 
 tian people, and to disinterested citizens of the United States 
 generally, in a solemn declaration, that our cause has never yet been 
 tried. All who have read, know, that we have clearly demon- 
 strated, that a fair trial before the church court of Baltimore in our 
 case, was impossible. In course no man can judge between our 
 accusers and us, unless he will take the necessary pains, to read 
 the four volumes of the Mutual Rights, and make himself acquaint- 
 ed with the nature and circumstances of the controversy. We 
 have already stated the considerations, which made it "a duty 
 which rested upon us, with the force of a moral obligation," to 
 meet the prosecution with a solemn protest. These considerations 
 were submitted in substance to the General Conference, as the sub- 
 joined memorial will shew; and we now say, the General Confer- 
 ence ought to have interfered, in some way, which might have 
 served to wipe off the scandal from the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church; — the scandal of having expelled so many local preachers, 
 and people without a tr ial, and without just cause. 
 
 Our protests were intended to open the way for our contem- 
 plated memorials to the Annual and General Conferences. And 
 although we had no good reason to expect any relief from the 
 Annual Conference, a memorial to that body was considered ne- 
 cessary to precede our application to the General Conference. 
 The resolution of the Annual Conference not to "subvert" Balti- 
 morean, "wholesome and sound discipline," was such as we might 
 have expected, when we knew their proceeding in the cases of the 
 Rev. D. B. Dorsey and W. C. Pool. But we had a right to ex- 
 pect something better from the General Conference. And in view 
 of such an expectation, on the 17th April, 1828, we wrote the fol- 
 lowing letter to brother Shinn. 
 
 Baltimore, April 17th, 1828. 
 Dear Brother, — In answer to your highly esteemed favour, I will 
 say, that a restitution of our membership, together with such an 
 acknowledgment of our rights and privileges, as our friends may 
 consider a satisfactory guarantee for our safety, and which of course 
 will make our return honourable, at the same time that our cause 
 will be saved and protected, would assuredly be very desirable to us 
 10 
 
70 
 
 all. Not so much, however, permit me to add, for any personal 
 consideration, as for the reputation of Methodism. Individuals who 
 understand the importance of the question at issue, will be found 
 generally, perhaps in every instance, to have within their reach, re- 
 sources sufficient for their own personal comfort. 
 
 The late transactions of Baltimore, must be considered by men 
 of sense, every where, to be sufficient cause of scandal, to awake 
 every intelligent Methodist in the United States. And I am still 
 willing to believe, there will be found in the General Conference, 
 men not so infatuated, that they cannot perceive, how loudly, a due 
 regard for their own reputation calls upon them, to take such mea- 
 sures, as may be effectual to extenuate the offence which has been 
 committed against our rights and liberties, and relieve the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church from the reproaches, which, otherwise must 
 inevitably fall upon her. 
 
 With intention to bring the subject before the General Confer- 
 ence, a memorial will be prepared and forwarded, and a letter will 
 be sent to some one of our friends, which will communicate our 
 views, respecting any concessions which ought to be admitted on 
 our part, &c. 
 
 I am respectfully, your brother, <SfC. 
 
 Samuel K. Jennings. 
 
 Copy of a Memorial from the expelled members, addressed to the 
 General Conference, assembled in Pittsburg. 
 
 "To the bishops and members of the General Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, in Conference assembled. 
 
 Esteemed Fathers and Brethren. 
 
 The memorial of the undersigned, late ministers and members 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of Baltimore, re- 
 spectfully sheweth. That for upwards of three years last past, a pe- 
 riodical called "The Mutual Rights," has been published in said 
 city, under the direction of a committee of ministers and members 
 of said church, which periodical had for its object, the discussion 
 of the propriety and utility of introducing an equitable representa- 
 tion from the ministry and membership, into the legislative depart- 
 ment of said church. 
 
 Your memorialists beg leave to state, that most of the prominent 
 writers for said periodical, are itinerant ministers of the said church, 
 all of whom we verily believe, are ardently attached to the interests 
 thereof, and whose only object, in furnishing contributions for said 
 periodical, was to obtain a well balanced form of government, that 
 said church may become the glory of the present age, and the just 
 admiration of posterity. 
 
 Your memorialists further state, that no formal charge was pre- 
 ferred against either the authors, or editors, by any legal authorities 
 of the church, during the aforesaid period of three years; but in the 
 month of July last, a select meeting of some of the ministers and 
 members of this station, was held for a particular purpose, and 
 after that purpose had been subserved, a motion was made, and 
 
71 
 
 carried, to appoint several persons, to examine the Mutual Rights, 
 to ascertain if the Discipline had not therein been violated. 
 
 Your memorialists would represent, that about the month of 
 September last, the committee just referred to, called on some five 
 or six members of the Union Society, individually, and demanded 
 of each, an abandonment of the Union Society, and that they 
 should withhold their aid from the Mutual Rights, as the exclusive 
 terms on which a prosecution was to be avoided. Those brethren 
 on whom the demand was made, did then, and do now believe, that 
 the requisitions were such as neither the word of God, nor the dis- 
 cipline of the church recognizes as terms, on which brethren in 
 Christ Jesus, are to be continued in church fellowship; and were 
 therefore conscientiously impelled to decline giving the pledges de< 
 manded. 
 
 A few days thereafter, charges and specifications, based on cer- 
 tain essays in the Mutual Rights, were handed by the prosecuting 
 committee to the Rev. Mr. Hanson, against upwards of thirty 
 members of the Union Society, which were sent by him to the ac- 
 cused, with citations to trial, without a prior visit from him to 
 either of the accused, to reconcile the parties and to prevent the 
 unhappy collisions and exacerbations of party feeling, consequent 
 on a church trial involving so many individuals; and to prevent 
 the justly to be deprecated issues, which followed. 
 
 The first person cited for trial, was the Rev. Dr. Jennings, the 
 chairman of the editorial committee of the periodical. He re- 
 spectfully requested of Mr. Hanson, time to correspond with the 
 authors of the pieces, adduced as proof of the charges, but this 
 was refused. He nevertheless appeared, and made the protest, ac- 
 companying this memorial, marked A, to which we solicit the at- 
 tention of the General Conference. The most of the accused ap- 
 peared, and entered their protests against the glaring absurdity of 
 the procedure, as well as the prejudiced character of the commit- 
 tee of trial, more particularly the latter, who had aided in promot- 
 ing the prosecutions, and moreover, had in a publication, for which 
 they had voted previously, prejudged our cases. 
 
 A considerable time after the trial (so called) Mr. Hanson sent 
 us a communication informing us, that the committee had found us 
 ''guilty;" the committee had reported that the charges and speci- 
 fications were "sustained," and in the said communication, reiter- 
 ated the demand made by the prosecutors, as before recited, and 
 which were afterwards renewed, by doctor Green. We cannot but 
 consider it remarkable, that such a striking sameness of demand 
 should be made, at three different periods, and by three persons. 
 Suffice it to say, that Mr. Hanson's demand was declined on the 
 part of the accused. A short time after the members were expell- 
 ed, and the local preachers were suspended. The local preachers 
 determined to take their trials at the district conference, as provid- 
 ed by the discipline. The district conference met, and after being 
 organized, and ready for business, was violently and illegally dis- 
 solved. Now as we cannot suppose, that the general conference 
 ever designed to transfer the business of a district conference, to a 
 
72 
 
 quarterly meeting conference, by such means as were employed on 
 this occasion, and especially by the votes of coloured preachers, 
 in a slave holding state, and without allowing the subject to be dis- 
 cussed, we sincerely believe that the dissolution was illegal and 
 void, and that the quarterly conference had no jurisdiction in the 
 case. 
 
 The lay members obeyed their citations, but they did not appeal 
 for the same reason which served to make the local preachers more 
 sensible of the injustice done them by the unlawful dissolution of 
 the district conference; which was, that we all knew the members 
 of thf quarterly meeting conference, (with but very few exceptions) 
 at a meeting called for the purpose, had by a vote, adopted a paper 
 which was published by themselves, in which it was stated, that the 
 Mutual Rights had been rightly considered by the Baltimore Con- 
 ference, to be an improper work; because in it anonymous writers 
 were permitted to defame the travelling preachers, &,c. Inasmuch, 
 therefore, as the principal charge was for speaking evil of minis- 
 ters, and the specifications referred to the Mutual Rights, as the 
 only evidence by which they expected to sustain the charge and 
 specifications; it was a necessary conclusion, that they had alrea- 
 dy decided on the facts (so called) in our case. They considered 
 all the members of the Union Society identified with the excep- 
 tionable papers, and of course we as members of the Union Socie- 
 ty, were made the subjects of their denouncement. An appeal, to 
 have been made under such circumstances, carried with it such a 
 certain expectation of defeat, that our lay members could not con- 
 sent to appear before the quarterly meeting conference. More- 
 over, it was and is our opinion that the subject in dispute was one 
 which required special legislation, and after entering our protests, 
 we intended to look to your body, for an act which would guaran- 
 tee a better mode of procedure, should any instance of this kind, 
 again occur. In the meantime, however, we were desirous of call- 
 ing the attention of the annual conference to the illegality of the 
 proceedings, and with that view, sent up to the conference the 
 memorial marked B, (see page 327) and to which that body return- 
 ed the document marked C. (see page 230,) of Mutual Rights. 
 
 If we have erred, it should be remembered, that it was at a time 
 of great excitement, and under extraordinary circumstances. We 
 feel confident, that the case was entirely nev\r 
 
 Who ever before heard of the organization of a prosecution 
 committee in the Methodist Episcopal Church, consisting of seven 
 persons? When was there ever a convocation of members of the 
 church, for the purpose of arraying themselves as prosecutors, 
 against another party of the church? 
 
 The measure was so new, and so inconsistent with all our for- 
 mer acquaintance with Methodism, that we were apprehensive, our 
 prosecutors had been encouraged thereto, by some persons in high 
 authority in the church. 
 
 When attacked in such a party manner, and under such new and 
 fearful circumstances, we telt obliged to protest, and to publish our 
 protest, that our friends and the public might know the highly im- 
 
7 J 
 
 proper course of procedure against us; that we might not be injur- 
 ed to any very great extent, by the varied attempts of our prose- 
 cutors and their friends, until a fair and full investigation could be 
 had. 
 
 We are much surprised at the resolutions of the Baltimore An- 
 nual Conference. In the first resolution the utmost scrupulosity 
 as to the formalities of the discipline, is tenaciously observed in 
 every point regarding the expelled, whilst not a word is said re- 
 specting the informalities, by which the prosecutions were charac- 
 terised. 
 
 It appears from the second resolution, that a departure from 
 the course prescribed, would be subversive of "wholesome disci- 
 pline." That there is no general rule without some exception, 
 is generally admitted, and we believe our cases furnish such an 
 exception; having been prosecuted by those who had condemn- 
 ed us; and tried by those who had found us guilty and pub- 
 lished it to the world, previously to their sitting on our trials, 
 and acknowledging that they had so acted, even on the trials! 
 Surely this was a course of things extremely out of place and char- 
 acter. In the fourth resolution, they state, that "if the local preach- 
 ers, on the dissolution of the conference, had appeared before the 
 quarterly meeting conference, and objected to the jurisdiction of 
 that body, in such case, on an appeal, this conference would have 
 fully considered and decided on the whole subject." This is a most 
 surprising statement, in view of all the facts in the case. The local 
 preachers did draw up a formal protest against the jurisdiction of 
 the quarterly meeting conference, to try their cases, which they 
 sent in, to the presiding elder, (the Rev. Joseph Frye,) as the doc- 
 ument marked D, fully proves. With the most incontestible evi- 
 dence before the local preachers, that a large majority of the quar- 
 terly meeting conference had prejudged their cases; that it was a 
 party prosecution; that the presiding elder by favouring the disso- 
 lution of the district conference, was also on the side of the prose- 
 tion party; that Mr. Hanson was also on the same side; that the 
 committee were also of the party; that almost all the members of 
 the quarterly meeting conference had voted them "enemies to 
 Methodism," &c. in view of these facts, they declined a person- 
 al attendance, trusting that the annual conference would defend 
 them against such oppression; or that if the annual conference 
 should sanction such procedure, the general conference would ren- 
 der them an impartial hearing, and decide only on the merits of the 
 facts, and principles involved in the case. 
 
 Finally, brethren, your memorialists respectfully represent to the 
 general conference, that as we have been expelled from the church, 
 contrary, as we believe, to Scripture and Discipline, and which ex- 
 pulsion has been, and still is painful to our hearts, we do hereby 
 request your highly respected body to take such measures, as in 
 your wisdom, shall restore us to the church of our former fellow- 
 ship, and receive with us those who have withdrawn on our ac- 
 count, on principles which shall secure to us and the church, the 
 liberty of speech and of the press, without sanctioning the licen- 
 
74 
 
 tiousness of either; and may the great Head of the church have 
 you in his holy keeping, and direct you in all your deliberations, to 
 the praise of His glory, is the prayer of your memorialists." 
 
 The reader will perceive that a reference is requested to a copy 
 of our protest marked A. That document in addition to the other 
 references served to make the memorial so completely develope 
 the whole business, that the Conference were obliged to understand 
 the iniquity of the prosecution. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 Some strictures on the proceedings of the General Conference, in view 
 of the memorial. 
 
 How obvious it is, that the General Conference ought to have 
 interfered and shewn a disposition to wipe off the scandal of hav- 
 ing expelled so many local preachers and lay members of the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church, without a trial and without a just cause! 
 Had they been the representatives of the Methodist people, and in 
 course accountable to the people for their legislative and judicial 
 acts, they would have felt the necessity of evincing their disappro- 
 bation of such arbitrary proceedings. So far from feeling any such 
 accountability, they considered themselves bound in conscience to 
 assert their high prerogatives, as of divine appointment; and to 
 make plain their conscientious determination to maintain the whole 
 amount of their power; — saying in terms, that cannot be misun- 
 derstood, that they can be "cordially happy in the society and fel- 
 lowship" of such only, as are willing to be peacefully submissive to 
 their absolute authority, and that to those who may be dissatisfied 
 with holding such obedient relation to the church, as they the "di- 
 vinely authorized expounders of moral discipline," &c. shall have 
 prescribed, there remains no alternative, but to exercise "the right 
 of ecclesiastical expatriation." A little attention to the report of 
 the committee on petitions and memorials, as adopted by the Gen- 
 eral Conference at Pittsburg, will confirm this statement. 
 
 The first three paragraphs bring the reader to the conclusion, 
 that in the estimation of the conference, "the claim of right to the 
 representation contended for," the claimants are not entitled to de- 
 mand, because the conference "believe it neither has been or can 
 be shown," that the claimants have such a right, either natural or 
 acquired. It can be no cause of surprise, after this, to find in the 
 seventh paragraph, a declaration, that the itinerant preachers have 
 been very condescending and gracious, in dispensing a participa- 
 tion of "privileges and advantages to the local preachers;" and that 
 they regret to perceive, that their bounty in the "addition of privilege 
 to privilege," should be met with the ungrateful return from some 
 of the local preachers; not only "of claiming more and more," but 
 at length of "demanding them as matters of positive and inherent 
 right." They felt this regret the more intensely, because in their 
 
75 
 
 opinion, the introduction of local men into the councils of the 
 church, could not fail to endanger their itinerant economy. 
 
 Their sincerity in deciding against the right of laymen or local 
 preachers to representation, is argued in the ninth paragraph. "It 
 cannot but be well known, that our present economy bears with a 
 peculiar severity upon the personal and domestic comforts of the 
 itinerant ministry. And even an enemy could scarcely fail to ad- 
 mit, that, were we really ambitious of worldly interests, and of per- 
 sonal ease and domestic comfort, we might have the discernment 
 to perceive, that the surest way to effect these objects would be to 
 effect the changes proposed, and thus to prepare the way for the 
 enjoyment of similar advantages, in these respects, to those now 
 enjoyed by the settled ministry of other churches. And, indeed, 
 were such a change effected, and should we even still continue 
 itinerant, considering that, from the necessity of things, our wealthy 
 and liberal friends would most generally be selected as dele- 
 gates, we do not doubt that the change proposed, might probably 
 tend to increase our temporal comforts. We think this the more 
 probable, because, if such a direct representation of the laity were 
 admitted, their constituents might ultimately become obliged, by 
 some positive provisions, fully to make up and pay whatever allow- 
 ances might be made to the ministry; which allowances, in this 
 event, might also more properly acquire the nature of a civil obli- 
 gation. At present our economy knows no such thing." In the 
 opinion of the conference their motives soar far above considera- 
 tions of personal interest, and the determination to hold their ab- 
 solute power, is neither more nor less than an expression of obe- 
 dience to the great Head of the church, by whose divine authority 
 they hold and exercise that power. "The great Head of the 
 church," say they, "himself has imposed on us the duty of preach- 
 ing the gospel, of administering its ordinances, and of maintaining 
 its moral discipline among those, over whom the Holy Ghost, in 
 these respects, has made us overseers. Of these, also, viz. of gos- 
 pel doctrines, ordinances, and moral discipline, we do believe, 
 that the divinely instituted ministry are the divinely authorized ex- 
 pounders; and that the duty of maintaining them in their purity, 
 and of not permitting our ministrations, in these respects, to be 
 authoritatively controlled by others, does rest upon us with the force 
 of a moral obligation; in the due discharge of which our consciences 
 are involved. It is on this ground, that we resist the temptations 
 of temporal advantage which the proposed changes hold out to us." 
 So that it is made as clear as a sunbeam, if the travelling ministers 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church were to admit of a lay delega- 
 tion, it would be on their part, a very sinful act. They are the 
 divinely authorized expounders of the moral discipline of the 
 church. They have expounded it accordingly; and the exposition 
 is published in their book of Discipline. The book of Discipline, 
 therefore, reports what is the result of their conscientious expound- 
 ing, for the space of forty years. And when we compare this fact 
 with the restrictive rules, we may safely conclude, that their re- 
 solution to hold fast their absolute power, is approximating to the 
 
76 
 
 principles which made the laws of the Medes and Persians unal- 
 terable. 
 
 In judging of the course pursued by the General Conference in 
 respect to the expelled members, we must bear in mind the con- 
 scientious difficulties which stood in the way of a restoration of the 
 Reformers. Our memorial called upon them to replace men who 
 had declared a steady purpose to insist on an equitable represen- 
 tation of the church, in its legislative department; — of men, who 
 in like manner, were bound in conscience, to assert their right to 
 such representation. By an act of the laymen of the city of Bal- 
 timore, said to have been performed by themselves, "without any 
 itinerant suggestion or influence whatever," the most troublesome 
 friends of the representative principle had been expelled, and it 
 would have cost the preachers a good deal of self-denial, to undo 
 an act, which seemed to promise so much, and which so well ac- 
 corded to the dictates of their consciences on the score of moral 
 discipline. Our memorial called upon them to rescind proceed- 
 ings, which the Baltimore Annual Conference had approved, as 
 being consistent with wholesome and sound discipline; in course as 
 having the sanction of so many who were "divinely authorized ex- 
 pounders." To have rescinded their decision, would have effected 
 their reputation, as expounders of discipline. Our expulsion had 
 been effected with the previous knowledge and approbation of 
 Bishop George, and probably of the other Bishops * The seven 
 prosecutors and Mr. Hanson, and all their coadjutors, had done 
 much in expectation to please the bishops and Conference. They 
 probably had been assured that their proceedings would be sus- 
 tained. 
 
 It was supposed too, that they had managed to bring about our 
 expulsion, so as to conceal their purpose of ridding the church of 
 the friends of representation, and by an unanimous vote, condemn- 
 ed us for speaking evil of ministers, and inveighing against the 
 discipline. After their manner they had prepared themselves to 
 say, it is of no consequence as it respects the accused, what may 
 be the determination of the General Conference, in relation to lay 
 and local representation. "It is not for advocating such a repre- 
 sentation that we complained of the accused, but for the means 
 they have employed to effect their object; if such indeed was their 
 only object. Whatever else the General Conference may do, we 
 are sure they will not acknoweldge the right of professing Chris- 
 tians to abuse and defame one another; and if, as some expect, 
 they should make some rule of discipline, calculated more effectu- 
 ally to preserve the peace of the church, it is obvious, that such a 
 rule could not have any retrospective operation; — any 'ex post 
 facto* application, and therefore could not be brought to bear on 
 the circumstances under which the church now suffers. The peace 
 of the church must be preserved, and the character of her minis- 
 ters and members protected from unjust aspersions, whatever he the 
 
 * This fact is confirmed by other means than the former reference to it, 
 when in view of the District Conference. 
 
77 
 
 fate of the much agitated question of reform." (See Narrative and 
 Defence, page 9.) But the friends of representation, expected 
 their rights and privileges to be protected also. Vain expectation! 
 The Conference did not believe their claim had been, or could be 
 sustained; — that they had either a "natural or acquired right 1 ' to be 
 represented. The preachers were bound in conscience to oppose 
 representation. Therefore, the Reformers had no place in the con- 
 scientious obligations of the General Conference; — in the estima- 
 tion of the Baltimore Annual Conference, they had no right to com- 
 plain, much less to appeal. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 It is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt, that there was no mis- 
 understanding between the Agent or the prosecutors, and the Gene- 
 ral Conference. The Agency, in course is established. 
 
 If the Narrative and Defence gives a correct account of the mat- 
 ter; if the prosecutors, or the Agent, possessed all the information 
 which is implied in the above prediction of what the General Con- 
 ference would do, and of which we have no doubt, then it follows, 
 that the General Conference could not have reversed the decision 
 of the Quarterly Meeting Conference of Baltimore. On the con- 
 trary, they were obliged to protect the reputation of Mr. Hanson, 
 the Agent, the prosecutors and all concerned in our expulsion. — 
 These were to be protected, "whatever might be the fate of the 
 much agitated question of reform." 
 
 That the General Conference did pursue this course, and there- 
 fore, that the prediction of the prosecutors was not the work of 
 chance, will appear from an examination of the terms or condi- 
 tions, on which they were willing to permit some of the expelled 
 brethren to return. 
 
 "Whereas, an unhappy excitement has existed in some parts of 
 our work, in consequence of the organization of what have been 
 called Union Societies, for purposes and under regulations, believ- 
 ed to be inconsistent with the peace and harmony of the church; 
 and in relation to the character of much of the matter contained 
 in a certain periodical publication, called "Mutual Rights," in re- 
 gard to which, certain expulsions from the church have taken place: 
 and whereas, this General Conference indulges a hope, that a mu- 
 tual desire may exist, for conciliation and peace; and is desirous 
 of leaving open a way for the accomplishment of so desirable an 
 object, on safe and equitable principles; therefore resolved: 
 
 "1. That in view of the premises, and in the earnest hope, that 
 this measure may tend to promote this object, this General Confer- 
 ence affectionately advises, that no further proceedings may be had 
 in any part of our work, against any minister or member of the 
 11 
 
7S 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, on account of any past agency or 
 concern in relation to the above named periodical (Mutual Rights,) 
 or in relation to any Union Society as above mentioned." 
 
 This preamble with the first resolution, unequivocally expresses 
 the approbation of the General Conference, in respect to the Balti- 
 more proceedings. The proceedings and the alleged reasons for 
 our expulsion, are all recognized and approved. And the "affec- 
 tionate advice" that no further proceedings of the same kind may 
 be had, proves, not only that what had been done, was right, in 
 their estimation, but that the conference wished to have it under- 
 stood, that they had neither the power nor the inclination to inter- 
 dict a repetition of the same, whenever, or wherever any company 
 of prosecutors might see fit, to imitate those of Baltimore. And in 
 fact, a short time after the rising of the conference, similar expul- 
 sions were practised, in Cincinnati, in Lynchburg, and in other 
 places. So that, whether the lay brethren in Baltimore acted with 
 or without "any itinerant suggestion or influence whatever," the 
 General Conference stamped the proceedings, with their most 
 hearty approbation. 
 
 "2. If any persons expelled as aforesaid, feel free to con- 
 cede, that publications have appeared in said "Mutual Rights," 
 the nature and character of which were unjustifiably inflammatory, 
 and do not admit of vindication; and that others, though for want 
 of proper information, or unintentionally, have yet in fact, mis- 
 represented individuals and facts, and that they regret these things:" 
 That is to say, if the preachers and members who were expelled 
 under the circumstances, and on account of the charges and spe- 
 cifications, as heretofore examined and exposed, can after all, go 
 forward to Mr. Hanson and the prosecutors, and confess them- 
 selves guilty of the charges, and report themselves penitent, 
 then, &c. 
 
 Moreover, "If it be voluntarily agreed also, that the Union So- 
 cieties above alluded to, shall be abolished, and the periodical 
 called the Mutual Rights, be discontinued at the close of the cur- 
 rent volume, which shall be completed with due respect to the 
 conciliatory and pacific design of this arrangement:" That is, if 
 the Reformers on all hands, will agree to surrender the only effec- 
 tive means which they possess for maintaining their right to repre- 
 sentation; in other words, if they will agree, without reserve, to 
 give up their cause, altogether; "then this General Conference 
 does hereby give authority for the restoration to their ministry or 
 membership, respectively, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
 any person or persons so expelled, as aforesaid:" That is, until the 
 Reformers shall first have thus humbled and disarmed themselves, 
 to their own perpetual disgrace, and to the entire exculpa- 
 tion and consequent honour of the Baltimore station and the 
 arbitrary ecclesiastical power under which they acted, in view of 
 further proceedings, the conference affectionately advises, that they 
 be suspended. But when the work of reform shall have been de- 
 stroyed, the conference "gives authority for the restoration to their 
 ministry or membership; provided the arrangement shall be mu- 
 
79 
 
 tually assented to, by any individual or individuals, so expelled, 
 and also by the Quarterly Meeting Conference, and the minister or 
 preacher having the charge in any circuit or station, within which 
 any such expulsion may have taken place." This provisory clause 
 was calculated to prevent every one who had been expelled, from 
 making the attempt, if they had felt ever so desirous to do so. 
 And its conditions render it certain, that the General Conference 
 intended to put it altogether in the power of the preacher having 
 charge, &>c. to reject any individuals who might have made them- 
 selves offensive. And should any one or more have happened 
 to be successful, through sufficient confession and expression of 
 regret, to move the commiseration of the preacher in charge, still, 
 if those good people, so loyal that they expelled us "without any 
 itinerant suggestion or influence whatever," should have thought the 
 preacher might have been too compassionate toAvards any, they 
 had power to interpose and forbid his lenity. Having without 
 law, expelled us in our absence, and received the commendation 
 of the Annual and General Conferences, how much more deserv- 
 ing they would have been, to have helped the consciences of the 
 travelling preachers, by guarding their absolute power against a 
 possible subsequent interruption; — by excluding any that they 
 might have feared, would at some future time indulge their "rest- 
 less spirits," or give way to their feelings of "disaffection." We 
 hesitate not to say, that any body of men rightly understanding 
 what are the perceptions and emotions which constitute honourable 
 feelings, would never have made such terms, because they would 
 have known, that no man of just pretensions to dignity, would ever 
 accede to them. And so far from considering them expressive of 
 a Christian disposition to "conciliate," we have always viewed 
 them as the most domineering and insulting that could have been 
 offered, by any man or body of men. 
 
 The preamble to the resolutions of the General Conference, 
 concludes with, "and whereas, this General Conference indulges 
 a hope, that a mutual desire may exist for conciliation and peace, 
 and is desirous of leaving open a way for the accomplishment of so 
 desirable an object, on safe and equitable principles; therefore re- 
 solved," &c. 
 
 That such a desire existed on the part of the Reformers, is in 
 fact, too obvious; — they gave stronger evidence of its existence, 
 than justice or propriety required. Their friends at Pittsburg were 
 inclined to make concessions respecting the publications issued 
 through the Mutual Rights, which implied too much; particularly, 
 in consenting to discontinue the periodical, they went to great 
 length, with the hope of conciliating the General Conference, and 
 obtaining "peace, on safe and equitable principles." 
 
 But where is the evidence of a disposition to reciprocate this 
 desire, on the part of the General Conference? The phrase- 
 ology of the preamble, &c. is illusive. Had the instrument 
 been worded according to its real intention and most obvious 
 meaning, it would have read thus: viz. "Whereas, the General 
 Conference indulges a hope, that the expelled and withdrawn 
 
80 
 
 members in Baltimore and elsewhere, are inclined to conciliate us 
 and be at peace; and whereas, we also are desirous, that they may 
 be permitted to follow this inclination, and therefore are willing 
 to leave open a way for the accomplishment of an object, so mu- 
 tually desirable to us all, on principles which shall be safe to us; 
 which shall give us security against any further disturbance, in our 
 possession of uncontrolled authority, and maintain to Mr. Hanson, 
 the agent, the prosecutors, and the Quarterly Meeting Conference 
 of Baltimore, the high standing which their late services have 
 merited, and without which, no terms of conciliation can be con- 
 sidered by us to be equitable; therefore, be it resolved, that any in- 
 dividuals among them, who can feel free to go forward to Mr. 
 Hanson and the prosecutors, &c. and confess that they have been 
 altogether in the wrong; that their conduct admits of no vindication; 
 that they regret their evil doings, and are ready to prove to the 
 church their sincerity, by discontinuing their periodical, the 
 Mutual Rights, and pledging themselves that no further attempt 
 shall be made in that way, — after having thus humbled themselves, 
 such individuals may be restored to their membership, if Mr. Han- 
 son is willing, and the prosecutors and the Quarterly Meeting 
 Conference have no objection." For such are the proposed terms 
 of "conciliation and peace, on safe and equitable principles.' '!! 
 
 We cannot have erred in our views of this subject. Mr. Emory, 
 in his remarks, says, it was the intention of the Conference "to 
 leave open a door for the restoration of the expelled persons, "on 
 certain conditions by mutual consent." "It was never intended to 
 force them upon the society in Baltimore without consent." The 
 word "mutual" therefore, was to apply only the act of restoration. 
 
 That is, any individual Reformer, desirous to be restored, must 
 make the prescribed concessions in proof of his desire to be at 
 peace. But this alone would not do. Mr. Hanson, &lc. in Balti- 
 more, must also "mutually" consent to his restoration. This was 
 necessary to make the restoration equitable. This same illusive 
 word "mutual" was applied by Mr. Emory in his "remarks" to 
 another subject. "The General Conference proposed, that by mu- 
 tual consent, no periodical publication, to be devoted to the exist- 
 ing controversy, should be carried on by either side." This was 
 a mutuality with a vengeance to Reformers, intended too, at the 
 same time, to wear the appearance of mutual pacification, on terms 
 mutually safe and equitable!! Suppose no periodical to be devoted 
 to the existing controversy, to have been carried on by the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church. This was precisely what they intended, 
 and wished above all things to bring about, provided Reformers 
 would be as silent on the subject, as the General Conference were 
 willing to be. And how would the cause of reform have been affect- 
 ed by such a measure? Nothing could have been so fatal. And 
 Mr. Emory and the Conference understood well the inevitable re- 
 sult. "The object," says Mr. Emory, "was to lay a ground for a 
 sincere re-union, in affection and good feeling, as well as in form; 
 which it was believed, in the existing excitement, could not be 
 effected, if such a periodical controversy should be continued. 
 
SI 
 
 Here we have an admission of all that we have been labouring to 
 establish, viz. That our periodical was the "monstrum horrendum" 
 which gave the offence. That the destruction of it was the object, 
 because they knew they could not resist its influence. That they 
 would not have expelled us, after all our "speaking evil of minis- 
 ters," had we consented to give up the periodical; and that having 
 succeeded "without any itinerant suggestion or influence what- 
 ever," to obtain our expulsion, we could not be permitted to re- 
 turn, unless we would consent, first, to admit that we were ex- 
 pelled for having published defamatory papers in the Mutual 
 Rights; and secondly, agree to give up the controversy forever. 
 It is then an incontrovertible truth, that the terms which were per- 
 emptorily submitted by the prosecutors, when they sought their 
 "friendly interview;" — the terms which were dictated by the agent, 
 and repeated by his co-adjutor, doctor Green; — the terms again 
 held out by Mr. Hanson, after he and his constituted court, had 
 "defecated" the church as the agent had proposed; — and the terms 
 prescribed by the General Conference, were the same, with only a 
 slight variation in the phraseology of each, and some additional 
 conditions appended to the terms prescribed by the General Con- 
 ference. And such identity of purpose proves the existence of 
 a concert. 
 
 But Mr. Emory says, "It was expressly stated that, individuals 
 would be at liberty, even if the above conciliatory arrangement 
 should be mutually agreed to, to publish what they might think 
 proper, on their individual reponsibility." "It has been objected, 
 continues he, that this meant on their individual peril. Be it so. 
 And so it ought to be. And no man should be unwilling to bear 
 his own burden." And this was liberty to publish; — but subject 
 to the dangers of the gag law still !! 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 The terms or conditions made by the General Conference for our return, 
 were deficient in probity; — they are more marked with cunning than 
 honesty. 
 
 The foregoing is a faithful account of what was required on the 
 part of the General Conference, if Reformers wished to conciliate 
 them and Mr. Hanson, and the prosecutors, &c. — of the brotherly 
 conditions for u conciliation and peace, on safe and equitable prin- 
 ciples." !! 
 
 The resolutions seem to propose an arrangement, which was 
 about to be made between the Methodist Episcopal Church, as 
 one of the parties, and the expelled and withdrawn members in 
 Baltimore and elsewhere, as the other party; — of an arrangement 
 which was to be based "on safe and equitable principles!!" 
 And now we ask for the evidence of safety to us or our cause? 
 Where do these "equitable principles^ apply at all to the case of 
 
82 
 
 the Reformers? Terms of conciliation and peace on safe and 
 equitable principles!! What insolent mockery! What did the 
 Conference propose, for the purpose of conciliating the feelings of 
 Reformers? What is the meaning of the word "conciliation?" It 
 is the act of winning or gaining esteem, favour or affection; — or 
 in general terms, it is the act of reconciliation. And is there any 
 thing in the resolutions, intended to reconcile the Reformers? 
 Every one must perceive, that the conditions of the General Con- 
 ference were, in some respects more exceptionable than those pro- 
 posed by the agent, or by Mr. Hanson and the Quarterly Meeting 
 Conference of Baltimore; and we are compelled to believe, that 
 there were many members of the General Conference, having 
 too much understanding, to have entertained any expectation that 
 we would accede to thern. One thing is most certain. They were 
 determined, if we were restored, that our restoration should cost us 
 the whole amount of the value of our reputation, and of the work 
 of reform. This was the only mutuality, the only equity contem- 
 plated by the General Conference. 
 
 The General Conference distinctly understood the subject as we 
 now represent it. Mr. Emory, in his remarks, says, "the Reform- 
 ers wished to be considered as the orTend-ed, not the offend-ing 
 party. And because the General Conference thought otherwise, it 
 is now pretended to be considered a great insult. Their eye was 
 fixed more upon doing the church service, by giving the General 
 Conference opportunity to wipe off, not the disgrace of the Re- 
 formers, but the disgrace of the church." That is the truth; and 
 the day will come when the honesty and propriety of the state- 
 ments made in the letter to Mr. Shinn on this subject, will be duly 
 appreciated by many, who now seem devoted to the wishes of the 
 General Conference. But our views and publications, Mr. Emory 
 says, have opened their eyes. "And so long," says he, "as such 
 a spirit is perceived to exist, as those gentlemen continue to ex- 
 hibit," the writer, Mr. E. is as well satisfied with our rejection 
 of the resolutions for our return, as we who rejected them, 
 can be. This last was an honest declaration. The affair had 
 wound up as they intended, unless we were ready to sacrifice our- 
 selves and our cause to conciliate them. As we had not seen fit 
 to do this, they were glad to be rid of such troublesome "gentle- 
 men." They knew full well, if we had been continued members 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with the liberty of speech and 
 of the press, their people would ultimately have demanded and ob- 
 tained, all the important changes in the form of their church 
 government, for which we had been so arduously and disinterest- 
 edly labouring. But the report of the General Conference says, 
 "we know that we have been charged with wishing to suppress 
 free inquiry, and with denying to our ministers and members the 
 liberty of speech and of the press,"- —"the charge we wholly dis- 
 avow." — "The rule in our discipline, page 88, new edition, never 
 was intended to suppress such freedom of inquiry, or to deny such 
 liberty of speech, and of the press, &c. — The design of the rule 
 was, to guard the peace and union of the church, against any 
 
83 
 
 mischievous, false brethren, who might be disposed to avail them- 
 selves of their place in the bosom of the church, to endeavour to 
 sow dissentions, by inveighing against our doctrines or discipline, 
 in the sense of unchristian railing and violence. Any other con- 
 struction of it, we have never sanctioned; nor will we. — It is aim- 
 ed against licentiousness, and not against liberty." The commu- 
 nity will judge between us in respect to the construction given it, in 
 our expulsion. Mr. Emory echoes the declarations made on this 
 subject by the agent in his Narrative and Defence. He repeats the 
 unfeeling resolutions of the Annual Conference, and accuses us of 
 having held the church authorities in "in stubborn and proud con- 
 tempt" and therefore he says, we now have no right to complain. 
 It was our intention when we commenced this review, to try the 
 merits of the Narrative and Defence. It is now sufficiently clear, 
 not only that the Quarterly Meeting Conference, of the Baltimore 
 station, expelled us, calculating on being sustained by that work, 
 but that the Annual and General Conferences all relied on it for 
 their justification. We shall therefore pass in review the extracts 
 from the Mutual Rights, as they were published in the Narrative 
 and Defence; and then we shall see the value of the above de- 
 claration, respecting the construction which was given to their 
 "odious gag law" in our case, and which construction has now had 
 the sanction of the General Conference, that is of the whole Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church. 
 
PART SECOND. 
 
 REVIEW OF EXTRACTS FROM THE MUTUAL RIGHTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction to an examination of the extracts from the Mutual 
 Rights; — or of the offensive papers, for the admission of which 
 into our periodical, we were expelled. 
 
 At page 34 of the Narrative and Defence, under the heading 
 "Remarks," following their extract from the constitution of the 
 Union Society, the prosecutors state the principle, on which they 
 held the members of the Baltimore Union Society, individually 
 responsible for the unfounded allegations against the characters of 
 their ministers, and the "abusive epithets" so liberally bestowed 
 upon them in the Mutual Rights. For publishing these "unfound- 
 ed allegations and abusive epithets," as they have seen fit to call 
 them, we were expelled, by virtue of the rule of discipline, which 
 has been entitled the "gag law," found on page 88, of the new 
 edition of the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
 design of which rule, Mr. Emory, in the report, about the 18th 
 paragraph, says, was to guard the peace and union of the church 
 against any mischievous false brethren, who might be disposed to 
 avail themselves of their place in the bosom of the church to en- 
 deavour to sow dissentions, by inveighing against our doctrines or 
 discipline, in the sense of unchristian railing. "Any other con- 
 struction Of it, WE HAVE NEVER SANCTIONED, nor will We." 
 
 "Our complaint against the members of the Union Society," says 
 Narrative and Defence, page 7, "is not on account of their opin- 
 ions on the subject of church government, nor for the honest and 
 candid expression of their opinions; but for the misrepresentation 
 of the motives and conduct of our ministers, and for endeavouring 
 to sow dissentions in the church, by inveighing against the disci- 
 pline. Nor do we understand by 'inveighing' the temperate ex- 
 pression of opinion, or calm and dispassionate argument in favour 
 of changing any part of our discipline — but we understand it to 
 mean 'vehement railing,' abusive censure or reproach,' — The rinding 
 fault with, and proposing alterations of, our discipline are not con- 
 sidered as violations of our discipline," &-c. — "It is not for being 
 reformers themselves or for endeavouring to make reformers of 
 others, nor for uttering and publishing their opinions on the subject 
 of reform, that we complain of the members of the Baltimore 
 Union Society, but we complain that they have employed against 
 their brethren in the ministry, and against the discipline of the 
 church, the severest invectives, and the most vehement railing. They 
 12 
 
86 
 
 have impugned the motives of our venerable bishops, and our itine- 
 rant ministers, with unrelenting severity — and accused them with- 
 out the shadow of truth, with conduct which would render men 
 odious in civil society, and how much more in the church of God. 
 They represent them to the world as usurpers — as tyrants and de- 
 spots, 'lording it over God's heritage,' as exercising an arbitrary 
 authority, which was at first 'surreptitiously' obtained, and which 
 has been perpetuated by printing and publishing a falsehood in the 
 preface of our book of discipline, and by forbidling the people to 
 inquire into the truth of the affair. Nay, more, they are represent- 
 ed as holding opinions and exercising a 'domination' highly dan- 
 gerous to the civil liberties of the country. As being wolves among 
 the lambs of the flock, and wolves too who openly shew their 
 'teeth and claws,' and to cap the climax, nearly one hundred of 
 these ministers, constituting the Baltimore Annual Conference, are 
 stigmatized as abandoned tyrants, 'as performing a laboured deed 
 of hard-earned infamy.' From the extracts which we shall give 
 from the 'Mutual Rights' it will be shewn, that all this has been 
 said of our itinerant ministers, and for these unjust accusations, for 
 these vehement railings, we hold the Union Society accountable; be- 
 cause they have been uttered and published by an editorial com- 
 mittee, elected by the society, and who profess to act as its agents, 
 and under its supervision and control." See Narrative and De- 
 fence, pages 7, 8, 9. See a summary of the charges or accu- 
 sations, preferred against the reformers of Baltimore! ! "Unfound- 
 ed allegations; — abusive epithets; — made and uttered by 'mischiev- 
 ous false brethren,' who endeavoured to sow dissentions by 'unchris- 
 tian railing;' — misrepresenting the motives and conduct of their 
 ministers; 'vehement railing, abusive censure or reproach;' 'the se- 
 verest invectives and the most vehement railing;' — 'impugning the 
 motives of the venerable bishops and the itinerant ministers with 
 unrelenting severity; and accusing them without a shadow of 
 truth; — representing them as usurpers, as tyrants, and despots, as 
 lording it over God's heritage, as exercising an arbitrary authority 
 surreptitiously obtained and perpetuated by printing and publishing a 
 falsehood; — as holding opinions and exercising a domination highly 
 dangerous to the civil liberties of the country; as being wolves 
 among the lambs of the flock, who shew their teeth and their 
 claws; — abandoned tyrants, performing a deed of hard-earned in- 
 famy." These heavy accusations they attempted to shew in their 
 Narrative and Defence were supported by extracts from the Mutual 
 Rights. And admitting iheir comment, without correction, they 
 would seem in some sort to have sustained them. If however, it 
 shall turn out that their extracts are garbled, and much of their com- 
 ment gratuitous and contrary to the spirit and design of the writers, 
 from whieh their extracts were taken; — if the statements made in 
 the papers which gave offence to the prosecutors shall be found to 
 have been true; — if an exposure of the necessity of reform, in the 
 system or the administration of the government of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, or of any instance of mal-administration, or of 
 <he faults of any of the ministers, was "apparently necessary," on 
 
87 
 
 account of the great importance of the object which was pursued 
 by the reformers; then the foregoing accusation will be considered 
 most violent and unchristian railing on the part of the prose- 
 cution, and the "evil speaking" with which they impugned the re- 
 formers., will most justly be chargeable upon themselves, and upon 
 the Annual and General Conferences, who have identified them- 
 selves with the whole transaction, and made themselves equally re- 
 sponsible with the prosecutors of Baltimore. 
 
 At page 76, of Narrative and Defence, they say, "to speak that 
 which is true is not evil speaking, however severe it may be" — 
 "evil speaking means slander, defamation, calumny. The Doctor's 
 (Jennings's) defence then ought to have been a very different thing 
 from what we find it." "He should have sethimself to prove the truth 
 of the allegations made by him and his associates against our bishops 
 and other ministers. If he had shewn them to be true, the charge of 
 evil speaking could not have been sustained, although injuring the 
 reputation of another by publishing his faults or failings, can only be 
 
 justified by some apparent necessity for the disclosure." "If the 
 
 Doctor then can prove what has been alleged, both against the 
 living and the dead, in the Mutual Rights, he will not only stand 
 acquitted of evil speaking, but prove conclusively the necessity of 
 a thorough reform, not only of our government, but of our morals." 
 
 In the sequel of the review this will be attempted, and it is be- 
 lieved we shall be able to satisfy the candid reader, that Reformers 
 have been shamefully abused by the Agent and the Conferences. 
 And that the Narrative and Defence is a most unwarrantable at- 
 tempt to impose upon the people of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, and the community, who it was believed, like the official 
 men in Baltimore, would never "read the Mutual Rights at all" 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 MR. SNETHEN ON CHURCH PROPERTY. 
 
 Church property altogether under the control of the Bishops. 
 
 "Our church property as well as power are, in effect, in the 
 hands or under the control of the superintendents, and should the 
 constitutional test obtain, it will destroy all hopes of any legal or re- 
 gular change for the better."* The ' 'constitutional test" refers to the 
 struggle, for several years maintained by many of the travelling 
 preachers, for making the office of the presiding elders elective by 
 the preachers who were to serve under them, and not leaving it to 
 be an affair of episcopal patronage. If after all the laboured efforts 
 to bring about this change, a majority of the General Conference 
 shall determine to establish the appointment of the presiding elders 
 
 * Throughout this paper, the comments of the Reviewer are interspersed 
 in an easy and familiar way; presenting the reflections which were produced 
 on reading it with a view to its publication. Mr. Snethen's work will be known 
 by the marks of quotation. 
 
88 
 
 as a part of episcopal prerogative, then said Mr. Snethen, "all hopes 
 for any legal or regular change for the better" will be destroyed. 
 
 Are not these statements perfectly consistent with truth and pro- 
 priety? The bishops have the power of stationing all the preach- 
 ers, and of appointing the presiding elders who shall exercise sub- 
 ordinate authority over them when so stationed. In view of these 
 facts, Mr. Snethen says "our church property as well as power are 
 in effect in the hands or under the control of the superintendents." 
 And could he have said the contrary without a violation of truth? 
 What is the difference "in effect," between placing "the property 
 in the hands or under the controJ of the superintendents," and mak- 
 ing it their prerogative to say, who shall occupy it? Why it should 
 have given offence, because he said, "the power of the church is in 
 effect under the control of the superintendents, we cannot see, 
 without admitting the supposition that even a calm investigation of 
 the principles of their government, was offensive. 
 
 "This controlling or disposing power over public property, in 
 men who hold an office for life, is one of the essential principles of 
 an absolute government, and by an extension of territory, must 
 continue to increase indefinitely." And is not this a true senti- 
 ment? It is in fact one of the axioms of American statesmen. No 
 sensible man doubts it; and its publication cannot give offence to 
 any one, but the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
 their devoted adherents. "The disclaiming all right or pretension 
 to taxation by the General Conference, amounts to nothing like a 
 check upon the power of the superintendents over property: but 
 does in fact, tend to promote it. Were it in the power of the tra- 
 velling preachers, by any means to secure an immediate support 
 from the people, they might have the people's money to control 
 the power of the Episcopacy; but in the present state of things, 
 they can neither occupy the nouses nor receive the people's volun- 
 tary contributions, without an official signification of the executive 
 will." And is not all this likewise true, and perfectly inoffensive 
 to all but those who are desirous to conceal this feature of the go- 
 vernment of the Methodist Episcopal Church? 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 All the Travelling Preachers at the disposal of the Bishops. 
 
 'All the travelling preachers are at the disposal of the superin- 
 tendents." Nothing respecting the economy of what old side men 
 call "Methodism," is more true than this. "So long as there shall 
 be more preachers than there are places to support them;" that is, 
 able stations and wealthy circuits; — and every body knows that the 
 preachers are not sent to these good places by any order of rota- 
 tion; — it is as the bishops please. "So long, then, as there shall be 
 more preachers" than good places, "the surplus number must be 
 dependent, and to make this dependence universal, no preacher 
 
89 
 
 has any security that his lot to 'turn out' may not come next." We 
 have attended the Virginia Annual Conference a few times, and in 
 every instance there was a manifest anxiety prevailing in the bo- 
 soms of a number of the preachers. In fact, they could not con- 
 ceal their fears, not knowing who and who, would be appointed to 
 the circuit called "the Banks." And in the Baltimore Annual Con- 
 ference, it has been said, if certain individuals were sent to parti- 
 cular circuits, it would make them friendly to the election of the 
 presiding elders. It is the prerogative of the bishops to appoint 
 whom they may see fit, to the good circuits and stations, and to say 
 who shall "turn out" into the highways and hedges. "It avails 
 nothing that the public property is in the keeping of trustees and 
 stewards. If the houses cannot be taken from the preachers, the 
 preachers may be taken from the houses." Then "the members of 
 the church have in reality no church property," none that they have 
 any ecclesiastical right to control. The bishops without consult- 
 ing the members, have the exclusive right to say who shall be the 
 occupants of the property. "And the travelling preachers have 
 none in effect." They are all, at all times, "tenants at the will 
 of the bishops; and at the end of each year may be removed." 
 And surely all this is incontrovertibly true. "Are we not virtual- 
 ly acting over again St. Peter's patrimony and Peter's pence?" 
 The allusion here may not be perfectly appropriate. The ques- 
 tion, however, is addressed to the Methodist people. If every 
 house paid one penny to the pope, by way of acknowledging his 
 claim to patrimony in England, do not the Methodist people, vir- 
 tually make an acknowledgment cf the bishops' patrimony in re- 
 spect to their church property, as universal; and as to the worth of 
 the acknowledgment, by far more valuable than a penny for each 
 house? "In monarchies public property is vested in the crown, 
 and of course, in him who wears it." And the church property in 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church is at the disposal, as to its occu- 
 pancy, of the bishops, and in course of them and their successors. 
 "Hence we hear of his Majesty's arms and armies and kingdom, 
 &c. — of 'we by the grace of God,' and of the 'pope's bull,' or 
 seal affixed to his official acts. By the grace of God, is meant the 
 Divine right," &c. All these are true, and admit of application 
 according to the reader's understanding of the facts. If he can see 
 any similitude to these badges and acts of monarchy, and the old 
 hierarchy of Rome, in Methodist Episcopacy; or if he can per- 
 ceive any features in the government of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, which have a tendency, sooner or later, to imitate the 
 church as it exists under such establishments, he has a right to his 
 reflections, and will the bishops or preachers or people of the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church, say openly, that Nr. Snethen, or the print- 
 ing committee, had no right to think they can see signs of these 
 dangerous tendencies? "The hundred successors of Mr. Wesley, 
 who compose the British Conference, unite in themselves all the 
 powers and functions that are exercised by our General Conference 
 and superintendents. They are all bishops de facto. Our ordina- 
 tion conveys nothing which Mr. Wesley did not give to them. He 
 
90 
 
 was not a partial father, much less did he disinherit his first-born; 
 we congratulate our British brethren in this thing, that they have 
 good sense enough not to run after names and shadows." "There 
 is neither divine nor human obligation binding on our General Con- 
 ference, to confer a life office on any man. We know to a cer- 
 tainty, that Mr. Wesley never meant to confer any power for life, 
 upon the superintendents, which he and doctor Coke ordained; for 
 he actually had it in contemplation to recall Mr. Asbury. Of such 
 an event Mr. Asbury, was so well aware, that he took special care 
 to prevent it, by getting himself elected superintendent by the 
 American preachers." Mr. Asbury has confirmed the truth of this 
 himself, in his Journal. The reader will please to observe here, that 
 this part of the argument is, that Mr. Wesley did not intend to 
 confer on Mr. Asbury a life office. In proof of this, Mr. Wesley 
 having appointed Mr. Asbury a superintendent for the United 
 States, was about to recall him. Whether Mr. Asbury intended at 
 the time to secure to himself a life office, by getting himself elect- 
 ed by the American preachers, cannot be known. By so doing, he 
 placed himself out of the reach of Mr. Wesley's power. Had he 
 not done this, we should have had the evidence which his recall to 
 England would have afforded, that Mr. Wesley never meant to con- 
 fer any power on him for life. The general argument is against life 
 office. Mr. Snethen asserts, there is no obligation, human or di- 
 vine, binding on the General Conference, to confer such office. 
 By human obligations he obviously means, the authority of Mr. 
 Wesley, which he says would have been expressed fully, by the re- 
 calling of Mr. Asbury. This was prevented by Mr. Asbury, for his 
 own reasons, by taking special care to get himself elected by the 
 American preachers. Is not this true? Are Mr. Wesley's or Mr. 
 Asbury' s motives misrepresented! Is there any vehement railing in 
 this, or in any part of the foregoing quotation?? 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Mr. Snethen 1 s papers on Church Property, were written for the benefit 
 of the Travelling Preachers, in opposition to the unbalanced power 
 of the Bishops. 
 
 Mr. Snethen's essays on church property, were written for the 
 benefit of those travelling preachers, who were friendly to the election 
 of the presiding elders, and were intended, particularly, to call the at- 
 tention of the itinerant ministers. The printing committee so un- 
 derstood them; and had no expectation, that the facts, or the man- 
 ner of stating them, could give offence. "The consequence of ex- 
 clusive proprietorship in public property, in the catholic church, is 
 well known, and has long been seriously deplored; but it seems 
 that we take no warning from the experience of others. We have 
 fully set forth our determination, to participate with our elder 
 brethren, in evangelizing the world. The General Conference, in 
 
91 
 
 their address, contemplate a meeting between the British mission- 
 aries and ours, somewhere on the eastern coast of Asia, or Japan. 
 But when Methodism shall thus have encircled the globe, will any 
 regard be paid by the missionaries and their senders, to the mutual 
 rights of the ministers and the people of the Methodist Episcopal t 
 Church} No such thing. These senior and junior brethren, will 
 divide the Methodist church property of the universe between 
 them, without listening to any intimation, that the accumulation of 
 so much wealth might seem to savour of monopoly or avarice, and 
 might possibly be made to minister to ambition." 
 
 It had been published to the world, that the British Conference, 
 and the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 were looking forward to the day, when they shall be able to extend 
 a belt around the globe; and as this expectation accords well 
 enough with a laudable emulation to evangelize the world, it by no 
 means merited censure, nor was it noticed with a design to find 
 fault with a purpose so commendable. But as the church proper- 
 ty in England, pertaining to the Wesleyan Methodists, is held by 
 the Conference, and as the church property pertaining to the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church, is deeded to trustees, for the use of their 
 General Conference, does it not follow, that when these two bodies 
 of Methodists shall have encompassed the globe, they continuing 
 to maintain the same principles in respect to church property, Mr. 
 Snethen's prediction will be fulfilled? Will not these senior and 
 junior brethren have divided the Methodist church property be- 
 tween them? And when we take into the account, the fact, that 
 the Bishops and General Conference have sanctioned our excom- 
 munication for publishing this prediction of the course they will 
 probably take, can any man of good sense, who is disinterested, 
 say, that it was wrong for one, who knew Methodist preachers as 
 well as Mr. Snethen did, to have thought he could foresee, and to 
 have predicted, that, if the purpose of the two Conferences shall 
 be accomplished, "they will not listen to any intimation, that the 
 accumulation of so much wealth might seem to savour of mono- 
 poly or avarice, and might possibly be made to minister to ambi- 
 tion?" Good men, contemplating no ambitious designs, instead 
 of being offended, would have thanked Mr. Snethen for the admo- 
 nition; — would have regarded it as an evidence of his good wishes 
 for the cause of truth, and profited by it, as there might be occasion. 
 
 Besides, Mr. Snethen had good reasons to suppose, that no in- 
 considerable number of the most intelligent travelling preachers, 
 were ready to appreciate his essays on church property; and he had 
 no reason to think, that any of them could imagine he intended to 
 give just cause of offence. "The great defect in the government 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church," in his opinion, "is the want 
 of an independent legislative department." He believed, most 
 conscientiously, that "an independent General Conference never 
 can exist, under the present organization." And it was his pur- 
 pose to shew, that the irresponsible authority of the bishops over 
 the church property, would serve, in aid of their appointing power 
 as to the presiding elders, to give them an increasing influence 
 
92 
 
 over the General Conference. His desire to promote the election 
 of the presiding elder3, arose out of an expectation, that the in- 
 dependence of the General Conference would be promoted by that 
 measure, for want of which, "a large proportion of the legislative 
 body will inevitably be too much under executive patronage." In 
 the opinion that the election of the presiding elders would serve to 
 make the members of the General Conference feel themselves more 
 independent, he consented with those travelling preachers who 
 were once called reformers. And in broaching the subject of church 
 property, he intended to make them feel the importance of admit- 
 ting the introduction of a lay delegation into the General Confer- 
 ence. By this measure, any undue influence that the stationing 
 power of the bishops might have over the preachers, would be still 
 more effectually counteracted. But enough has been stated to shew, 
 that Mr. Snethen wrote for the benefit of those travelling preachers 
 who feared the increase of episcopal power, and the community 
 will judge, how much reason the printing committee had to expect, 
 that these same travelling preachers would be found amongst the 
 most ready to sustain our excommunication for publishing Mr. 
 Snethen's papers. "We have said that Mr. Wesley was rich in 
 church property; and that he knew and felt he was so." Mr. Wes- 
 ley wrote a letter to Mr. John Mason, dated, "near London, Jan- 
 uary J3th, 1790," a copy of which is published in the London 
 Wesleyan Methodist Magazine for April, as follows: — "My Dear 
 Brother, — As long as I live, the people shall have no share in 
 choosing either stewards or leaders among the Methodists. We 
 have not, and never had, any such custom. We are no republi- 
 cans, and never intend to be. It would be better for those that are 
 so minded, to go quietly away. I have been uniform, both in doc- 
 trine and discipline, for above these fifty years, and it is a little too 
 late for me to turn into a new path, now I am old and grey-head- 
 ed."* &c. Can any man believe that even Mr. Wesley, with all 
 his firmness, would have written thus, if the chapels and church 
 funds had not been under his absolute control? "We say the same 
 of our superintendents; they too know and feel that they have a 
 hold on the public property, in virture of the absolute prerogatives 
 of their office, sufficiently firm to enable them to dispossess any 
 preacher, whenever they may think proper." A moment's reflec- 
 tion upon the fact, that Mr. Wesley's power was absolute, and that 
 all the chapels were his, will prepare any man to see that what is 
 said in respect to' him, is true. And who that knows the extent of 
 the power and patronage of the bishops of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, can doubt the truth of what is said in respect to them. 
 "It is to no purpose to say, they cannot convert this property to 
 their own private use. There is no reason to suppose they would 
 do so, if they had the title in fee. Kings are not wont to use the 
 property of the crown for their own private benefit, or in other 
 words to impoverish themselves as kings, in order to enrich them- 
 
 * Might not the Bishops and Conference reiterate the same, at this day? 
 And if so y ought not republicans to be dissatisfied with their government? 
 
93 
 
 selves as individuals. It is not to be supposed, that the holders of 
 absolute power, will be less ambitious than prodigal or covetous 
 monarchs. The glory of superintendents is proportionate to the 
 amount of property they have in their possession. Every house 
 that is built, and every collection that is made, adds to their conse- 
 quence, by increasing their influence. Poor bishops of rich dio- 
 cesses are not common; and poor universal bishops are much less so." 
 So far, all that has been stated by Mr.Snethen is true. — True, when 
 considered abstractly in view of general principles and the well 
 known and established laws of human nature. True, when applied 
 to any denomination of people, if episcopal and granting to their 
 bishops similar powers. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Travelling Preachers not made better, by this disposition of the 
 Church Property, 
 
 "The travelling preachers also, while their imaginations are daz- 
 zled with the idea of their share in the title of property, secured 
 by deed to the General Conference, feel rich and look down upon 
 the poverty of local preachers; their exclusive right to seats in the 
 Conferences, is indeed so flattering to their vanity, as in most in- 
 stances to blind them to the actual state of things. Few of them 
 can be brought to reflect steadily upon the fact, that they are little 
 more than trustees for the bishops, who, as soon as they are elect- 
 ed and inducted into office, are no longer responsible to them." 
 Universal experience and observation, make us know the effect of 
 artificial and arbitray distinctions; — such distinction as is kept up 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church, between the travelling and 
 local preachers. It has an irresistible tendency to generate an 
 imaginary importance. Mr. Snethen, no doubt, in his day and 
 time, had felt its influence. We believe that he and many other 
 good men, Methodist preachers, have resisted the temptation to be 
 vain on account of their superiority. But whatever may Jjave been 
 the modest resistance of the most worthy, every man of observation 
 knows, the general statement made by Mr. Snethen in the forego- 
 ing paragraph, is true. As to their holding an interest, which in 
 effect is little more than that of trustees for the bishops, this is 
 proved to be true, by the foregoing statement of facts. It is a 
 truth, however, which many of the travelling preachers are unwil- 
 ling to hear. When men assume to themselves importance upon 
 mistaken principles, they in course put a false estimate upon those 
 principles, and are unwilling to be corrected. Truth in such a 
 case is offensive. But it is as clear as a mid-day sun beam, that 
 the deed to the General Conference is, in effect, a deed for the use 
 of the bishops, who, have the right to say who shall occupy the 
 property, and are not responsible to the General Conference for 
 13 
 
94 
 
 their appointments. "The power or privilege of electing to an ab- 
 solute office for life, is the most dangerous that can be vested in any 
 body of men." It is "a power or privilege," which ought not 
 to be held or exercised in a republican government. "The im- 
 portance that such electors are prone to attach to themselves, 
 is pleasantly ridiculed in the story of the cardinal and the pope. 
 The cardinal when he wanted a fav our, reminded his holiness, that 
 he made him pope; who wearied at length with his importunity, 
 replied, 'then let me be pope.' This piece of pleasantry, is very 
 illustrative of the great folly of supposing, that men, when once 
 put into office for life, will afterwards act like those who are made 
 accountable to their constituents. It shews very clearly, the im- 
 portance of the representative principle, which alone can make 
 men know their dependence on their fellow men. "Our superin- 
 tendents are not only chosen members of the Conferences, and 
 presidents for life, with the power of choosing the presiding elders 
 and stationing all the preachers; but to make them as independent 
 as possible, they are pensioners on the book fund, to the full amount 
 of all demands:" of "all demands" which they have a right to 
 make. And what are the items "of all demands?" Their family 
 expenses. It is stated in the Narrative and Defence, page 39 — 
 'It is true that the family expenses of the bishops are supplied from 
 the book fund. The General Conference designate a committee 
 of travelling preachers, to fix the amount which shall be allowed 
 for the bishops' table expenses.' And did Mr. Snethen say or in- 
 tend more, than the prosecutors have themselves admitted to be 
 true. For their support, they are made as independent as possible. 
 They are placed in a condition entirely different, in this respect, 
 from other Methodist preachers. All, excepting the bishops, are 
 supported by the contributions of the people; and their deficien- 
 cies may, or may not, be made up by the Conference collections 
 and the annual dividend from the book fund, &c. The bishops 
 have their salaries secured at the Annual Conferences, and their 
 table expenses secured by the book fund, "to the full amount of all 
 demands." What Mr. Snethen has written on this subject, then, 
 is true, the flouncing of the Narrative and Defence, notwith- 
 standing. "The discipline, by putting no check upon their power, 
 presumes they can do no wrong." What power does Mr. Snethen 
 mean? — Most clearly the appointing and stationing power. In 
 what sense then does the discipline presume the bishops can do 
 no wrong? In appointing the presiding elders, and in stationing 
 the preachers. And is not this all true? "In one point of com- 
 parison it must be confessed that the American itinerant preacher 
 seems to have the advantage of the British; but another view of 
 their condition will convince any one, that none of these seeming 
 advantages can be realized. In England, travelling preachers who 
 have fulfilled their probation, are eligible to the vacancies in the 
 Conference. — With us, they become members of the Annual Con- 
 ferences, and are eligible to seats in the General Conference, and 
 in course nominal proprietors of the church property. Here their 
 glory ends. Innocence or neutrality gives no security to our 
 
95 
 
 preachers, to an equality of appointments. Every preacher, as 
 well as the presiding elders, may become a minister to the episco- 
 pacy. Probationers may manifest greater zeal for the prerogative, 
 than men of long standing and experience. Offences must needs 
 come, and do often come, in despite of the greatest prudence." 
 All these things may and sometimes do come to pass, or Methodist 
 bishops, and Methodist preachers, are exempted from the common 
 infirmities of men. But of this, more in the sequel. "No travel- 
 ling preacher can protect himself against episcopal suspicion, or 
 jealousy, or displeasure; and however unjustifiable a bishop's feel- 
 ings may be, he may retain them through life, and perhaps transfer 
 them into the breasts of his colleagues." In such a government 
 as that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with an episcopacy 
 holding such powers, any man acquainted with human nature, 
 would be led, if there were occasion, to predict all these things. 
 They have occurred and will recur, under existing circumstances, 
 so long as bishops and travelling preachers are men. And when 
 Mr. Snethen only exhibited them as men, and gave no intimation 
 that he thought them worse than other men, in like circumstances, 
 will any one say that the printing committee had any right to con- 
 sider it libellous? Or was it the duty of the committee, to say one 
 to another, this will not do? Bishops and travelling preachers are 
 so puffed with vanity, that unless they shall be represented as being 
 elevated above such human weaknesses, they will expel us for 
 speaking evil of ministers! But what "great occasion" was there 
 for exposing these weaknesses? The occasion was ample. What 
 is the argument? That the government of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church needs correction, in view of the well-being- of the 
 travelling preachers. Methodist preachers of Great Britain, are in 
 more agreeable circumstances, than those of the United States. 
 And the General Conference ought to see the impropriety of 
 making bishops for life. They ought to elect their presiding elders. 
 They ought to make their legislative body more independent, by 
 introducing a lay-delegation into that department. 
 
 "It is possible indeed, that they cannot all be united in a pro- 
 scription; but is it not infinitely more improbable, that fifty men 
 will withhold their votes for a presidency, year after year, from 
 every one who will not imbibe their prejudices. The chances, 
 therefore, of being driven, or persecuted out of connexion in the 
 two systems, bear no proportion. Though an hundred men may 
 be as true to their common interests, as one or five, and a feeling 
 of independence must be engendered in both instances, yet it is of 
 the utmost importance to weaken and conceal the feeling as much 
 as possible." In view of the premises how true! And upon the 
 most cool and dispassionate review, we still think as we thought 
 when the essays passed our board, they clearly prove that the 
 writer understood his subject well, and that his arguments are 
 much to the purpose. 
 
96 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 That part of Mr. Snethen' s paper, which the agent says, can only 
 find a parallel in the Romish Inquisitions. 
 
 "It is a maxim with some, and every four years of experience 
 serves to confirm them in it, that if a preacher is not prepared to 
 go all lengths in episcopal measures, he will do well to decline an 
 election to a seat in the General Conference." The reader will 
 please to keep it in recollection, that this paper was written for the 
 travelling preachers, a number of whom, professed at that time to 
 be friendly to reform. And was there any just cause of offence, in 
 the fact, that Mr. Snethen understood it to be a maxim with some 
 of the travelling preachers, that it was not quite safe, to appear in 
 the General Conference, in opposition to episcopal measures? — or, 
 in that it was his understanding, that every General Conference 
 afforded experience to confirm them in their maxim? We were 
 prepared to admit the statement without hesitation, by conversa- 
 tons which happened at our house, whilst the General Conference 
 of 1824 was in session, and which fairly intimated the same thing. 
 It is well known in Baltimore, that much excitement prevailed. It 
 was no secret, that a number of the preachers talked seriously of 
 retiring en masse, so as to prevent those who might remain, from 
 forming a constitutional majority. So anxious were they at the 
 time to check the progress of episcopal power! Mr. Snethen, 
 who had been a travelling preacher, had greater intimacy with the 
 members of the General Conference than we, and had learned 
 from them, that "it was a maxim with some" that it was safe not to 
 go to the General Conference, if they foresaw that duty would 
 compel them to oppose episcopal measures. "More than one 
 travelling preacher, might, perhaps, feelingly repeat, in regard to 
 Baltimore, with a member of the synod of Dort: 0 Dort, Dort! O 
 Baltimore, Baltimore! would to God I never had seen thee! The 
 hero of opposition may return to his work, complacent in the con- 
 sciousness of his own integrity, unawed by the fear of man; but 
 the eye of episcopal vigilance is upon him." Possibly Mr. 
 Snethen. when he wrote this, was acquainted with one or more 
 such cases. If he were not, then he supposed "there might per- 
 haps" be found more than one, who had exercised their own judg- 
 ment in the General Conference, and felt so firm as to think that 
 no episcopal power or subsequent occurrence, would ever change 
 their purpose. But at the same time that they might feel compla- 
 cency in the consciousness of their own integrity, existing cir- 
 cumstances might at last weaken their integrity. Whenever they 
 find it necessary to oppose episcopal measures, they must know 
 that the eye of episcopal vigilance will descry them. The hero 
 may at length find himself in such a situation, that he may not 
 only cease to oppose, but yield to episcopal authority. Suppose, 
 for instance, that "his health declines; the afflictions of his family, 
 and cares and wants multiply upon him." In such a case it may 
 
\)1 
 
 become necessary for the comfort; — for the very existence of his 
 family, that he shall have secured the commiseration, if not the 
 favour of the bishops. If his family is sickly, then "he needs a 
 house at hand; for he cannot move far off; he wants medicine and 
 bread!" And to whom can he look in such extremity, but to the 
 bishops? "To which of the saints" beside the bishops, "will he 
 now turn, to which of his friends, say, pity me, 0! my friend, for 
 the hand of God hath touched me!" And is it possible that mem- 
 bers of the General Conference, with all their imaginary rights to 
 control the episcopacy, are so entirely dependent on the will of 
 the bishops? "What? can he want a house and a home and the 
 means of support, who inherits all houses and property, to the ex- 
 clusion of local preachers and the laity? Can a member of that 
 General Conference to whom so many thousands have been deeded, 
 become a houseless wanderer, a pennyless stranger, among a 
 strange people?" Whatever may have been his calculations upon 
 his supposed interest in the common property of the church, if 
 he should find himself thus overwhelmed with the afflictions and 
 increasing wants of his family, it would be fruitless to look for aid, 
 from any or all of his other companions in labours. He may ask 
 for help from them, but in vain. He may be beloved of them all, 
 and yet have occasion to say, "where now has the spirit of sym- 
 pathy and fellow-feeling fled! 0! where are his brethren whose 
 turn may come next?" When all are alike liable to similar afflic- 
 tions, will they not commiserate his case? However much they 
 may be moved with compassion, the individual in distress may still 
 have occasion to inquire, "is there no power in this heaven and 
 earth?" — this whole body of Methodist preachers, — "to save him 
 from the dread of starvation? None. How is this? Plainly thus: 
 When all is given away, nothing remains. The General Confer- 
 ence have given the bishops a life power over that very property, 
 which the donors vested in themselves. When they are made to 
 know the worth of this property by the want of it, at that very 
 juncture they may be made to feel, that they can enjoy no part of 
 it." And is not this a strong argument against the propriety of 
 conferring so much power for life, upon the episcopacy? With 
 such views of the subject, was it not benevolent in Mr. Snethen, 
 to admonish the travelling ministry of the temptations to which 
 they have exposed themselves by the measure, the dangers of which, 
 he has so effectually made evident? Who of them all when in 
 distress, being heavily oppressed with forebodings of expected ills, 
 will fail to cast about and say to himself, "and is there no remedy? 
 Are bishops and presiding elders all past feeling? Perhaps there 
 is one open door left." As a large majority of the clergy of Eng- 
 land, in the days of Mary and Elizabeth, and Charles and Oliver 
 Cromwell, found it convenient to accommodate themselves to the 
 ruling powers, so also, "perhaps," our hero might be induced, for 
 the comfort of his family to accommodate himself to executive 
 measures. And if such possible case should occur; — if the epis- 
 copacy should find it convenient to pursue one or more of such 
 heroes to submission, "what executive purpose can be so inflexible as 
 
98 
 
 not to relent, when executive measures have converted a poor and needy 
 opponent!" It is hoped that preachers, when made to see the pit 
 which they themselves have digged, will shun it, by diminishing 
 the episoopal prerogative. And it is hoped that bishops them- 
 selves will be wise to consent in the change, that they may escape 
 the temptation on their part; especially when they consider the 
 obloquy to which such oppressive pursuit would expose them. 
 Disinterested bye-standers would tauntingly say, "oh! we hope 
 that none of these elder brethren will refuse to join the music and 
 dancing, when one who was lost is thus found." 
 
 The paragraph is now before the reader in all the fulness of its 
 meaning. And where is there in it, any violation of truth? Or 
 where the vehement railing or defamation, for proof which it was 
 introduced into the Narrative and Defence? It appears to us in 
 the same light in which it was viewed by the committee, when it 
 was passed for publication. We then considered it an argument 
 of great force, particularly addressed to members of the General 
 Conference; and although it was calculated to rouse attention, yet 
 in view of the nature of the subject, it was handled in a very deli- 
 cate manner. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Agent's comment, is a miserable distortion of Mr. Snethen's 
 
 meaning. 
 
 The reader shall now have an opportunity to judge of the fitness 
 of our prosecutors for the high powers which they assumed, in ex- 
 pelling us for publishing Mr. Snethen's papers. "In the above 
 quotation,'' say they, Narrative and Defence, page 41, "the picture 
 which the writer has drawn in the last paragraph, of the intolerant 
 persecuting spirit of our bishops, can only find a parallel in the 
 Romish Inquisition. To starve the healthy dependent into sub- 
 mission to arbitrary power, would probably be considered suffi- 
 ciently odious in a civilized, not to say Christian community: but 
 to deprive the sick opponent of shelter, and food, and medicine, 
 until he is forced into improper compliances with episcopal pre- 
 rogative, is a hardihood of cruelty, at which the heart sickens, and 
 at which the soul of an ordinary inquisitor would revolt. The 
 wretch who would be guilty of such barbarity, ought to be deemed 
 to have, renounced all affinity with his species, and hunted down 
 as the common enemy of mankind. Can any man believe, that 
 such a monster is to be found among the venerable bishops of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church? If Mr. Snethen, or the Editorial 
 Committee who published the accusation, know the man, and the 
 facts, why not name the one, and point directly to the other. Why 
 these cruel inuendoes, which may be ignorantly applied to the in- 
 nocent." ***** page 4*2. "It cannot be pretended, that the 
 calumny we have quoted above, is not meant to describe what has 
 occurred, but what may be anticipated. There are in the allusions 
 
of the author, a specification of place and time, and a circumstan- 
 tiality of description, which necessarily point out an individuality 
 of application, both as to the oppressor and the oppressed. And the 
 sombre picture of the stern and inflexible tyranny of the episcopacy, 
 which nothing but humble submission can appease, is only equal- 
 led by the profligacy of those "elder brethren," those panders to 
 power and prerogative, who are represented by the author, as join- 
 ing the music and dancing over the converted starvling — the bro- 
 ken hearted victim of episcopal cruelty and oppression! ! It may 
 be asked by the reader, how it was possible for the reverend author 
 of the publication from which we have made the above extract, to 
 be betrayed into such an indiscretion: as it will not be denied, that 
 he had long been esteemed as an able minister, and a pious, amia- 
 ble man." ****** "The author was climbing the steep and 
 slippery ascent, to revolutionary distinction." — "He was not only 
 a partizan — but a leader of a party — and with reference to our 
 church government and its administration, he looked upon every 
 thing through the spectacles which party spirit had furnished him. 
 Through this medium, every opponent and every measure of oppo- 
 sition is made to take the hue, with which party feeling discolours 
 them, and the author mistook for realities, what were the mere vi- 
 sions of a disturbed and vivid imagination," page 43. "But what 
 shall we say of those who published these ravings of a disordered 
 fancy? Who with calm deliberation laid them before the public as 
 sober realities? Reader, are you a Christian? — then shun party as 
 an evil influence, which if indulged, will inevitably destroy the 
 spirit of love and of meekness, and substitute for them, malice and 
 revenge, and every evil work." Let the candid reader compare 
 this coarse and strained comment with the true design of Mr. Sne- 
 then's paper, and he will be obliged to see the high pitch to which 
 the prosecutors had wrought up their feelings, and the extravagant 
 effort which the agent made to excite resentment in the feelings of 
 the Methodist public against the friends of Mutual Rights: — and 
 that they were partizans, who themselves furnished the most per- 
 fect instances of the want of "the spirit of love and meekness." 
 In fact, their comment is such a complete caricature of Mr. Sne- 
 then's "picture," that one cannot well avoid the conclusion, when 
 they said, "party spirit, for the spirit of love and meekness, substi- 
 tutes malice and revenge and every evil work," they inadvertently 
 published a report of their own experience. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The high and independent condition of the Bishops, naturally tends 
 to produce an habitual practice of flattery. 
 
 "Our bishops must be flattered, or their power must be resisted." 
 Considering the immense patronage of the bishops and their ap- 
 pointing power, Mr. Snethen was of the opinion, that the preach- 
 ers generally, would be impelled, sooner or later, either to flatter 
 
100 
 
 them;— -in course, from time to time to give them additional power; 
 or to concert ways and means to check its growth. "But flattery 
 is easier and more pleasant, than resistance to oppressive power." 
 This is a truth confirmed by the experience of all ages; — and being 
 true at all times, and under all circumstances; — "itinerant and local 
 preachers, and members of the church, therefore will discover a 
 proneness to flatter bishops. For the same reason, local preachers 
 and members will feel disposed to flatter itinerant preachers." 
 And was there any vehement railing, in supposing that Methodist 
 itinerant and local preachers and members, would have a proneness 
 to feel and act like other people in similar circumstances? Or was 
 it requisite for the printing committee to believe, that the report of 
 history could afford no assistance, when they were called on to 
 judge of the character of Methodist people, and of the probable 
 course they would pursue? "But can any reason be assigned, why 
 the private members of the church should despise local preachers, 
 or that they should manifest an indifference or aversion towards each 
 other?" If this unhappy state of things exists, perhaps the cause 
 of it can be developed. "Evidently, when the awe that the wealth 
 and power of office inspire, is no longer felt or ceases to operate 
 under the disguise of flattery, the mind experiences are-action and 
 seeks to revenge itself upon the name or form of the office depriv- 
 ed of its attributes." This sentence reports a law of human na- 
 ture, and is therefore true: or if no such law obtains, it was at the 
 worst, one of Mr. Snethen's 'visionary' notions on the subject. We 
 admitted its truth, and therefore published it: and would blush, if 
 we were too ignorant of mankind, not to know it to be true. The 
 prosecutors were at liberty to entertain a different opinion. "Let 
 the property and power which are really in our bishops, and nomi- 
 nally in the itinerant preachers, be transferred to the local preach- 
 ers, and the public feelings will also be transferred." And who 
 that has made useful observation on men and things, does not know, 
 that this sentiment is according to human experience? Men thus 
 practice imposition upon themselves. Aaron and the children of 
 Israel made a golden calf. They knew it was a creature of their 
 own making, and yet they still consented to pay it homage. Men 
 confer factitious honors upon their fellow-men, and then turn round 
 and make themselves believe the elevation is a reality. In this way 
 they flatter wealth and power, though known to be in the posses- 
 sion of men unworthy of notice. "The flatterer pleases himself 
 by his flatteries, while he seeks to please those whom he flatters. 
 And this pleasure proceeds from the relief which the mind experi- 
 ences, from the uneasy or painful sensation of fear. Mankind are 
 sparing of their flattery towards those of whom they have nothing 
 to hope, and from whom they have nothing to fear. The president 
 of the United States is not flattered as a king; but would be, if his 
 power was as much feared." These sentences are all general 
 truths, and need no comment. "We are aware, that an intimation, 
 that our bishops and itinerant preachers are feared by the members 
 and the local preachers, will be repelled with great indignation." 
 In this prediction, Mr. Snethen, might be thought by some, to have 
 
101 
 
 been inspired with the spirit of prophecy. It was, however, a mere 
 application of his theory, to the people upon whom his eye was 
 turned. In respect to them "indeed our whole theory of feeling 
 in this case, will be considered as visionary and erroneous. Our 
 statement is nevertheless true, and admits of the clearest de- 
 monstration." The demonstration, to candid and disinterested 
 men will be satisfactory, and will for ever stigmatize those who were 
 so highly offended with truths, which ought to have instructed and 
 reproved them. "Mr. Wesley, was greatly flattered, and so was Mr. 
 Asbury. They, indeed, mistook these expressions for the marks of 
 love, and so did those who made them. But though it is not to 
 be doubted, that there was much sincere affection, this was to the 
 men. Their property and power were feared; as was the fear, so 
 was the flattery. Some of our bishops, we perceive, will be much 
 flattered to the south and west of the Susquehanna, and much and 
 deservedly loved too. But, it does not now seem probable, that 
 they will receive much eulogy from the north and east. If this 
 shall prove to be the fact, will not the limits of their praise be the 
 limits within which their power will be feared?" These appeals to 
 facts and circumstances, were made to the travelling preachers, 
 with intention to shew them the inevitable tendencies of their epis- 
 copacy, unless they should take measures to limit the powers of 
 the bishops. Mr. Snethen took pains to shew the secret workings 
 of the mind and heart when brought into contact with power and 
 wealth, and then presented explanatory facts of the highest grade, 
 to confirm the truth, and shew the importance of his argument. 
 His principles, he shewed them, would apply even to Mr. Wesley 
 and Mr. Asbury, two of the best and most distinguished men, that 
 had ever lived in the Methodist connexion. And he was informed 
 by travelling preachers, some of whom, when he wrote, were in- 
 clined to resist the growing power of the bishops, but who since, 
 have found it easier or more agreeable to run with the multitude; — 
 he was informed, however, by some of these, not only that things 
 were taking the usual course, but that some of the bishops would 
 have an influence to the south and west, and others to the north 
 and east; — an evil which he wished them to avoid. "We beg that 
 these remarks may be attended to, and carefully kept in mind. 
 These are the data, on which we have predicated the separation of 
 the north and the east, from the south and the west. Where their 
 power is not flattered, it will be resisted. This is not an unwar- 
 ranted assertion; it is not a new case; it is the thing that hath al- 
 ready been. Leaving Mr. Wesley's name out of the minutes, is a 
 parallel instance, and may be traced to a similar cause. The ab- 
 sence of the man, disclosed the workings of the fear: had he been 
 present, flattery would have concealed it all."* This explanatory 
 reference to a well known fact, tells in a language which cannot 
 be misunderstood, what Mr. Snethen intended by the terms "fear" 
 and "flattery." It also specifies the limits by which he intended 
 
 * This transaction will be noticed again in another place. 
 
 14 
 
102 
 
 his meaning to be bounded. "Traces of a similar operation may 
 be observed in doctor Coke's visits. His power was not half so 
 much to be dreaded as Mr. Asbury's; and yet the conference re- 
 quired articles to curb it, while he was in England." So strangely 
 does the human mind elude the observation of its own operations. 
 "Of all the illusions which the human mind practises on itself, 
 none is more wonderful, than that which takes place in the case of 
 flattery. We always had occasion to notice, that Mr. Asbury 
 placed his chief reliance for the ascendency of his influence, upon 
 his presence. Where trouble was, there was he." His experi- 
 ence and observation had taught him to know how great the influ- 
 ence of his presence, and therefore wherever his presence was 
 needed, like a faithful pastor, whatever pains it might cost him, 
 there he would be found. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The misrepresentations of the Agent and the prosecutors conclusively 
 demonstrated. 
 
 The reader now has had an opportunity to see what were the 
 views of the printing committee in publishing Mr. Snethen's papers 
 on church property. And we fearlessly challenge any man to shew 
 a departure from truth, or to specify any vehement railing or evil 
 speaking in any part of them. We had no expectation that any 
 other construction would be put upon them, than that which we 
 have submitted in the preceding comments. Much less, that they 
 would be subjected to such distortion, as the following remarks are 
 intended to produce. See Narrative and Defence, p. 44. The Agent, 
 for the prosecutors, says: "What a disgusting picture is here drawn 
 of Mr. Wesley, our bishops and travelling preachers! The one ca- 
 tering for praise, the others fawning and cringing to power and pre- 
 rogative, and flattering these tyrannical prelates as though they had 
 places and offices of emolument, in their gift." Will the reader 
 pause, and compare this account with what Mr. Snethen actually 
 wrote? "Mr. Wesley was greatly flattered, and so was Mr. Asbu- 
 ry. They indeed mistook these expressions for the marks of love, 
 and 60 did those v:ho made them. There was much affection, this 
 was to the men. Their property and power were feared; and as 
 was the fear, so was the flattery." Mr. Snethen said, that Mr. 
 Wesley and Mr. Asbury, and in like manner the bishops and tra- 
 velling preachers, were all flattered, but it was the effect of the insti- 
 tution, insomuch, that neither those who flattered, in the sense in 
 which Mr. Snethen used the term, nor those who were the subjects 
 of the flatteries, were conscious of the act. But the prosecutors 
 say, Mr. Snethen represented the one as catering for praise, the 
 others as fawning and cringing, fyc. Whether this barefaced mis- 
 representation, was intentional on the part of the Agent, or was 
 unconsciously the effect of blinded bigotry, or of an honest misun- 
 
103 
 
 derstanding of Mr. Snethen's meaning, we leave it with him to 
 determine. In the mean time, we will only add, that so far are we 
 from condemning Mr Snethen's papers, we consider it due to him, 
 to say, that he is entitled to the gratitude of old side men and re- 
 formers, for the very philosophical account he has given, of the 
 deleterious effect of the government of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
 Mr. Snethen, in the course of the foregoing argument against 
 the life office of the bishops, says: "We know to a certainty, that 
 Mr. Wesley never meant to confer any power for life, upon the 
 superintendents which he and doctor Coke ordained; for he actu- 
 ally had it in contemplation to recall Mr. Asbury. Of such an 
 event Mr. Asbury was so well aware, that he took special care to 
 prevent it, by getting himself elected superintendent by the Ameri- 
 can preachers." What was the object according to Mr. Snethen's 
 view, which Mr. Asbury intended to accomplish by getting himself 
 elected, &c.? To "prevent" his being recalled by Mr. Wesley. 
 And was'there any "vehement railing, any evil speaking," implied in 
 the statement, that Mr. Asbury was apprehensive, that Mr. Wesley 
 might recall him to England, but he greatly preferred staying in 
 the United States, and therefore "took special care to get himself 
 elected by the American preachers," that he might not be recalled? 
 Was there any unkindness towards Mr. Asbury, implied in this? 
 So far as we can judge, no disparagement was intended to Mr. As- 
 bury's reputation. But the agent who made his selections and 
 extracts with a view to their intended effect on the Methodist 
 community, gives the following comment. "The allegation against 
 Mr. Asbury, 'that he took special good care to get himself elected, 
 by the American preachers,' is the 'unkindest cut of all.' Mr. As- 
 bury refused to be superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, unless he should be elected by the free suffrages of his 
 brethren. And was it not praise-worthy to do so?" Did Mr. 
 Snethen say it was not? "He might have been superintendent by 
 Mr. Wesley's appointment, as doctor Coke was." True, and he 
 might then have been subject to Mr. Wesley's recall. "But he 
 would not exercise authority over any, but those who consented to 
 confer it upon him, and this is called 'taking special good care to 
 get himself elected, by the American preachers.' " Mr. Snethen 
 did not say Mr. Asbury took special good care to get himself 
 elected, intending any reproach to Mr. Asbury, but that Mr. As- 
 bury took special care, the word good he did not use at all; he took 
 special care to get himself elected, in order to ensure his stay in 
 the United States. What a detraction from Mr. Asbury's reputation!! 
 Mr. Snethen said, in order to prevent his recall to England, which 
 was to insure his stay in the United States, he took special care to 
 get himself elected!! Had he not taken such special care, he 
 would have been placed in a relatiou to the American preachers, 
 similar to that of doctor Coke. He was apprized, however, that 
 Mr. Wesley had thoughts of recalling him. He prudently took 
 this step to prevent his recall. And for publishing this transaction, 
 according to Mr. Snethen's view, the editors of the Mutual Rights, 
 
104 
 
 were condemned. And the prosecutors have republished it with 
 their comment so managed, that with the old-side Methodists it 
 passes for "vehement railing, bitter reviling and defamation." "It 
 was in fact the unkindest cut of all." !! But we have dwelt on this 
 part particularly, to shew the reader, not only that the agent aimed 
 at the effect intended to be produced by the Narrative and De- 
 fence, but that he could misinterpret a sentence, and even add an 
 important word to the oblique interpretation, to make the effect 
 more certain. Mr. Snethen said, Mr. Asbury took special care to 
 get himself elected to prevent his recall to England. The agent 
 makes him say, Mr. Asbury took "special good care to get him- 
 self elected." Admitting at the same time, that this was not 
 necessary for securing to him the distinction of being superintend- 
 ent. This distinction already awaited him, by Mr. Wesley's ap- 
 pointment! 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM NEHEMIAH ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF A REPRESEN- 
 TATION. 
 
 The paragraph extracted from a paper, with the signature of 
 Nehemiah, as it is made to read in the Narrative and Defence, is a 
 garbled fragment. Thus separated from its connexion, it was well 
 suited to their purpose. But when read in its place, so as to be 
 understood according to the true intent and meaning of the writer, 
 it is by no means offensive to any well informed reader. 
 
 So much of the essay as is printed in the Narrative and Defence, is 
 put in italics and restored to its place. When it shall be fairly exam- 
 ined, there is no doubt that it will be considered fully to justify itself. 
 
 "We now say, that it is expedient that the local ministry and 
 laity, should be represented in the General Conference. Their 
 right to be represented having been already proved, it is to the 
 question of expediency we now confine ourselves. When we say 
 it is expedient that representation should be allowed, we wish to 
 be understood as meaning that it is fit, proper, best upon the whole, 
 the present state of the connexion having been duly considered. 
 Respecting representation, for this is the point, at issue, thousands 
 in the church, in the local ministry and among the laity, believe 
 they have a right, an inalienable right, to be represented; and that 
 as long as this right is withheld, .they are unjustly deprived of that, 
 which according to scripture, reason and primitive Christian 
 usage, they ought to possess. Upon the other hand, those who 
 are opposed to representation, say, that the friends of reform have 
 no such rights as they now lay claim to. It must be remembered, 
 however, the right which is claimed is common, and therefore, when 
 they insist that the friends of reform have no such right, they ad- 
 mit ipso facto that they themselves have none. And if the re- 
 formers were permitted to exercise all the rights which they claim, 
 such an acquisition on their part, could bring no loss to their op- 
 
105 
 
 ponents, inasmuch as they have no rights to lose. They would in 
 such an event, be precisely where they are now, having none to 
 lose, they could lose none.* But this is not the case in the judg- 
 ment of those who wish a representation; — they think they have 
 such rights. They know they have such rights. They think and 
 say that their rights are unjustly withheld; and neither the lan- 
 guage nor conduct of their opponents, can make them believe 
 otherwise. To continue to be denied the enjoyment of these 
 rights, will not convince them that they are not entitled to possess 
 them. To withhold them, under the pretext of pleasing those 
 who acknowledge that they themselves have no right to be repre- 
 sented, will not satisfy the reformers, nor silence their claims. We 
 cannot see, then, how any one can reasonably, or consistently, op- 
 pose another man's enjoyment of a right, a privilege or a blessing, 
 which he conscientiously believes he ought to possess, when that 
 enjoyment will not encroach upon his own rights, or subtract from 
 the sum of his own happiness. 
 
 As the friends of reform believe they have a right to be repre- 
 sented in the General Conference, is it to be supposed, that they 
 will be satisfied with any thing short of a representation? As they 
 have such clear grounds that they ought to be represented, and as 
 their opponents can show nothing to the contrary, is it likely that 
 they will be satisfied without it? It can neither be concealed nor 
 denied, that an excitement of no ordinary character, at present ex- 
 ists throughout the connexion, and that this excitement so far from 
 being lessened, is every day gaining strength and becoming more 
 extended. The dissatisfaction which has long existed, has begun 
 to show itself in a systematic opposition to the present form of 
 church government. The principles of reform, are now beginning 
 to shoot up, and it is weakness in the extreme, to suppose they 
 will never come to maturity. Perhaps in some two or three places, 
 they may be a little longer in the soil before they spring up, or they 
 may be stifled in the growth; but even then, there will be no cor- 
 dial assent or hearty good will to the present form of church 
 government. And to us it is very evident, that there will be no 
 peace in the church, unless representation be allowed, and believ- 
 ing that peace would follow, it is expedient that representation 
 should be granted. 
 
 We are strengthened in the above opinion by considering the 
 character, the number, and the influence of the men who make 
 this demand. It will be asked, who are they that are dissatisfied 
 with the present form of church government? And the question 
 will be tauntingly answered, perhaps, as it has been done before; 
 a few restless and backslidden local preachers. But is this the 
 truth? We hope not. We believe not. The local preachers who 
 are thus reproached, are not backsliders. They are men of God; 
 ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, who have borne the burden and 
 
 •Every sensible reader will perceive, that this is a mere argumentum ad 
 hominem; intended ironically to throw back upon the power party their 
 own sayings. 
 
106 
 
 heat of the day. Many of them have spent the prime of their 
 lives and the strength of their years in the cause of God, and al- 
 though they have grown grey in the work of the ministry, they are 
 still labouring, without fee or reward, to build up the walls of Zion. 
 They are men of holy lives, whose moral and ministerial characters, 
 stand as as fair now as they ever did, and would suffer nothing by 
 being compared with the characters of those who traduce them; — 
 by representing them in this unfavourable light. Nor is their num- 
 ber small, nor their influence inconsiderable. Hundreds in the 
 ministry are dissatisfied with that feature of our church govern- 
 meut, which gives to the travelling ministry the exclusive power 
 to make laws for the church, whereby the local ministry and the 
 laity, are excluded from a representation in the General Confer- 
 ence. 
 
 We would now, in the fear of God, put this question to the 
 consciences of our readers. Is there no ground to doubt of the 
 propriety of a system which will give dissatisfaction to so many 
 ministers of Jesus Christ? Can it be supposed, that the course 
 pursued by the opponents of Mutual Rights, can be of God, when 
 that course will fill the hearts of so many of his old and tried ser- 
 vants with such deep distress; especially when it will be recollect- 
 ed, that the aggrieved would much rather if possible, suffer than 
 complain? Is it likely that a plan founded upon injustice and pro- 
 ductive of so many exquisitely painful feelings, can meet with the 
 approbation of righteous Heaven? We are grieved while we 
 write: — we are pained while we contemplate the subject in its pro- 
 bable termination; for we honestly believe, that many of those de- 
 graded ministers, notwithstanding their attachment to the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, think it would be better for them to unite 
 among themselves, to live under an equitable form of church 
 government the remainder of their days, and leave such a precious 
 legacy to their children after them, than to continue where they 
 receive nothing but a denial of their rights upon the one hand, or 
 abuse and reproach if they complain, upon the other. Nor is the 
 discontentment confined to the local ministry. We believe thou- 
 sand of the laity are dissatisfied also. And as the principles of the 
 governmeut of the church shall have been examined by them, their 
 numbers will increase, and their complaints will become the louder. 
 \\ hat can be expected under such circumstances, but that the in- 
 telligence, the piety, and the numbers of the discontented will 
 have an influence upon the whole connexion. What then is to 
 be done? Is it a proof of wisdom or goodness, to drive things to 
 the extreme? We think not. We think it would be far better to 
 take some steps, to adopt some measures which might conciliate 
 the minds of those who are distressed and discontented, and there- 
 by restore peace to the troubled, and preserve the integrity of the 
 body. The last General Conference was the time for the adoption 
 of such measures, but we hope it is yet not too late. Brethren 
 seem still to manifest a wish to remain within the pale of the 
 church, if they can do so consistently with their views of justice; 
 and while they remain it will be much easier to propitiate them, 
 than to bring them back if they once depart. 0! that we could 
 
107 
 
 persuade those who have it in their power to go forward in this 
 god-like work of reconciliation. We would beg and beseech them 
 for God's sake not to turn their ear away from the admonitions of 
 a brother; — not to delay to effect an object so good and so praise- 
 worthy. We would entreat them to do something and do it 
 speedily, to heal the wounds which have been inflicted upon our 
 bleeding Zion. For the peace of the church it is expedient that 
 something should be done; for we are well persuaded, that nnlesspeace 
 be restored, the day is not far distant, when many will depart and 
 form a government for themselves. Can the present rulers of our 
 church answer for the consequences? If they will not now take 
 one single step to restore peace and preserve the unity of the 
 church, will they be free from all blame in the eyes of our sister 
 churches? Yea, will they be able to answer to God for the refusal 
 or neglect? These we know are solemn and weighty considera- 
 tions. We trust they will have a proper effect upon some, though 
 we are free to confess, we fear they will not upon all of our travel- 
 ling brethren. 
 
 But let them go, say some, this is the very thing we wish, and 
 the sooner they go the better. They are only troublesome men, 
 and as long as they remain in connexion with us, the church will 
 have no peace. This seems to be the opinion, at least this is 
 the language of some who are opposed to representation. But 
 does this opinion, or this language, afford evidence of piety 
 or policy? If it could be made to harmonize with the spirit of 
 Christianity, which we are sure it cannot, is it consistent with 
 sound policy? The advocates for representation are right, or 
 they are wrong. If they are right, their opponents must be 
 wrong in denying their requests, and cannot censure them for 
 withdrawing from the connexion, in case they should do so. 
 Nor would the sin of schism, (if a separation from a church, whose 
 government is founded upon injustice, can be called schism,) lie at 
 their door but at the door of those who would force them to such 
 a measure. We shall suppose, however, at present, for the sake 
 of argument, that the reformers are wrong; that their views of 
 church government are erroneous, and their demands unreasonable. 
 What results are likely to take place, according to the judgment 
 and statement of those who are opposed to representation? Why, 
 they say, if the reformers leave the church, they will certainly leave 
 the Lord, go back into the world and sin, and finally lose their 
 souls.* Although we are far from believing that the grace of God 
 is confined to the Methodist Episcopal Church, or that the Lord 
 would not hear the prayers ot those who would call upon him, and 
 keep them from sin, though they might not be of that body of re- 
 ligious professors, yet, assuming their statement with all its alarm- 
 ing features, it will bear upon themselves, and not upon the re- 
 formers. Merciful God, is it the case that these men can believe 
 what they say, and yet not strive to prevent it. Is it possible that 
 the opponents of representation, would rather souls should depart 
 
 * This was said by many of the anti reformers. 
 
108 
 
 from the Lord, than that they themselves should depart a hair's 
 breadth from their legislative prerogatives? Is it a fact, that they 
 would rather souls should be damned by thousands, than that are- 
 presentation from the local ministry and laity, should be admitted 
 into the General Conference? God of love, can these men possess 
 thy spirit, enter into thy benevolent designs of saving souls, or 
 imitate thy gracious example, who would not change a feature of 
 the government of our church, which is merely human, to prevent 
 souls from going to the bottomless pit? This is the amount of the 
 argument in its application to themselves. But we hope better 
 things of them though we thus write. What have they done to pre- 
 vent these dreadful evils which they portray in such vivid colours, 
 in order to prevent the members of our church from becoming re- 
 formers? We fancy we hear one say, I fail not wherever I go, to 
 warn the people against reading the Mutual Rights. I fail not to 
 inform the people, that the men who edit that work are "all burn- 
 ing with a schismatical and fanatical zeal,''" and that "their plans 
 are held in sovereign contempt" by some of those who fill the highest 
 offices in our church.* This, to be sure, is a short way of answer- 
 ing an argument. But is it the way to remove error? Is it the way 
 to set us right if we are wrong? Is it the gospel way of converting 
 a soul from the error of his ways? Or, is it not rather the very 
 principle upon which the inquisition has been established; — first call 
 the man heretic, and then it is right and lawful to put him on the 
 wheel, or burn him at the stake!! 
 
 In this last statement we have proceeded upon the supposition, 
 that the reformers are wrong. * * * But, let us suppose, for a mo- 
 ment, the reformers are right; that, in asking for a representation, 
 they ask for nothing but what is reasonable and just; that the hum- 
 ble attitude they assume, evinces their love of order, their respect 
 for their itinerant brethren, and their attachment to the Methodist 
 institutions; that the length of time they have borne their priva- 
 tions, affords indubitable evidence that they are unwilling to leave 
 the pale of the church. W^e ask, notwithstanding their long suf- 
 fering and patience, is it likely that they will always remain in the 
 connexion?" 
 
 "Convinced, as they [the Reformers'] are, that they have every thing 
 on their side that would justify them in the sight of God, in the eyes 
 of the world, and in the demands of their own consciences, to with- 
 draw, is it to be expected that they will continue to submit to thosewho 
 withhold their rights? To remain would be hopeless. To remain in 
 the connexion, would be to remain to be made the butt of the contumely, 
 and insult of every one opposed to reform. If nothing be done in fa- 
 vour of the reformation, it will be construed into a total defeat, and 
 will so inflame their opponents, as to induce them to add farther inju- 
 ries to the grievances already felt. What, then, can the Reformers 
 promise themselves by continuing in the connexion, in the event of a 
 total denial of their claims? Can they promise themselves peace? 
 Peace, they will hate none. Can they hope that, by continuing to 
 
 * This was said or written, by one of the Bishops. 
 
109 
 
 suffer, justice will be done them in the end. Alas! injustice like death, 
 has neither eyes to sec the miseries of its subjects, nor a heart to feel 
 for the wounds which it inflicts. Every symptom of patience, and 
 every returning' period, will only encourage their ojipressors to be 
 firmer in their denial, and will induce them to augment the distresses of 
 the distressed. Can they, under this view of the subject, calculate 
 upon the common courtesies and civilities of life? They cannot. For, 
 at the present, and while the cause is depending, the shafts of reproach 
 are frequently hurled at them, even from the pulpit. 
 
 "We will now suppose that the General Conference, rigidly adher- 
 ing to the present system, with all its features of injustice, reject the 
 petitions which may be presented for a representation. We will sup- 
 pose, that those friendly to an equitable church government, based upon 
 representation, will then proceed to take such measures as will be deem- 
 ed necessary to form themselves into a church; will not many of our 
 best and oldest local preachers be of that number? Will not many of 
 the most intelligent and respectabte laymen and their families be of 
 the number? Will not some who are at present in the travelling con- 
 nexion, and who are ground, as it were, between the upper and nether 
 millstones* on account of their liberal sentiments, be of that number? 
 We have no doubt of these things. How whole districts of country 
 may be affected by the formation of a new connexion, we cannot tell; — 
 but, we shall neither be surprised nor mistaken in our calculation, if 
 societies were to withdraw by scores from a church, whose ministers, if 
 they speak the truth, would rather see them go into sin, and finally go 
 to hell, than allow a representation in the law-making department of 
 the church." 
 
 "If then, the unity of the body in the bonds of peace be at all 
 desirable, we say it is expedient that representation should be gran- 
 ted." 
 
 This paper was considered one of the most offensive; and the 
 extract in italics was quoted with uncommon interest. Their ''re- 
 marks" in the Narrative and Defence are, "we have here, a plain, 
 unequivocal developement, of the ulterior views of the Union So- 
 ciety. They are determined to carry their measures, whether with, 
 or without the consent of the majority, or leave the church." Ne- 
 hemiah had said no such thing. The paper in no shape justifies 
 such a remark. It says, "we honestly believe, that mem?/ * * * think 
 it would be better for them to unite among themselves, to live un- 
 der an equitable form of government, the remainder of their days, 
 and leave such a precious legacy to their children after them, than 
 to continue, where they receive nothing but denial of their rights, 
 upon the one hand, and abuse and reproach, if they complain, on 
 the other." And again, "we are well persuaded, that unless peace is 
 restored, the day is not distant, when many will depart and form a 
 government for themselves." This expression of his belief re- 
 specting the thoughts of many, and his persuasion respecting the 
 departure of many, are presented as arguments, which, in his opin- 
 
 * Witness, Messrs. D. B. Dorsey, and W. C. Pool, &c. 
 
 15 
 
110 
 
 ion, go to prove, that it would be expedient to grant to the people 
 a representation in the legislative department of the church. No 
 candid man of sound judgment, will admit that any thing more was 
 intended. It should be kept in mind too, that it was well known 
 to us all, that many had seceded and arrangements were making 
 by the Methodist Societies, to organize themselves. To this we 
 were opposed, because we were persuaded, that by means of our 
 periodical and Union Societies, we should be able in due time, to 
 effect the necessary reform in the Methodist Episcopal Church, by 
 the consent of the majority, and not leave the church. The power par- 
 ty were so apprehensive of this, that they determined to prevent 
 us, by effecting the destruction of the Mutual Rights and Union 
 Societies. Nehemiah says, "convinced that they," (not the Union 
 Societies; these were opposed to a secession,) but the many would 
 be justified in the sight of God, in the eyes of the world, and in 
 the demands of their own consciences, to withdraw, is it to be ex- 
 pected, that they will continue to submit to those who withhold 
 their rights? To remain would be hopeless * * * * would be, to be 
 made the butt of the contumely and insult of every one opposed to 
 reform, &,c. &c. In the event of a total denial of their claims, 
 can they promise themselves peace? Peace, they will have none. 
 Can they hope that by continuing to suffer, justice will be done 
 them in the end?" &c. All this was argument, to prove the expe- 
 diency of granting a delegation to the people. 
 
 This paper was published about three years before we were ex- 
 pelled for publishing it. Surely Nehemiah was a prophet; and all 
 his prophecies about injustice and want of eyes to see or hearts to 
 feel, were but too soon, literally fulfilled. We were unjustly ex- 
 pelled, and the Annual Conference deliberately resolved that we 
 had no right to complain. We were determined to remain, and 
 continue our labours to convince the power party, of the expedi- 
 ency of granting a lay representation. But they determined to ex- 
 pel us; — a very conclusive argument in proof of their opinion to 
 the contrary! ! 
 
 The writer of the Narrative and Defence, thinking himself hid- 
 den behind his extract, makes the comment for the introduction of 
 which, this paper was "indicated." "They call," says he, "travel- 
 ling preachers oppressors of their brethren, and declare that these 
 oppressors have neither eyes to see the "miseries" of their flocks, 
 nor hearts to feel for their "wounds," nay, that they would rather 
 see their flocks go into "six" and finally into "hell," than accord 
 thern their rights." We deny the truth of this comment. It is in 
 fact, an impudent attempt at imposition. Nehemiah had qualified 
 every strong statement contained in his paper. In respect to that 
 above referred to, by the Agent, the following is the qualification. 
 "In the event of a total denial of their claims," fyc. can they, (the 
 reformers,) hope, that by continuing to suffer, justice will be done 
 them in the end? He had argued the justice of their claim to re- 
 presentation. He was endeavouring to convince old side men, that 
 it would be best, safest upon the whole, to do the reformers jus- 
 tice. But supposing they should refuse to the last, how would 
 
Ill 
 
 their conduct be viewed by reformers? They would then conclude 
 them unjust. When would they come to this conclusion? "In 
 the event of a total denial of their claims." In that event, he asks, 
 can reformers hope that by continuing to suffer, justice will be dono 
 them in the end? If the total denial, the proper test of their injus- 
 tice be pronounced, then reformers need expect no more. For 
 alas! injustice like death, has neither eyes to see the miseries of 
 its subjects, nor a heart to feel for the wounds which it inflicts. 
 And therefore, when the reformers meet a total denial, &.c. they 
 will surely withdraw. Now says Nehimiah's argument, brethren 
 do not meet them with a total denial — do not give this evidence of 
 injustice to provoke to such a course. Rather admit the "expedi- 
 ency" of granting their petition; rather do them justice and pre- 
 vent all these evils. 
 
 How different this, which is the true view of the writer's design, 
 from the interpretation of the Agent? He first gives a caricature 
 of Nehemiah's argument; — a total misrepresentation of his design, 
 and then in view of his own distorted picture he cries out, "gra- 
 cious Heaven! are these men Methodists? and are they speaking 
 of the whole body of itinerant Methodist preachers? * * * if this 
 is the language of love, what is the language of hatred?" &c. 
 
 We ask the candid reader, who is the caluminator in this case? 
 Nehemiah, or doctor Bond? He has accused the editorial com- 
 mittee of publishing a certain writer's remarks, "knowing that they 
 were unfounded," and yet says he, "they allege that they have not 
 been charged with any immorality. They must excuse us if we 
 entertain a different opinion!" We give him back this gratuity, as 
 very fitly applicable to his comment on Nehemiah, and in the se- 
 quel shall find other occasions to restore to him similar bounties, 
 for which we have no use, and which can be stored most conve- 
 niently, in the depot from which they were originally taken. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Extract of a letter from the Union Society of Baltimore, to a mem- 
 ber of the Union Society at Bedford, Tennessee. — Mutual Rights, 
 Vol. hp. 90,91. 
 
 "We have for a long time, been sufficiently well informed respect- 
 ing the great dissatisfaction of many intelligent brethren, who, at 
 the same time that they are fast friends to the doctrine of holiness, 
 [according to the peculiar manner of inculcating that doctrine,] 
 which we have received as a common legacy from the great found- 
 ers of Methodism, are nevertheless unwilling to be tributary to the 
 perpetuation of a system of government, which, in their opinion, is 
 forging fetters for themselves and their posterity." Narrative and 
 Defence, page 47. 
 
 The reader will perceive at once, that it was considered treasona- 
 ble to publish an opinion, that the government of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, if perpetuated, has a tendency to endanger the 
 
112 
 
 liberties of the people under its authority. The publications were 
 charged with inveighing against the discipline; — with being abusive 
 or speaking evil of a part, if not most of the ministers of that 
 church. That the above extract contains nothing personal; that 
 it has no reference to the moral discipline of the church, is very 
 obvious. The writer ventures an opinion, that a church Govern- 
 ment which has placed all the legislative, executive and judicial 
 power, in the hands of the ministry, if perpetuated, will eventually 
 be dangerous to the liberties of the people. For publishing this 
 opinion, we were expelled, and our prosecutors cover themselves 
 behind doctor Bond's Narrative and Defence, which says it is ve- 
 hement railing; it is slander and misrepi 'esentation." The true 
 cause of their objection to the extract, will be better understood 
 by a reference to the paper itself from which it was garbled. 
 
 Copy of a letter addressed to a member of the Bedford Union Society, 
 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Dear Brother, 
 
 Your highly important communication, bearing date 14th Sep- 
 tember, has been received and submitted to the consideration of 
 the Union Society of Methodists in this place. The manner of 
 its reception, and the interest which was manifested by the Society, 
 will appear upon a perusal of the extract from the journal of pro- 
 ceedings, which is enclosed for your information. 
 
 It was thought to be every way consistent with propriety and 
 mutual confidence, that you should have calculated upon the pater- 
 nal sympathy and support of the Union Society of Baltimore; 
 since it is well known to us all, that we advised the measure which 
 has brought you into difficulty. And if there were any doubts re- 
 specting the necessity or morality of the measure, the consequences 
 which have followed would have a tendency to produce in us very 
 painful regret. The fact however is very far otherwise. At the 
 same time, that we are deeply sorrowful on account of the trans- 
 action which so materially concerns the brethren who are involved 
 in its "exterminating" design, our sorrow has reference also to 
 other highly momentous considerations. We are indeed grieved 
 at the affliction of our brethren, but much more at being informed 
 that a tribunal has been found in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 where some of her members have been subjected to trial and ex- 
 pulsion, for doing that, which they consider to be an imperious 
 duty; which no existing power or authority had any shadow of 
 right to forbid, and which must have the approbation of the wisest 
 and best men in these United States. And so momentous is this 
 expression of high-handed measures, that if no other instance or 
 occasion could be found to give strength and confirmation to our 
 opinion respecting the necessity of reform in our ecclesiastical 
 government, this one would be sufficient. But we were fully satis- 
 fied upon this point, before we heard of your case, which is one 
 instance only of the manner in which men in power can put in 
 force their influence and authority, when occasion and inclination 
 concur. Of course, we add it to the account of those facts and 
 
113 
 
 circumstances which in our opinion most clearly show, that the 
 time has arrived when the friends of religious liberty in the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, are called upon to make a firm stand, and 
 declare their sentiments openly. If this be not admitted, it fol- 
 lows, that the Methodist people are bound silently and submissive- 
 ly to acknowledge, that it is the right of the itinerant preachers, 
 not only to have and to hold all power and authority, but to expel 
 any who dare to think and speak otherwise; and thus to stop the 
 mouths of all who may be inclined to put a check to the growing 
 power, or to recommend any measures of security against its mal- 
 administration. In a word, it will follow, that the itinerant preach- 
 ers have a right to prevent all inquiry into the subject. We have 
 for a long time, been sufficiently well informed respecting the great 
 dissatisfaction of many intelligent brethren, who at the same time 
 that they are fast friends to the doctrine of holiness, which we have 
 received as a common legacy from the great founders of Method- 
 ism, are nevertheless unwilling to be tributary to the perpetuation 
 of a system of government, which in their opinion is forging fet- 
 ters for themselves and their posterity. And we have admired the 
 manner in which many of them have published their arguments, 
 intended to prove that the existing monopoly of the legislative and 
 executive power of the church, has had an injurious effect upon 
 the connexion, and threatens eventually, to produce ruinous con- 
 sequences. We have seen this necessary enterprize again and 
 again repeated by travelling preachers as well as others, and no 
 step has been taken to accuse or condemn any one, as having 
 committed a breach upon the rule, which is found in the Book of 
 Discipline, chap. 2, sec. vii, article 3d; and which it appears 
 has been arbitrarily enforced in your section of the country. In- 
 deed, we have had no fear upon this subject; and now that we 
 have the information furnished us by your letter, we are at a loss 
 to conceive of the conduct of the presiding elder and assistant 
 preachers, who have so rashly and extensively acted upon it. Our 
 surprise is not a little increased, when we perceive by your com- 
 munication, that the court which sat upon your case, made special 
 objections against that part of your preamble, which was as follows, 
 viz: — "And that this amendment should introduce an equilibrium 
 into said church, by admitting a representation from the local min- 
 isters and laymen, equal to that of the itinerant ministers, into all 
 assemblies convened for the purpose of making laws and regula- 
 tions for government." We cannot see how the discipline or 
 doctrines of the church are censured or reproached by the publi- 
 cation of a desire or intention to obtain, if it can be obtained, such 
 a change in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 as may constitute it a representative government. Is it indeed a. 
 truth, that the discipline is reproached and scandalized by making 
 the fact notorious, that it does not recognize this principle which 
 is so essential to the liberties of the people? Then let those 
 whose duty it is, put away this reproach, not by compelling men 
 to keep silence, but by admitting the principle. For who could 
 condemn a freeman in this land of liberty, for making an open and 
 
114 
 
 manly declaration concerning the importance or the necessity of 
 general representation, especially, when the discipline not only 
 does not recognize, but in fact makes no mention of it; or who 
 can so effectually be guilty of scandalizing the church, as those 
 who sit in judgment and expel her members for making such a de- 
 claration? 
 
 Surely such proceedings cannot be justified by the decision of 
 the Annual Conference. At any event we have no hesitation in 
 giving it as our opinion, that if the conference act a becoming 
 part, they will reinstate the brethren. 
 
 This letter needs no comment. It was published in November, 
 1825. No papers were "indicated" of earlier date, except Mr. 
 Snethen's on church property, and Nehemiah's on the expediency 
 of representation. They had already expelled fourteen of the 
 friends of reform, in the state of Tennessee, for having taken mea- 
 sures preparatory to the formation of an Union Society, that is, for 
 being about to be guilty of that great offence. That too was 
 wholesome and souxd discipline!! 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Extract from an answer to Querist by Bartimeus — alias Mr. SJiinn. 
 
 "If they (the travelling preachers) go on, and enslave the peo- 
 ple, the consequence will be, that they will ultimately and inevita- 
 bly enslave themselves and their children after them. 5 ' Narrative 
 and Defence, page 47. That this extract was garbled with inten- 
 tion to produce effect upon the minds of men, "who had not read 
 the Mutual Rights at all," will be obvious, so soon as it shall be read 
 in its proper connexion with the clause from which it is taken.* 
 
 3. If tlie members of our church have lieretofore neglected to con- 
 sider tlie principles of church government, it is the more necessary 
 for tliem to consider them now; especially as it is assumed in the ar- 
 gument, "that a particular rule which has been in the book of dis- 
 cipline a great number of years, constituted a particular engage- 
 ment on the part of each probationer, to remain silent in this matter." 
 Is the embargo taken off, when this probation is out? Or is he 
 bound to remain silent, by virtue of tlie long standing of this rule? 
 If the rule was wrong and unjust at first, will it grow into justice 
 and goodness by age? Was it the duty of the members to examine 
 the principles of government at first? And because they neglected 
 their duty tlien, must t hey still neglect it? If the age of a wrong prin- 
 ciple Juts already nearly taken away tlieir right to do tlieir duty, how, 
 necessary for them to rouse themselves to examinaton, before it shall 
 become still older, and get entirely out of their reach. If its age 
 has already taken away part of their rights, tliere appears to be 
 danger that it may at last become old enough to take away tlie whole 
 
 * We have put the whole clause in italics, and beg the reader to mark well 
 how true it is in all its parts. 
 
115 
 
 of them. Most of the churches in Christendom lutve the advantage 
 of the Methodists , in this argument; for several of tliem are hun- 
 dreds of years old: does it follow then, that whatever may be "tlie 
 fundamental principle of their church polity" all Uieir members arc 
 bound under "a particular engagement, to remain silent in this mat- 
 ter?" Then Luther, Calvin, and Erasmus — Wesley, Fletcher, and 
 Whitefield, were each under "a particular engagement" and this 
 engagement was "constituted" by the long standing of the principles 
 which tliey opposed, "to remain silent in this matter." 
 
 '■'Complete and absolute authority on the part of the itinerancy" 
 it is said, "has never been departed from," and is the "fundamental 
 principle of our church polity." We think our church ought to 
 have better "fundamental principles." But suppose Mr. Jisbury 
 had succeeded in his council plan — then a bishop's council would 
 have been the fundamental principle of our church polity, and we 
 should have had no general conference. And how was the funda- 
 mental principle altered, when that conference was made representa- 
 tive? If we enlarge tlie sphere of representation, and establish a 
 better constitution, will this destroy the fundamental principle? or, 
 will it not rather exchange one very defective principle, for several 
 valuable axioms in church government, that are truly and scriptur* 
 ally fundamental? 
 
 Having thus, we think, refuted the argument, the following short 
 refections may be added. 
 
 For the people to examine the principles of church government, 
 and to assist each other in the examination, is, first, their duty: for 
 God has made them rational creatures; church government is insti- 
 tuted for their sake, and for the sake of displaying the divine glory, 
 therefore they are under obligation to examine, and see whether these 
 ends are effectually answered by the government. The argument we 
 have been examining, supposes it to have been the duty of all the 
 members, to make themselves acquainted with the government, when 
 they first joined society: well, if they then neglected their duty, let 
 them not neglect it eternally. Secondly, it is their wisdom: for what 
 but folly can it be, for any people to remain in stupid unconcern 
 and ignorance of the government under which they live? Is this to 
 act the part of rational creatures? Thirdly, it is essential to their 
 safety: for if a people leave to others, to manage the affairs of govern- 
 ment over their heads, while they themselves remain ignorant and 
 unconcerned about tlie whole matter, in the name of common sense, 
 what security have they for their liberty or happiness a single hour? 
 In the argument we have considered, we see it assumed that a govern- 
 ment acquires authority by age; and nothing but ignorance or 
 thoughtlessness can hinder the Methodist people from perceiving, 
 that they are liable to lose the dearest rights of humanity^ by abso- 
 lute principles in the church, as well as in the state. Who, but a 
 people that are tamely loilling to be slaves, are willing to remain ig- 
 
116 
 
 norant of their own government, or to leave tlie whole matter to the 
 management of others? Fourthly, it is essential to the welfare of the 
 church: for if her principles are sound, they will shine the brighter 
 by being examined, and will be the more firmly established in the con- 
 fidence of the people; if any of them are unsound, the removal of 
 those which are so, will be a real benefit and an honour to the whole 
 church. Fifthly, it is essential to the welfare and happiness of the 
 travelling ministry: for if they go on, and enslave the people, the 
 consequence will be, that they will ultimately and inevitably enslave 
 themselves and their children after them: therefore, a wholesome 
 authority of "check and control" in the body, is essential to the 
 real interest and happiness of u the ruling power." 
 
 To conclude: the persevering efforts and struggles we liave beheld, 
 to enjoin silence on preachers and people, furnish a strong presump- 
 tion of something unsound at bottom, and would be really alarming, 
 were it not for the protection afforded by the civil government under 
 which we live: and every day's experience tends to increase tlie con- 
 viction, that no persons among us, but those who resolve, in the name 
 of God, to act upon principle, will be found qualified to act as per- 
 severing reformers. 
 
 Bartimeus. 
 
 Pittsburg, June 14, 1826. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Extract from a letter to the Editors of the Mutual Rights, forwarded 
 from Alexandria, District Columbia. 
 
 "Is it not a possible case, that some of our rulers may be look- 
 ing forward to an establishment, especially as they claim a divine 
 right to absolute government over those whom they have been the 
 instruments of converting from the error of their ways; and truly, 
 if they have this divine right, they should have it established by law, 
 to keep the restless spirits down." Narrative and Defence, page 47. 
 This extract is taken from a paper which is sufficiently explained 
 by a reference to the provocation which gave it birth and justified 
 it. See Mutual Rights, page 46, vol. III. "I take the liberty 
 of enclosing you a paper in the form of a remonstrance, said 
 to have been drawn up by George Mason, of Virginia, and 
 presented to the legislature, shortly after the revolution; thereby 
 defeating a bill, then before the house, intended to establish some 
 religious sect. Although the present controversy is not, whether 
 we shall have an establishment or not, yet there are some things, 
 that may be drawn from the remonstrance, that may be rendered 
 useful to the cause of reform. "Is it not a possible case, that some 
 of our rulers may be looking forward to an establishment, especially 
 as they claim a divine right to absolute government, over those whom 
 
117 
 
 they have been the instruments of converting from the error of their 
 ways; and truly, if they have this divine right, they should have it 
 established by law, to keep the restless spirits down. n The preachers 
 here, are not mealy mouthed in saying, that they are invested with 
 the high authority of making laws for the church, and they ask nothing 
 of the people, because they are not accountable to them for any of their 
 acts. If such principles are to be silently instilled into the minds 
 of men, until the Methodists shall have members sufficient; with 
 the present form of church government, what are we to expect 
 from them, but to enforce obedience to the laws of the holy 
 church? Even now, they endeavour to deter us from reading the 
 Mutual Rights, by saying it is wicked, and that the reformers have 
 lost their religion. Our preacher and our presiding elder, strongly 
 intimated, and that from the pulpit, that "the reformers are influ- 
 enced by the devil." After a public assault of this sort, the 
 brother at Alexandria, reacted, so far only, as to forward to the 
 editors of the Mutual Rights, the paper above referred to, said to 
 have been written by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, accompanying it 
 with this brief account of the occasion which had induced him to 
 request its publication. We thought it a sufficiently mild rebuke 
 for the preacher and presiding elder. The occasion seemed to the 
 editorial committee, to call for it; not so much to protect reform 
 from such rude assaults, as to save the church from the scandal of 
 being subjected to the instruction and rule of men, who appeared 
 to have so little regard to their own dignity, and still less respect 
 to the feelings of those, who honestly differed from them in opinion 
 upon the subject of church government. If we were not at 
 liberty to publish such a rebuke, in reply to an accusation of being 
 influenced by the devil and destitute of religion, surely we "had 
 fallen upon evil times s " 
 
 CHAPTER XIV, 
 Mr. Joseph Walker's letter to the Editorial Committee. 
 
 Alabama, Dallas County, May 10th, 1826. 
 
 Dear Brethren, 
 
 "A few days ago, a friend put five or six numbers of the Mu- 
 tual Rights into my hand, to read. It gave me heartfelt satisfaction 
 to know, that the spirit of reformation is at work in our favoured 
 country, and especially, that it has begun in the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, where it is so much needed. When we look back 
 and think of the privations, and sufferings, and fightings, through 
 which our fathers struggled in the revolutionary war, for the at- 
 tainment of civil liberty, and religious mutual rights, and then turn 
 round and see all the principles of liberty trampled upon, by our 
 travelling preachers, in the conferences and in their administration 
 of church government, it is enough to grieve a heart of stone.' ' We 
 
118 
 
 can see nothing in Mr. Walker's letter from its commencement to 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in their conferences, and in their ad- 
 ministration of church government. But is this not true? The peo- 
 ple and local preachers have no participation in the deliberative or 
 legislative acts of the conferences; and the legislative, judicial and 
 executive powers, are all in the hands of the travelling preachers. 
 When it is considered that the great and fundamental principles of 
 civil liberty, are well understood by the people of the United States, 
 whilst at the same time the travelling preachers appear totally to 
 disregard them, in their conferences and in the administration of 
 church government; we cannot perceive that Mr. Walker's state- 
 ment is at all inconsistent with truth, or that his language is too 
 strong, when he says the principles of liberty are trampled upon by 
 the travelling preachers. This however was a very conspicuous 
 part of the alleged slander for the publication of which we were ex- 
 pelled. 
 
 "I can but weep to see our Zion so oppressed." The old patriot 
 seems to have understood the subject upon which he wrote. He 
 had read the paper on church rights. He had learned "that chris- 
 tian freedom is as truly the right of the church, as it is the right of 
 the state," — that "an association of millions of christians, under a 
 civil government of their own choice, would not constitute a free 
 christian community." That no community could be free, whilst 
 it is controlled by absolute rules; — that it could not "be safe, should 
 those rules intentionally or otherwise, give a wrong direction to the 
 multitude." He knew, that it was asserted by many, in and out of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, that the principles and actual 
 powers of that system of church government, may be compressed 
 into one short sentence. " All power must be in the hands of the 
 preachers; none in those of the members of the church." He knew, 
 "that the powers of the travelling preachers in the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, are as plenary as it is possible for them to be; — that 
 they can, not only legislate for the church without the consent of 
 the people or of the local preachers, but according to their disci- 
 pline, and their latest report on the subject of their powers, they 
 can make and unmake a constitution. He considered it a very se- 
 rious concern, that such amazing prerogatives should be lodged in 
 the hands of a few travelling preachers. He was informed, that a 
 vast amount of suffering and discontent were annually generated 
 under the existing regime, and that there was cause to fear, that the 
 minds of many, would become impatient of the irritating cause. 
 Therefore said he, "I can but weep to see our Zion so oppressed." 
 I am the son of an old patriot of Pennsylvania. I have been a 
 preacher in the Methodist Episcopil Church for more than twenty 
 years; have been ordained, Deacon and Elder. My house has been 
 all that time, a place of retreat and rest for the travelling preach- 
 ers, and of constant resort for the brethren. Having, therefore, 
 had frequent opportunities, I have intimated to bishops, presiding 
 
119 
 
 elders and travelling preachers, the propriety and necessity of re- 
 form. They have commonly replied, it might be right, perhaps, 
 and that those who wished reform, could withdraw, whenever they 
 might see proper. I was led to pause! I pondered within myself! 
 Oh, the depth of spiritual wickedness, apparently, in high places! 
 Oh, the curse of ingratitude! Good Heavens! thought I, filled with 
 astonishment! How many hundreds of dollars have I and many 
 others spent, for the exclusive use of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. She has been our constant care, and for her we have la- 
 boured twenty years and more, and never have received one dollar 
 of reward. Indeed, some of us, like the Apostle Paul, would 
 rather have died, than have been deprived of this our glorying in 
 the cross of Christ, And after all, if we object to our condition of 
 living under continual oppression and privation, we may go out 
 of society, in search of relief! And if we should take them at their 
 word and go, then our characters would be destroyed. Nothing 
 would save us from reproach, if we cease to be called by this name." 
 Who that is at all acquainted with the Methodist preachers and the 
 late expulsions and subsequent treatment of reformers, can doubt 
 the truth of any part of Mr. Walker's statement? Indeed the whole 
 is too true, and accords exactly with what occurred here in Balti- 
 more. And can any man of dignified feelings be surprised or of- 
 fended at the good old man's soliloquy. He felt himself an Ame- 
 rican citizen. He felt his right as a member and minister of the 
 church of Christ, and as one of Christ's freemen, to suggest to the 
 members of the legislature; — the "bishops, presiding elders, and 
 travelling preachers," the propriety of making some improvement 
 in their code of laws. Instead of treating him with common de- 
 cency, they let him know, if he did not cease to trouble them, he 
 might have leave to withdraw. "Oh!" said he to himself, "Oh, the 
 depth of spiritual wickedness, &c!" Oh, the curse of ingratitude, 
 &c. &c. Notwithstanding all his beneficence, care and toil for 
 the promotion of the interests of the church, he must not open his 
 mouth. If he dare to complain, he must withdraw. And because 
 we had the effrontery to publish the old oppressed brother's letter, 
 as if to give a thundering confirmation of the truth of the whole 
 matter, the agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church expelled us, 
 here in Baltimore, and in other places, and to destroy our charac- 
 ters tell the world they only exercised wholesome discipline, with 
 design to "defecate the church" of the authors and abetters of 
 slander, "of speaking evil of ministers!!" 
 
 "I was personally acquainted with Bishop Asbury. I have heard 
 him converse with the Rev. Hope Hull, who was a friend to re- 
 form; and I easily collected the information, that our church go- 
 vernment was framed chiefly by subjects of Great Britain. Of 
 course, I never wondered much, that such men should have shaped 
 their code, and made their ecclesiastical laws, according to their 
 own model. But when I consider, that nearly all our present 
 preachers are Americans; when I consider how excellent and pow- 
 erful is the republican spirit, which prevails in these United States, 
 and how equal the civil laws under which we live. When I see 
 
120 
 
 how carefully our civil and religious liberties are secured to the 
 people of every possible variety of denominations, I am compelled 
 to ask the question, is not the form of our church government and 
 the manner in which it is administered, an open insult to the con- 
 stitution of the United States? It surely is, and were it fully in- 
 vestigated and exposed to public view, such a despotic institution 
 would make a bad appearance before the observation of a religious 
 republic." We consider the condemnation of this truly patriotic 
 paper, as one of the strongest evidences of the necessity of reform 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The publication of this plain 
 and true exposition of the principles of Methodist Episcopal 
 Church government constituted an offence of the first magnitude. 
 And who will wonder at this, when it shall be understood, that some 
 of the same men who were engaged in the prosecution, have de- 
 voted themselves to the service of the same government, and engag- 
 ed in conducting a periodical to prove ''that in constituting this 
 Methodist Episcopal Church government, for the citizens of our 
 free republican country, the preachers from England had a right, 
 and were solemnly enjoined by the Scriptures, and the actual con- 
 dition of things, to give all power to an itinerant ministry; — that 
 bishops ought to have absolute power to appoint the preachers to 
 their labours, and to change them every year, or not, as the bishops 
 may please; — that these bishops have also a right to make sub- 
 bishops over the preachers, and remove these sub-bishops when 
 they choose; — that itinerant preachers alone ought to compose 
 Annual Conferences; — that they alone ought to be represented and 
 be the representatives of one another, in composing the General 
 Conference: — and that this general representative body, composed 
 of itinerant preachers only, representing one another after this 
 manner, ought to make and administer the rules of moral disci- 
 pline, and hold the titles to all church property; — that the itinerants 
 ought to appoint to all offices, or authorize and prescribe the mode 
 of all appointments; select all committees for the trial of alleged 
 immoralities, and preside at the trials. In a word, that itinerant 
 preachers ought to be absolute in power, and the people be in ab- 
 solute subjection." Surely all wise and candid men will admit, 
 that an honest and blunt man of the days of seventy-six, said truly, 
 that such an institution, set up in these United States, is "an open 
 insult to the constitution." 
 
 "The power of the Itinerancy in this part of the country, is al- 
 ready in a trembling condition." This certainly was true as far as 
 Mr. Walker's acquaintance extended: "all that is necessary, is, for 
 the people to be freed from the terrors of the gag-law." This 
 was a very offensive sentence. It calumniates the discipline by 
 calling one of its provisions the gag-law. It is nevertheless true. 
 And the expulsion of reformers in Baltimore, Cincinnati, North 
 Carolina, Tennessee, and Lynchburg, &lc. &c. will remain a per- 
 petual memorial of the true spirit and intention of the rule against 
 inveighing, &,c. — that it is intended to stop the mouths of all mem- 
 bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who may chance to feel 
 any objection to the absolute power of the itinerant preachers. 
 
121 
 
 "The people generally, think rightly if they only dare speak out. 
 For my part, I was born in the year 1776, and a warm current of 
 the blood of freemen, runs through my veins. I delight to enter- 
 tain a just sense of man's equal rights in church and state." This 
 sentence we will presume, led the Agent to insinuate that Mr. Wal- 
 ker wanted good ''manners." To talk about the blood of freemen 
 and equal rights in church and state! what clownish insolence! 
 "My son-in-law, Ebenezer Hern, is now and for several years has 
 been, a presiding elder in the Mississippi Conference; and my 
 oldest son, R. L. Walker, is a travelling preacher in the same con- 
 ference. These facts serve with other considerations, as you may 
 suppose, to make me more solicitous for a change in our church 
 government. For I do not wish to see any of my family, have a 
 part in holding the reins of a government, which is administered in 
 unrighteousness." That is, in violation of the plain principles of 
 justice and equal rights. The objection is specifically against the 
 government. His son-in-law, a presiding elder, his oldest son a 
 travelling preacher. Both participating in holding the reins of the 
 government, which in his opinion, is administered in unrighteous- 
 ness, because its powers and privileges are unequally distributed; — 
 because the power of the travelling preachers is absolute, and the 
 people and local preachers are made subject to their power; and 
 by the law against inveighing are forbidden to complain. 
 
 "There are many things which I would be glad to communicate. 
 But I am aware, that my zeal in so good a cause, after having been 
 so long suppressed, may be in danger of rising too high. I must, 
 therefore, come to a close." 
 
 "I send you ten dollars. You will be so good as to send me one 
 copy of your first volume; — if convenient, send it bound. Also, 
 six copies of your second volume. I have procured no subscri- 
 bers for them, as yet; but I will see to it, that they shall be well 
 circulated." This last clause, we conclude, was particularly offen- 
 sive. It told of a contribution of ten dollars, towards the exten- 
 sion of Mutual Rights. It promised diligence, in giving a good 
 circulation to the volumes which he had ordered to be forwarded. 
 He was in earnest, and his spirit was too independent, to escape 
 the notice and resentment of the Agent and prosecuting commit- 
 tee. But what is so offensive to these friends of clerical power, 
 our printing committee considered every way commendable in a 
 good citizen; — a proper expression of the feelings of Christ's free- 
 men, who in obedience to their Lord, refuse to call any man master. 
 
 "Any use you may think fit to make of these, my remarks, will 
 have my approbation. I try to live before God, independent of the 
 frowns or smiles of men. My name is Joseph Walker, my place 
 of residence is Dallas county, state of Alabama." Too indepen- 
 dent to be an acceptable member of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church! 
 
 "I will conclude with saying, that in the whole extent of my 
 reading, in ancient or modern history, I have not met with any no- 
 tice of a single order of people, except the Roman Catholics and 
 Methodists, whose preachers convene without the consent of the 
 
122 
 
 people, make laws for the government of the people, and after- 
 wards turn round and execute those laws. I have been wide awake 
 to the cause of reform, fifteen years or more. But the subject not 
 being popular, I have been compelled to speak of it, only in confi- 
 dence. Men of the best minds in our itinerancy, are of the same 
 opinion. How can it be otherwise? But supremacy and self-pre- 
 servation keep most of them silent. Let us be faithful to God, and 
 the cause of equal rights in the world, will be secured without firing 
 a gun or shedding of blood." 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Church, prove, that the pre- 
 paratory measures which served to establish the power of the bishops 
 and travelling preachers in the United States, were tainted with 
 acts of usurpation. 
 
 In Mr. Walker's letter, a reference is made to the origin of the 
 government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We will, there- 
 fore, present to our readers, a few things not generally known, or 
 if known, now generally forgotten, which will prove, that Mr. Wal- 
 ker's remarks are true and justifiable. They will serve, moreover, 
 to prepare for the reading of Luther, in his turn, whose paper is 
 represented by the writer of the Narrative and Defence, to consist 
 of the ravings of a madman. 
 
 We learn from the general minutes, that the first Methodist Con- 
 ference in America, was held in Philadelphia, in the year 1773. 
 The minute says, this Conference consisted of ten travelling 
 preachers. A careful examination of the subject, has convinced us 
 that six only, and these all Englishmen, were the acting members 
 of the Conference; Thomas Rankin, George Shadford, John King, 
 Francis Asbury, Richard Wright and Robert Williams. Lee's his- 
 tory says, this conference consisted of six or seven travelling 
 preachers. The apparent uncertainty, about six or seven, grew 
 out of the fact, that the name of Robert Strawbridge, an Irishman, 
 and successful local preacher, of Pipe Creek, Frederick county, 
 Maryland, is placed on the minute, as if one of their body. In the 
 minute of 1774, his name is not found. In the year 1775, he ap- 
 pears to have been stationed in his own county. After that date, 
 his name is no more to be seen. With Mr. Lee, therefore, we 
 doubt the propriety of reckoning more than six. The remaining 
 three, William Waters, Abraham Whitworth, and Joseph Yearby, 
 were young men received that year on trial, and admitted into the 
 connexion the following year. The six English preachers, with 
 Robert Strawbridge, the local preacher, including the three young 
 men, make up the account of ten, as constituting the conference. 
 Before this conference of six, or seven British subjects, three great 
 questions were proposed and answered; — answered, it would seem, 
 by the six Englishmen It would have been useless for Mr. Straw- 
 
123 
 
 bridge, to have objected to their views: and it is not probable, that 
 any one of the three young men, just received on trial, was pre- 
 pared to look forward to ultimate consequences, or to make objec- 
 tions to the resolutions of those, from whom they were ready to 
 receive instruction. 
 
 The first question was, "ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley, 
 and that Conference, to extend to the preachers and people in Ame- 
 rica, as well as in Great Britain and Ireland.* In couse, the Eng- 
 lish preachers answered, yes. And the remaining four thought of 
 no other answer. 
 
 The societies at that time amounted to eleven hundred and sixty. 
 But they had no part in the transaction. The six, or seven, or ten 
 preachers determined for them and all others who might afterwards 
 be disposed to unite with them, that the whole of them should be 
 subject to "the authority of Mr. Wesley, and that Conference." 
 
 The second great question proposed was: "ought not the doc- 
 trine and discipline of the Methodists, as contained in the minutes, 
 to be the sole rule of our conduct, who labour in the connex- 
 ion with Mr. Wesley, in America?" To this question they all an- 
 swered, "yes." Reformers think, the word of God ought to have 
 been the sole rule of their conduct, and not "the command- 
 ments of men." By the first question and answer, they had "as- 
 sumed" the prerogative, to subject all the American preachers and 
 people, who had associated as Methodists, and all who might be in- 
 clined to unite with them, to "the authority of Mr. Wesley, and that 
 conference." By the second question and answer, they "assumed" 
 the high prerogative of prescribing to all American Methodist 
 preachers the "sole rule of their conduct." 
 
 The third great question, which was proposed as being infera- 
 ble from the two preceding, evinces their despotic character and 
 design; and reads as follows, viz: "If so, does it not follow, that 
 if any preachers deviate from the minutes, we can have no fellow- 
 ship with them till they change their conduct?" To this again they 
 answered, "yes." Now to place these proceedings in their pro- 
 per light, let it be recollected, that the Methodist Societies under 
 the authority of Mr. Wesley, in England, &c. did not constitute a 
 church, separate and distinct from the estsblished church of Eng- 
 land; they were generally made up of members of the church. 
 Mr. Wesley, was a regularly ordained presbyter of the national 
 establishment. It was, therefore, a very large "assumption" of au- 
 thority in the case of Mr. Wesley himself, in Great Britain, to re- 
 quire the submission of a people, under the pastoral care of other 
 ministers. But when these six Englishmen crossed the Atlantic, 
 assembled themselves in Philadelphia, and placing themselves un- 
 der the ban of Mr. Wesley's authority in England, asserted their 
 intention to rule over all the Methodist preachers and societies 
 then existing, or that might ever afterwards have an existence in 
 America; — this was "framing a church government, it was shaping 
 
 * This was the first formal assumption of these high prerogatives. 
 
124 
 
 a code and making ecclesiastical laws, according to their own 
 model," sure enough. Our brother Walker's view is correct. 
 
 The authority of this first conference, commenced as above stat- 
 ed, and the dictatorial attitude which these six Englishmen then 
 assumed, was so continued and made efficient in the training and 
 management of the young preachers raised up in America, and in 
 the formation and drilling of the societies through their instru- 
 mentality, that within the term of little more than twelve years, 
 things were in readiness for the formation of an establishment, by 
 which all power is placed in the hands of the travelling preachers, 
 and through which, they have gained a degree of ascendency over 
 the people, sufficient to induce them, "without any itinerant sug- 
 gestion or influence whatever," to expel from their communion, 
 faithful servants of Jesus Christ, for having the boldness to call in 
 question, the legitimacy or reasonableness, of a system of church 
 government which still retains the powers so "assumed." 
 
 The mighty influence of these English preachers, and their man- 
 ner of exercising it in view of its ultimate object, will be more 
 satisfactorily understood by attending to an additional sketch or 
 two from the history of those early times. 
 
 From the date 1773, the revolutionary troubles interrupted the 
 progress of the work for several years; and we read in the preface 
 of Lee's History of the Methodists, &c. page 5, "there have been, 
 in general, very many errors and imperfections in the minutes of 
 the Annual Conferences." We shall therefore take no notice of 
 them from the year 1773 till 1779. In this year, 1779, two con- 
 ferences \yere held. One at Mr. F. White's in Delaware, the place 
 of Mr. Asbury's retirement; — the other at the Broken Back church, 
 in Fluvanna County, Virginia. According to the large minutes 
 which were published in 1813, it appears that on the 28th April, 
 1779, sixteen preachers attended the conference at Mr. White's; 
 and thirty-two at the Broken-back church, on the 18th of May fol- 
 lowing; — twenty-two days only, after the conference at Mr. White's. 
 The number of preachers reckoned for the two conferences is 
 forty-nine.* We have been told, however, that the conference at 
 Mr. White's, was attended by Freeborn Garretson, Joseph Hartly, 
 William Glendenning, Daniel Ruff, Joseph Cromwell, Thomas S. 
 Chew, Thomas McClure, Caleb B. Peddicord, John Cooper, Wil- 
 liam Gill, and William Waters, who, together with Mr. Asbury, 
 made up twelve in number. If this communication was errone- 
 ous, and the true number was sixteen, it will not materially change 
 the view which we propose to take of these two conferences. 
 
 The conference at Mr. White's, was convoked by Mr. Asbury, 
 and if sixteen in number, it consisted of less than one third of all 
 the preachers who ought to have been present, in order to do the 
 weighty business which was done by them. 
 
 One of the questions proposed and answered, was as follows, viz: 
 
 "Ought not brother Asbury to act as General Assistant in 
 America? 
 
 'There must have been one absent, whose name was afterwards inserted. 
 
125 
 
 Ans. He ought. 1st. On account of his age. 2d. Because 
 originally appointed by Mr. Wesley. 3d. Being joined with Messrs* 
 Rankin and Shad ford, by express order from Mr. Wesley." 
 
 Another question proposed and answered by the same confer- 
 ence, was as follows, viz: 
 
 "How far shall his (brother Asbury's) power extend? 
 
 Ans. On hearing every preacher for and against what is in de- 
 bate; the right of determination shall rest with him, according to 
 the minutes." That is, his power in America, shall be equal to Mr. 
 Wesley'3, in England. 
 
 The appointment of a General Assistant, and the adoption of a 
 resolution conferring upon him such plenary power, was an act of 
 the greatest importance. At the time when this was done by 
 eleven, or if we admit it, by fifteen, there were thirty-two other 
 preachers, all absent. But the eleven, or say fifteen, "assumed" 
 the prerogative to say for the whole forty-nine, that Mr. Asbury 
 "ought" to rule over them all, after the manner above stated. To 
 judge rightly of the extent of this "assumption" it must be recol- 
 lected, that the regular conference* was expected to meet in about 
 twenty days, in Fluvanna County, Virginia, where, in fact, thirty- 
 two did meet, and passed resolutions and adopted measures, pro- 
 mising to be more consistent with independent American views of 
 church government. To make this measure plausible, Mr. Asbury 
 held out this conference as one preparatory to the conference at 
 Broken-back church, and appealed to a similar - instance in Mr. 
 Wesley's administration, in England: — not seeming to have per- 
 ceived, that his appeal implicated his assumption of a standing 
 parallel with that of Mr. Wesley. And it is the assumption of 
 which we complain. 
 
 In 1780, 24th April, a part of the preachers met in Baltimore, it 
 would seem at the instance and under the special influence of Mr. 
 Asbury. Shall not this conference be considered to have been a 
 preparatory one, as well as that which met the year preceding, at 
 Mr. White's? The regularly appointed conference,- was expected 
 to meet at the Manakin town, in Virginia, on the 8th day of the 
 next month, two weeks from that time. This second preparatory 
 conference, was composed of about fourteen or fifteen young men, 
 nine of whom attended the conference at Mr. White's. To these 
 nine were added Messrs. John Hagerty, Richard Garretson, Mi- 
 cajah Debruler, Joshua Dudley, Philip Cox, perhaps, and John 
 Tunnell. The large minutes would lead to the supposition that 
 the conference consisted of twenty-four. But there were at least 
 five young men received on trial, which would make the number of 
 acting members to be nineteen. The minute seems to be marked 
 with uncertainty. It is obvious, however, that the whole number 
 of the preachers as stated for the year 1780, is forty-two. In 
 course that nineteen of them met in Baltimore; — we will say nine- 
 
 * Freeborn Garretson, in his last letter, recognizes this as the regular con- 
 ference. 
 
 17 
 
126 
 
 teen, in order to conform to the minute, and these nineteen "as- 
 sumed" the power to "nullify" the proceedings of the regular con- 
 ference; — of the thirty-two who met the preceding year, at the Bro- 
 ken-back church, in Virginia. 
 
 Three questions were proposed and answered in accomplishing 
 this nullification, viz: 
 
 "Quest. 20. Does this whole conference," [all these nineteen 
 preachers,] disapprove the step our brethren have taken in Vir- 
 ginia? 
 
 Ans. Yes. 
 
 Quest. 21. Do we look upon them no longer as Methodists, in 
 connexion with Mr. Wesley and us, till they come back? 
 Ans. Agreed. 
 
 Quest. 26. What must be the conditions of our union with our 
 Virginia brethren? 
 
 Ans. To suspend all their administrations for one year, and all 
 meet together in Baltimore." 
 
 And was not this, the most absolute dictation? To us it has that 
 appearance. 
 
 Mr. Asbury's influence must have been very considerable, or he 
 could not have succeeded in carrying into effect, measures so in- 
 consistent with the rights of the preachers. Under that influence 
 a few of them "assumed" the right to act tor the whole, in declar- 
 ing him the general assistant and in awarding to him a degree of 
 power, totally incompatible with American views of government 
 of any kind. Under the same influence, another preparatory con- 
 ference "assumed" the right to nullify the proceedings of a majority, 
 and actually to declare the majority excluded from the fellowship of 
 Mr. Wesley and themselves, unless they would submit to the dic- 
 tation of the minority, and show their obedience by a strict regard 
 of that dictation for one year, and then present themselves at Bal- 
 timore, ready for further orders. 
 
 The Virginians, although they had some disposition to assert 
 their rights, were not able to resist the influence of Mr. Asbury, 
 whose authority was already admitted by the preachers to the 
 North. We read in Lee's history, page 73, that-Mr. Asbury "met 
 with the preachers in Conference at Baltimore, as has been already 
 mentioned. He then visited his brethren in Virginia, and attend- 
 ed the Conference at the "Manakin town," * * * and "had to exert 
 all his powers, and to use all possible prudence, in order to bring 
 about a settled peace and union among all the preachers." He 
 might have said in order to bring all the preachers into the state of sub- 
 mission, proposed and established by the eleven, at Mr. Whites. 
 It would seem, that the Virginians could not perceive at first sight, 
 the weight of the reasons assigned for making Mr. Asbury general 
 assistant, and clothing him with absolute power. The eleven had 
 said he "ought" to act in that capacity, because of his age. And 
 how old was he? In 1771, when he came to America, he was 
 twenty-six. In 1779, he was thirty-four. Virginians could not 
 feel sufficient weight in thirty-four years, to justify the appointment. 
 But the eleven had two additional reasons, or at the least, one ad- 
 
127 
 
 ditional reason, twice told, so as to seem to have had three. They 
 said he ought to act as general assistant, because he "was original- 
 ly appointed by Mr. Wesley." Virginians knew, that Mr. Wesley, 
 did not originally appoint him to act as general assistant, but as an 
 assistant only, and as inferior to Mr. Rankin. But to guard against 
 this exception, which appears to have been anticipated by them, 
 they state the reason over again, and admit the truth of the case, 
 as if it were a third reason, and say, "he ought to act as general 
 assistant, because he was joined with Messrs. Rankin and Shadford, 
 by express order from Mr. Wesley." Virginians knew, that Mr. 
 Wesley appointed one general assistant, and no more; — Mr. Ran- 
 kin; and that Messrs. Shadford and Asbury, were assistants to Mr. 
 Rankin. They were not misinformed in respect to this matter. Mr. 
 Rankin travelled at large himself, and appointed to Messrs. Shad- 
 ford and Asbury, from year to year, their respective circuits and 
 stations. As to the motive of Mr. Asbury, and those entering into 
 his views, in aiding and sustaining him in these measures, by which 
 he was daily gaining new accessions of power, we shall say nothing 
 to the disparagement of his reputation. Mr. Wesley, had set 
 the dictatorial example. Mr. Asbury, thought it best to follow on 
 in his footsteps; — and, that he considered his course to be apos- 
 tolical, his own journal bears ample testimony. But in view of 
 the principles of government, it is undeniably true, that he had 
 not any other than an "assumed" authority, to convoke and organ- 
 ize a conference of twelve of the preachers, when the whole num- 
 ber of them was forty-nine. And when it is considered, that this 
 "assumption" was intended to forestall the regular conference, that 
 was so soon to meet at Broken-back church, we are compelled to 
 feel toward the measure, the greater objection. This unauthorized 
 conference, had no right to appoint Mr. Asbury, general assistant. 
 The writer of the minute seems to have been conscious of this, 
 and the questions which were proposed and answered by the Eng- 
 lishmen in 1773, as well as those which were proposed and an- 
 swered at Mr. Asbury's conference, at Mr. White's, were framed 
 accordingly. When they had respect to the authority of the 
 preachers, in the instance of 1773, and to the appointment of Mr. 
 Asbury, in the instance of the Delaware conference; they were 
 made to read thus. "Ought not the authority, &c?" "Ought not 
 the doctrine," &,c. And "ought not brother Asbury, to act 
 as general assistant in America?" As if it were a matter of 
 doubt. And yet their decisions were acts of legislative pur- 
 pose; and the question, which was intended to mark the ex- 
 tent of Mr. Asbury's power, is obviously imperative; as thus: 
 "How far shall his power extend? The conference which was 
 convened at Baltimore, consisting only of a part of the preachers, 
 and obviously intended to forestall the depending conference at 
 the Manakin town, had none other than an "assumed" authority to 
 nullify the proceedings of the majority at Broken-back church. 
 Nevertheless, things went on after this manner, and Mr. Asbury 
 continued to gain such an ascendency over the South, as well as 
 over the North, that as early as the year 1782, he had pretty well 
 
128 
 
 secured all that was necessary. "The conference in the North, 
 says Mr. Lee "was of the longest standing, composed of the oldest 
 preachers; it was allowed greater privileges than that in the South; 
 especially in making rules and forming regulations for the societies. 
 Accordingly, when any thing was agreed to, in the Virginia con- 
 ference, and afterwards disapproved of, in the Baltimore confer- 
 ence, it was dropped. But if any rule was fixed on at the Balti- 
 more conference, the preachers in the South were under the neces- 
 sity of abiding by it." With these things in view, we cannot be 
 surprized, that the preachers were prepared by the year 1784, for 
 the adoption of an episcopal form of church government so con- 
 structed, as to exclude the people and local preachers from their 
 conferences, and secure to themselves and their successors, all 
 power to legislate, and all authority to execute the discipline of 
 their church. 
 
 It is due to the lay brethren, to state, that all these matters were 
 conducted by the preachers alone. The people had no part or lot 
 in the matter. And we have no desire to bring them into view at 
 this time. But the bare insinuation, that the powers of the preach- 
 ers had been "assumed" seems to have provoked the Agent to ac- 
 cuse us with having alleged things against the "fathers" which we 
 ourselves did not believe to be true; — we have, therefore, given this 
 sketch, in order to shew to him and others, that the kind of "intre- 
 pedity" with which he has attempted to impugn us, will not apply 
 quite as well as he expected. Besides, a recollection of these 
 things, as they occurred at the commencement of the establish- 
 ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, will be useful, as we 
 pass on through the remainder of our work. 
 
 This account of early times, will justify many of the remaining 
 extracts, for the publication of which we were expelled, and which 
 have been thought offensive by some well meaning people, because 
 they were unacquainted with the considerations which induced us 
 to give them admission into the periodical. Such was the case with 
 many in respect to the paper which will be the subject of the fol- 
 lowing chapter. The writer who took the signature of Luther, re- 
 sided in North Carolina. His paper was printed in the October 
 number of the Mutual Rights, 1826. Reformers had then been 
 expelled in Tennessee, and in North Carolina, in the neighbour- 
 hood of Luther. The preachers in authority there, were inclined 
 to deal very roughly with the friends of reform. The reader, there- 
 fore, will expect to meet with warmth; — with signs of excitement, 
 corresponding to such lofty proceedings on the part of the men in 
 power. And it is important that it should be understood, that Re- 
 formers, even in the judgment of the prosecutors, had at that time 
 done nothing worse than publish and read the papers on church 
 property by Mr. Snethen, and on the expediency of representation 
 by Nehemiah,* and they were beginning to form Union Societies. 
 And for these, the authority-men began to expel us. This subject 
 will be resumed in another place. 
 
 Those two papers are all that were indicated of earlier date than Luthers. 
 
129 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Luther on Representation; — the paper which the Agent considered to 
 contain "denunciations and invectives, which might have been taken 
 for the ravings of a madman." 
 
 This chapter presents not only the parts of Luther, which were 
 "indicated," but the paper very nearly entire. A few comments are 
 interspersed to aid the reader in perceiving the grounds of its jus- 
 tification. 
 
 "With much interest I have perused several numbers of your 
 Mutual Rights. The friends of reform speak very intelligibly the 
 language of the American family. They reiterate the theme of 
 those who gloriously repose in the stillness of Thermopylae, Mar- 
 athon, Chasronaea, Pharsalia, Monmoth. They resist the same prin- 
 ciple which slew the Martyrs, slaughtered Poland, assailed Ame- 
 rica, and was vanguished. "That principle is despotism." And is 
 not this assertion true? What is despotism? It is absolute power; 
 it is authority unlimited and uncontrolled by men, constitution or laws. 
 This principle, reformers resist. In resisting this principle, they 
 "speak very intelligibly the language of the American people; — 
 they resist the same principle, which slew the Martyrs," &c. &c. 
 Dare any man say, these propositions are not true? And who 
 could have believed, when this paper was published, that we would 
 be expelled for publishing such true propositions. "At this plain 
 word some will cry out treason; or what is tantamount, apostacy." 
 The writer of the Narrative and Defence ; says, "we learn from this 
 writer, that the Methodist Episcopal Church is, such a despotism 
 as was resisted by the Greeks and Romans, and by the Americans 
 at Monmoth. This declaration grossly misrepresents Luther. Dr. 
 Bond identifies the Methodist Episcopal Church with the princi- 
 ple — or at the least, he accuses Luther with saying that the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church "is predicated on the same principle, fyc. 
 The candid reader cannot fail to perceive, that Luther intended to 
 keep up a marked distinction between the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, as a body of christians, and the government or church 
 polity, by which its moral discipline is administered, and its pow- 
 ers and prerogatives dispensed. Nay more, he intended a further 
 and very satisfactory distinction, between the government in view 
 of its commendable principles as well as such of its operations as 
 are proper for the purpose of spreading religion, and this one ob- 
 jectionable principle which very much mars its beauty, in the opin- 
 ion of all lovers of liberty. He says in effect, that the principle of 
 despotism, by some means has been permitted to find a place in the 
 government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and this despo- 
 tic principle in the government, the reformers oppose. And is 
 this slander? Is this an offence for which it was right to excom- 
 municate reformers out of the church? Let Luther, now speak for 
 himself. "Oh Messrs. Editors! how profoundly I regret, that truth 
 will apply this hateful characteristic to any part of Methodistical 
 
130 
 
 polity, the searcher of hearts alone can tell." Can any thing be 
 more clear, than that he intends to refer the imputation, specifical- 
 ly and exclusively to the "polity" of the church? But Dr. Bond 
 tells the people, who "never have read the Mutual Rights at 
 all," that the imputation is charged upon the church. "For 
 sixteen years have the sympathies of my heart, and the ener- 
 gies of my mind been deeply interested in behalf of our Zion. 
 During that time, I have lingered, with fond solicitude about the 
 outer courts, (not having shared in her councils, though of her 
 priesthood;) I have willingly hewn her wood and drawn her water; 
 all the while hoping, that her leading chieftains would roll away 
 this reproach from her honour, banish this cloud from her beauty, 
 purge this poison from her vitals, * * * * and enable her to walk 
 forth in all her native beauty, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and 
 terrible as an army with banners; the praise of the whole earth." 
 Very differently from the unjust distortions of doctor Bond, the 
 printing committee learned from the foregoing clause, that in Lu- 
 <iher's opinion, the Methodist Episcopal Church had honour and 
 native beauty sufficient to make her the praise of the whole earth. 
 But that her honour was sullied and her beauty defaced, by having 
 admitted the principle of despotism into her polity. And was it the 
 duty of the printing committee to consider this to be vehement rail- 
 ing?" Until the last General Conference, I viewed this despotic trait 
 in her polity, as the offspring of casualties; a sort of wild exotic, 
 which by some mishap had sprung up in the garden of the Lord: 
 a wandering demon, which had insinuated himself into our para- 
 dise, unobserved; and like Milton's toad at the ear of Eve, infused 
 into the genius of our church, portentous dreams and dreary 
 visions.* I looked to that General Conference, for an achievement 
 worthy of primitive Christianity and American Methodists. My 
 fond imagination displayed to my view, an august assembly of holy 
 men, hurling this monster (despotism) from the heights of their 
 Salem, a spectacle to an admiring nation. But oh! cruel disap- 
 pointment! Methodism has lost one of her richest laurels. Never 
 did an epoch of her history, give to her rulers, so distinguished an 
 opportunity of shedding an immortal lustre upon her own name and 
 their own memories. But that circular, the ominous offspring of 
 her labour, too barren to merit citicism, serves only to mortify the 
 best friends of Methodism, and legalize oppression." Here the 
 extract takes a leap over a page and a half of matter, which 
 did not suit the purpose of the agent. We will supply it, as fur- 
 nishing the most satisfactory explanation of the justifiableness of 
 the paper. "It, (the circular of the General Conference,) finds a 
 suitable helpmate, a sort of counter part, in the barren specula- 
 tions of doctor Armistead, with this difference; — in the former, 
 we have a skeleton or a pile of bones in plain attire; in the latter, 
 we have the same thing in meretricious ornaments. But neither 
 
 *Fora more perfect understanding 1 of all these figures, and of the previous 
 imputation of despotism, we refer the reader to his recollections of 1773, 
 and 1779, &c. &c. 
 
131 
 
 the simplicities of the one, nor the frivolities of the other, I trust, 
 will ever reconcile any well informed American, to that monster, 
 (despotism) which for so many ages, has fattened the fowls of the 
 air with the flesh of fallen mortals, and drenched the earth with 
 their blood. Think not Messrs. Editors, that I identify the men 
 with theprinciple, or the church with either, (the principle or the 
 men.) For the men, I have a heart full of brotherly charities; — 
 for the principle, a lash of scorpions; — for the church, my best 
 affections. By the church, I mean Christ's Eccleisa, or called out 
 of which, he is the only head; and to which bishops, elders, dea- 
 cons and private members, bear subordinate relations, for the work 
 of the ministry, for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of 
 the body of Christ. I admit that a church is a visible Theocracy, 
 and in this particular, it differs from all other associated commu- 
 nities; — that its divine founder and supreme head, holds in his 
 own hand, all that is necessary to its real being; — such as the 
 principle of life, by which it is sustained; — the principle of love, 
 by which it is united; — the power by which it is defended; — and 
 the sanctity by which it is made worthy of himself. Bishops or 
 elders, and deacons, are properly servants (not lords) of this body, 
 more or less obligated, in proportion to the qualifications conferred 
 on them, by the Supreme Head. On each of those, power is con- 
 ferred for the duties required. This, I presume, is pleasant doc- 
 trine; be it so. The duty required of every christian minister is, 
 to help his fellow men to Heaven; and his obligations are in pro- 
 portion to his ability. The most effectual help in this great matter 
 is, to use those efforts which will most effectually produce heaven- 
 ly mindedness, purity of heart, and a likeness to God, in others. 
 And among the various qualifications of a christian minister, no 
 one will be found more potent for this purpose, than a luminous 
 exemplification in his own life, of the heavenly simplicity he incul- 
 cates on others; while but few things can more effectually, thwart 
 his usefulness, than an arbitrary dictatorial manner, or domineering 
 attitude towards others. There is a nameless something in our 
 nature, depraved as it is, which feels the potent allurement of 
 heavenly suavity and christian condescention; and in the same 
 proportion, that something, feels an unconquerable repugnance to 
 all that is dictatorial and lording. That domination which is odi- 
 ous and injurious in one man, is more so in a multitude; — unless 
 we admit that numbers sanctify enormities. The church is the 
 family of Christ; the more freely the members of this spiritual 
 household commingle in domestic consultations and enterprizes, 
 the more peaceably, harmoniously and safely, will they glide along 
 the stream of time to endless rest. 
 
 Invidious distinctions are especially dangerous to christian com- 
 munities, because self denial, heavenly simplicity and brotherly 
 equality, are prominent features of the christian religion; and the 
 opposites of these, wherever they occur, destroy christian confi- 
 dence and sever the bonds of union and love." Here we pause to 
 ask what part of this paper so far as we have gone over it, as an 
 editorial committee, we could have found cause to reject. Our 
 
132 
 
 periodical was open for the investigation of church polity, and 
 particularly for the admission of suitable essays in favour of mu- 
 tual rights and a lay-delegation to the General Conference of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. And if we were not at liberty to 
 admit such a paper as this one by Luther, it is obvious we were 
 not at liberty to investigate the subject at all. And, by the by, it 
 was the object of the prosecutions, to prevent the further publica- 
 tion of papers like this. If permitted, they would inevitably have 
 been fatal to clerical ambition. 
 
 "Upon what principle the General Conference, the great legis- 
 lative council of our church, pretend to imagine, that the final ex- 
 clusion of a vast majority of the ministry, and all the laity from 
 their deliberations, can subserve the cause of godliness in the 
 United States, I cannot conjecture. The General Conference is 
 composed of men, selected from the itinerancy, headed by an epis- 
 copacy for life. They are only accountable for their acts, to the 
 authority which clothed them with representative power, that is 
 the itinerancy: if their legislative acts had an exclusive reference 
 to the itinerants, their only constituents, their authority would 
 claim the sanctions of liberality and justice. But this is not the case, 
 and when those representatives of the itinerants, who alone elect 
 them, presume to legislate for all the locality and laity of the Me- 
 thodist Church, what assumption can be more unwarrantable, what 
 system more oppressive? In case of grievance, where shall the 
 locality and laity look for redress? They have no check upon their 
 law-givers. The members of the General Conference are all pledg- 
 ed to their itinerant brethren, who send them there; and the itin- 
 erancy in mass, are all indirectly pledged to the episcopacy: hence 
 the episcopacy is frequently strengthened and the itinerancy is always 
 guarded; but the rights of the laity and locality are trampled upon." 
 This is true. Witness the report of the General Conference, 
 1824, which in view of a claim to the rights of the laity and locali- 
 ty says, "pardon us if we know no suck Rights." "The truth is, 
 the laity and locality have no representation on that floor (the 
 General Conference) no advocates to plead their cause. These 
 
 REMARKS HAVE NO REFERENCE TO THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THE 
 
 general conference; for. however holy that body may be, it is 
 no impeachment of thir goodness to suppose, that men so entirely 
 divested of the cares of life, as they are, cannot be qualified to 
 legislate usefully, for those who are variously related to civil and 
 religious society, as the locality and laity are. To legislate use- 
 fully for others, we must not only see, but feel; we must not only 
 know, what will be fit, but what will be pleasant or painful, pernici- 
 ous or profitable. But ail this, by some will be thought irrelevant. 
 We disclaim, say they, any interference with your civil rights, and 
 our clerical authority we derive from God. * * * But Messrs. 
 Editors, who shall draw the discriminating line between civil and 
 religious rights; and after it is drawn, what layman of an enlight- 
 ened mind and heavenly soul, will suffer any band of legislative 
 volunteers, to regulate the policy of his eternal state, at their own 
 discretion, while he stands ready to be immolated on the altar of 
 
133 
 
 freedom, rather than suffer an officious despot to point his course 
 through this transient vale of tears? Oh! is the religion of Jesus, 
 with all its enrapturing joys; the soul with all its indescribable 
 powers; heaven with all its inconceivable glories; and hell with all 
 its unutterable horrors; are these malters so trivial, that we leave 
 them to the winds; — to the speculations of self-created conclaves, 
 while we guard the sanctuary of our civil rights, so inviolably? Il- 
 lustrious prophets and martyrs, had you been thus pliant, instead of 
 sailing through the bloody storms of time to endless rest, you had 
 smoothly glided down to hell; instead of leaving your track to glory 
 a living galaxy of heavenly light, the heavy clouds of the second 
 death, would now fling their thunders upon your weather beaten 
 spirits; instead of handing down to posterity the word of life., pure 
 and undefiled, you had bequeathed to the world, a darkness more 
 dreary than that which fell on ancient Egypt. But, ye reverend 
 spirits of Europe and Asia, you have fought the good fight, and 
 laid hold upon eternal life. It is for us, American Methodists, to 
 prostrate ourselves at the foot of a spiritual aristocracy, and say, 
 let us eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; but let us be 
 called by your name. It is for us to cower at the foot of that prin- 
 ciple in ecclesiastics, which was chastised by our our forefathers 
 upon the agents of a civil despot. It is for us Methodists, to take 
 the humiliating responsibility, of shamelessly encouraging a spirit- 
 ual domination, in the face of free Americans! It is for us, the 
 emancipated sons of conquering chieftains, to rivet those chains 
 upon our descendants, which were torn from our hands; — if we 
 only give them the name of religion. Names, Messrs. Editors, 
 are very influential with many; and but for the name, this despotic 
 trait in our church polity, had long since waked up the solici- 
 tude of every friend of Methodism in the United States. It is 
 called "ministerial authority." "The right of the itin- 
 erancy," &,c. A despotism is not virtually changed, in my esti- 
 mation, because it falls into the hands of ecclesiastics; neither will 
 the goodness of the ecclesiastics change its nature. This may re- 
 strain its violence. Despotism in the hands of a good man, is like 
 a sword in the hands of a son of peace: while it rests there, it is 
 not felt, but when he hands it over to a warlike successor, it wastes 
 the earth. The irresponsible authority of the General Conference, 
 to say the least of it, is a dangerous precedent under a free govern- 
 ment. It may be equally injurious to the morals of those who 
 hold it, as to the rights of those who are to suffer by its exercise. 
 The moderation of former conferences, is no security against the 
 abuses of those to come. The bishops of Rome were anciently 
 moderate, good men; in succeeding ages, they became the pests 
 of the earth, and the scourges of mankind. The plea of goodness 
 in behalf of ihe itinerants, is one of the most powerful arguments 
 used in favour of their authority. With all the goodness of the 
 itinerants, to which I would gladly subscribe, abuses already exist, 
 which loudly call for a check or balance, from some other depart- 
 ment of the church. * * * * Power to serve the church, and power 
 18 
 
134 
 
 to command it, are different things. The delegates of the church, 
 would be really her servants, because she could control them. The 
 delegates of the itinerancy may be her lords, because in matters of 
 legislation, under the present state of things, they may bid her de- 
 fiance. 
 
 What extent of power is absolutely necessary to the ambas- 
 sador of Christ? As the legate of heaven, he can only make 
 known to men, the terms of reconciliation with their God, and urge 
 motives to induce a compliance. As the servant of the church, he 
 should preach the word, administer the sacraments, receive the 
 worthy to her communion, pronounce her sentence on the refrac- 
 tory, and in all things, present in his own life, a sample of piety to 
 his flock; and he who craves more power than this, i3 unworthy of any 
 in the church of Christ. In all matters of vital importance, the 
 scriptures of truth are sufficiently explicit, and beyond them in 
 such matters, no one should dare presume to go. In business of mere 
 economy, and such we consider the business of the General Con- 
 ference, it certainly would be for the honour and interest of the 
 church, to have all her departments represented upon a fair ratio. 
 Then men of the same grade would be eligible to the same rights, 
 and the joint deliberations of all the departments, would abundant- 
 ly strengthen the bonds of union in the church." What candid 
 man will say that Luther's paper ought to have been rejected on 
 account of any thing it contains to the end of the above quotation? 
 The garbled fragments extracted by the agent, needed only to be 
 replaced in their proper connexions, to render them perfectly in- 
 offensive to any, but those who were morbidly sensative on the 
 subject of the Methodist Episcopal Church government, and even 
 to those we cannot see why they were offensive, except only, that 
 the truths they contain, were improperly disagreeable. 
 
 "But Messrs. Editors, valuable as your paper is, the friends of 
 reform must appeal to the public through other mediums, in union 
 with that. You encounter a well organized, artful, enterprizing 
 opposition, which spreads through almost every city, village and 
 neighbourhood, from Maine to Georgia." That this statement is 
 true, let the Narrative and Defence and this Review be two wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 "Their first effort is to conceal to the utmost, the disquietudes 
 and grievances which exist in our church, and to lull a spirit of in- 
 quiry to rest." Every careful observer of their conduct, knows this 
 likewise to be true. "Where this is impracticable, they arraign the 
 motives of the reformers with uncharitable, with uncivil severity." 
 Considering that they affect to have expelled the reformers here and 
 elsewhere, for evil speaking, this last sentence is a truth calculated 
 to excite astonishment. "Your own paper, if I have not been 
 sadly misinformed, having been branded as a sort of libel upon the 
 church, published by deperate designers, has been kept out of the 
 hands of valuable men to whom it was addressed, and left to linger 
 in post offices. Oh! how I regret to know the men, and the character 
 they sustain in society, who are employed in this midnight stabbing." 
 This figure is strong, but its meaning is defined, and its application 
 
135 
 
 specified. We looked at it with attention before it was published. 
 We thought it severe, but knew it was true. In too many instan- 
 ces our paper was "left to linger in post offices," and one postmas- 
 ter told us, he had burned or otherwise destroyed some of our pa- 
 pers, which had to pass through his hands, alleging as his apology, 
 that he did not wish to see the peace of the church disturbed, by 
 the introduction of the Mutual Rights into that neighbourhood. 
 This was the kind of secret operations, which Luther intended to 
 rebuke, and which the committee, for the reasons above stated, 
 thought it right to permit him to rebuke in the figurative language 
 of midnight stabbing." "Could I believe in transmigration, I might 
 imagine that some of the Jesuits expelled from Europe, had taken 
 
 up their residence in the bodies of some I in the 
 
 United States." Dr. Bond spells out the I and nine 
 
 points, and makes them read Itinerants. But as the abuse refers to 
 wilful delays or other misconduct in post offices, &c. it is as sen- 
 sibly spelled out, interested. It is a point of no importance now, 
 who did it; and it is obvious, that the post master to whom we al- 
 lude above, and who was once an itinerant, thought he had a suf- 
 ficient interest in the issue of the transaction, to practice this mal- 
 feasance of office, that his imaginary good might come of it to the 
 church. And Luther had a special reference to the imputation 
 commonly fixed upon the Jesuits, that "the end sanctifies the means." 
 "Parsimony is a strong hold to which very successful appeals are 
 made. The local preachers want salaries, city settlements, Sfc. (Src." 
 This imputation has been charged upon the reforming local preach- 
 ers in every direction. "And the great men (in common style) 
 want to send the little men home, who serve cheaply, &c. To the 
 last of these charges, I plead guilty with all my heart; for I have 
 long believed, that if the church could exercise the right of suf- 
 frage, she would sift the talents of her ministry, and secure the best 
 for her service. But the fallacy of the other subterfuges of the 
 anti-reformers bears its own characteristic. The majority of suf- 
 frages will always be among the laity, they will therefore have it in 
 their power to check abuses, and under a well balanced form of 
 government, those presumers, who grasp so greedily after power 
 would sink into merited contempt, while modest worth would be 
 duly promoted. I say you must appeal to the public through other 
 mediums. You have past the Rubicon; there is no returning with- 
 out a sacrifice of principle, without abandoning your church to her 
 degraded destiny. If you suffer another General Conference to 
 legislate for you, I am ready to say, prepare for tame submission or 
 banishment." The committee considered this prediction rather 
 extravagant, but the event has confirmed the accuracy of the cal- 
 culation. We were expelled before the General Conference met. 
 "Your missionaries should now be on the high ways of the nation, 
 and in the pulpits of your churches; and the friends of re- 
 form should send their private communications every where. You 
 have the prejudices of many years arrayed against you, and that 
 still inglorious repose, which undisturbed power artfully adminis- 
 tered, gives, refuses to part with its slumbers. In a word, you are 
 
136 
 
 about a great work, and to accomplish it successfully, requires aH 
 the wisdom and enterprise of christians, and a permanent reliance 
 upon God. * * * * 
 
 If I understand the general object of the reformers, it is, to dif- 
 fuse through your paper, the light and warmth of liberal principles 
 throughout the Methodist church, in America, so luminously and 
 feelingly, that the anti reformers illumined by their rays and cheer- 
 ed with their beams, will be constrained to say to their reforming 
 brethren; come into our sanctuary, ye blessed of the Lord. Your 
 motives and spirit are such as good men must admire, and I doubt 
 not but Heaven approves. But the signs of the times too clearly 
 evince their utter insufficiency to accomplish the objects of reform. 
 As well may you expect the pacific spirit of friends, to be a barrier 
 to the strife of nations, as that the mild spirit and conclusive rea- 
 sonings of the Mutual Rights alone, shall reform your church. 
 When the order of nature is reversed, and the streams "which rush 
 to the Atlantic, shall smoothly glide to the submit of the Allegha- 
 nies, then expect such an effect, from such a cause. In a word, 
 when men become what they should be, your present plans will be 
 all sufficient to accomplish your laudable object. I repeat, the 
 signs of the times are against you. Your paper which seems to be 
 the only engine of the reformers, is branded with heresy, so far as 
 the laws of the country will allow; — that travelling preacher, who 
 ventures to peruse it, risks his reputation, and if he patronize it, in 
 all probability, his office." How exactly this opinion was soon 
 verified by the two cases of Messrs. Dorsey and Poole. "The bet- 
 ter half of your members have never heard of it, and many of 
 those who have, are detered from its perusal, from the horrid char- 
 acter given it by those whose itinerant career gives them every 
 possible opportunity to defame it and its authors." That they 
 availed themselves of these ample opportunities, is sufficiently 
 evinced by the facts which have made this review necessary. "Who 
 among the opposing host, deigns to read your publications, much 
 less to investigate the*points of difference? * * * What concilia- 
 tory advances have the memorials and remonstrances of the last 
 twelve years procured? That healing breviat, that knell of charity, 
 the General Conference circular, is the bonus of so many prayers 
 and tears! Oh! Messrs. Editors, is your Mutual Rights a suffi- 
 cient barrier to restrain the proud waves of this mighty ocean? 
 Never did Leo X. treat Luther, with such utter contempt, as you 
 receive at the hands of your anti-reforming brethren; and I doubt 
 whether the history of the christian church, can furnish a parallel. 
 If the leformers feel the subject at heart, why not talk about it? If 
 it is of immense importance, why not publish it on the house top? 
 But, if it be a bad cause, why not abandon it! Those temporizing 
 measures serve to irritate without healing; to fatigue the church 
 without giving her rest. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a 
 prophet, and I hope, I may not be deemed a visionary when I tell 
 you, that the reformers must do more than write for those who will not 
 deign to read, or they never will do much for the benefit of their 
 suffering church. But what is to be done? This I confess brings 
 
137 
 
 my mind to a sort of neplus ultra. I have no disposition, could 1 
 do it at a word, to decamp, as one said, and set up for ourselves, 
 and thereby add another petty sect to the numbers which already 
 disturb the christian church and distract society. Nor am I willing 
 to continue to mourn and pipe for those who will neither lament 
 nor dance, until another General Conference may strip me of my 
 little Osier shield, and compel me by another legislative colossus 
 to cringe or fly. In all systems, animate and inanimate, with which 
 we are acquainted, there must be a centre of union for the associ- 
 ated parts. That centre is now imperiously necessary, for the har- 
 mony and energy of the republican Methodist reformers. There 
 should be some definite characteristic by which the monarchy and 
 anti-monarchy men of our church should be identified; — should 
 be compelled to feel their responsibility to civil and religious 
 society, and to account for it. Here I entreat the aid of my 
 brethren, and here I naturally look round the United States for a 
 Moses, who has goodness, wisdom and firmness, to erect a stand- 
 ard, around which, the dispersed reformers may gather, and under 
 which, their emancipated church shall march up to freedom, pros- 
 perity and happiness? Oh! under such a stale of things, my en- 
 raptured mind beholds her bright spires rise above the blue waves 
 of time, and her massy battlements lose themselves in the mists of 
 far distant ages, crowned with rejoicing millions. A reform in this 
 way, will for a moment resemble an imperium in imperio, but the 
 strife will be of short duration. The claims of the respective parties 
 being once clearly understood, the spirit of freedom would leaven the 
 whole lump, and the genius of liberty would sit enthroned, in the 
 bosom of every American Methodist. Who could dare deny the 
 right of suffrage? Who would claim the odium of blindly submit- 
 ting to an ecclesiastical domination? I for one say, form associa- 
 tions, send out missionaries; you will thereby inform the ignorant, 
 strengthen the week, give energy to the labours of the resolute, 
 retain many who will shortly seek repose in other churches, and 
 rescue your own church from disunion, anarchy and perhaps ruin. 
 Speedily organize your plans with wisdom and goodness, and car- 
 ry them into operation with all the violence of ingenuity and love; 
 and those who are now securely enthroned on the submit of the 
 cloudy Olympus of power, when they shall feel the mount quake 
 and tremble beneath them, will become solicitous to know what is 
 the matter, and not before. Pelopides, the famous Theban Gene- 
 ral, when met in a defile by a powerful band of Lacaedemonians, 
 and informed by an officer of the advance, "we are betrayed 
 into the hands of the enemy," replied why not say, they are betray- 
 ed into our hands? — and so the event in part proved. The Reform- 
 ers and anti-reformers must try the strength of their respective 
 claims. Oh! that the issue may be for the furtherance of love, the 
 prosperity of the church, and the glory of God?" 
 
 Instead of presenting this paper, as having been published , at a 
 time when there were so many causes of excitement, and when 
 there was an expectation that the writer would be called on, to an- 
 swer for his attachment to the good work of reform; — instead of pre- 
 
188 
 
 senting the paper in its true spirit and design, doctor Bond col- 
 lected out of it a garble of short sentences and disjointed words, 
 and exhibited it as if an honest epitome of the essay; telling the 
 community, that Luther called the Methodist Episcopal Church a 
 despotism, — predicated on the same principles which slaughtered 
 Poland, and slew the Martyrs. That he had represented the church 
 to be an assumption; — an usurpation; — an unwarrantable and op- 
 pressive assumption; — that he had said the rights of the laity and 
 locality are trampled upon; — that the conferences are self created 
 conclaves; — that the members of that church, prostrate themselves 
 at the feet of a spiritual Aristocracy. Spiritual domination, &-c. &c. 
 Luther habitually deals extensively in metaphorical language. No 
 sensible reader can fail to discover this on perusing his paper. 
 Persons uninformed of this fact or unacquainted with the circum- 
 stances which attended the establishment of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church in her mighty power, could readily be induced to 
 think, the language of the extracts too strong and perhaps quite re- 
 prehensible. But the printing committee saw the subject in its 
 proper light, and felt confident, that Luther's paper would be read 
 with interest, and be particularly useful at that time of threatened 
 "defecation" of the church both south and west. As to the imputa- 
 tion of a tyrannical trampling upon the rights of the laity, the lo- 
 cality, and of the itinerant ministry, when it pleased the men in 
 power to think it expedient or necessary to do so, we had been 
 compelled to view the subject, very nearly in the light in which it 
 is exhibited in the Methodist Correspondent, page 132. It ap- 
 pears, that old side men have accused some of the ministers who 
 have left their fellowship and come to us, of retaining the old lea- 
 ven. The paper will make the following short chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Tyranny appears to be inevitable in the administration of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 Mr. Editor, — It is frequently said of Reformers, they were ar- 
 bitrary, and tyrants, in the administration of discipline, in the 
 Methodist E. Church. This is held up as an argument, against 
 their being what they profess; and the people are to view them as 
 tyrants, deceivers and false pretenders. Therefore, the statement 
 merits attention: though it can have no application, but to those, 
 who have been in the itinerancy of the Methodist E. Church. 
 
 We acknowledge that this may have been the fact, at least in 
 some instances: our astonishment is not, that this was the fact, but 
 that under the circumstances in which they stood, the voice of 
 reason and revelation, should have brought them to yield and surren- 
 der participation and emoluments in the citadel of power, and be- 
 come the advocates of religious liberty. While the sacrifice they 
 have made, is proof of the soundness of their reformation; it must be 
 
139 
 
 evident, the source from which a man obtains official power, the 
 principle on which he is held accountable for exercising it, and 
 the tribunal to which he is amenable for official action, together 
 with the manner in which he is prepared for office, and the mode 
 of inducting him into it; will each and all have great influence 
 on his official character and operations. And if it shall be evident 
 on examination, that those features in the Episcopal itinerant sys- 
 tem, necessarily tend to make men arbitrary and tyrannical, it will 
 follow, that the system is to blame, and not the men; and should 
 be abandoned as ruinous in its tendency to civil and religious 
 liberty. 
 
 The priest, pope, or bishop who claims a divine right to his offi- 
 cial power, &lc. independent of the people, will be regardless of 
 their rights, interest, and will; only so far as suits his will, power 
 and pretensions. He places every thing at the control of his whims, 
 notions, and will, which he holds to be superior wisdom, holiness 
 and inspiration. He says, he is only accountable to God in his offi- 
 cial character and administration. He brings himself to believe, the 
 Almighty pledged to sustain him, and that no weapon formed against 
 him shall prosper; however, virtuously or righteously raised. — The 
 love of power charms him till it becomes his idol. His confidence 
 in power, renders him imperious. He asks, who is this 'Moses;' who 
 is this 'Luther;' 'who asks my negative, fyc. It also renders him 
 blind to danger, till it overtakes him; and then his proud heart 
 will not yield. This delirium is desparately fatal, when it becomes 
 prevalent, in a body of men professing to be ministers of Christ. Such 
 maniacs, however, are not irresponsible to the public and the 
 Great Head of the church, for their pretensions, assumptions, ac- 
 tions, and the fatal effects thereof. The eighth section, Chapter 
 1, of Methodist Episcopal Church discipline, of the method of re- 
 ceiving travelling preachers, and of their duty, presents the fol- 
 lowing facts, viz. 1st. The discipline is specially called to view, 
 seven or eight times. 2d. Conscience is called on twice, to en- 
 force obededience to it. 3d. Each candidate must give up his own 
 will, and submit entirely to the will of others. 4th. He receives two 
 disciplines; the first, the only book given to him, when he is to call 
 sinners to repentance, make full proof of his ministry, and be careful 
 to weigh what the discipline contains. The second; — he is freely to 
 consent to, and earnestly endeavour to walk by; and these are the 
 terms on which others shall rejoice to acknowledge him as a fellow 
 labourer. 5th. All this is to be regarded by every preacher in charge 
 from the time he is admitted to join the itinerancy. And in section 12, 
 chapter 1, as a special thing to fit him for his charge; he is to un- 
 derstand, and love discipline, particularly ours, (that is episcopal.) 
 Not a word, so far, about his weighing, keeping for conscience sake, 
 understanding, desiring to walk by, or loving the bible. — All this 
 training to fit each candidate for office, when he may be entrusted 
 with the exercise of power. In ordination this is still more impo- 
 singly forced on his understanding and conscience; — and unless he 
 pledges himself, he will not be ordained. All this not to make a 
 better man or minister; but to shackle his mind, and secure sub- 
 
140 
 
 mission to Episcopal power. Now he must 'follow with a glad mind, 
 and will their Godly admonitions, and submit to their Godly judg- 
 ments? His failure, or refusal, in course is construed into rebellion 
 on his part, and an impeachment of their godliness and judgment. 
 Hence, he is deemed a rebel, and an enemy. To get on with all 
 this, we are obliged to think he must be fully prepared to believe 
 the discipline, and the Episcopal power, with all its auxiliaries to be 
 scriptural, apostolic and right; and therefore, feel himself, in under- 
 standing and conscience bound, to submit to such authorities. 
 
 Take two elders; all they hold as ministers, or by scriptural ordi- 
 nation must be equal. But in the Methodist Episcopal Church all 
 official authority, to elders and deacons, in administration is by the 
 bishop's word. Therefore, local deacons and elders, have no lot or 
 part in the matter. The bishop in placing two elders on a circuit, 
 gives the power to which he pleases. He may place the lad of 
 eighteen or twenty, or comparatively young, over the minister of 
 gray hairs, long experience, good talents and established reputa- 
 tion. 
 
 The youngster, (perhaps a probationer only,) wields this power 
 because the bishop says so; while the venerable, talented minister, 
 bows to the episcopacy, in the boy. — This is ruinous to one, and de- 
 grading to the other. 
 
 Look at presiding elders; see how youth reigns over those who 
 are elders indeed. The time was, when the episcopacy, thought 
 gray hairs necessary, before a man was raised to be presiding elder. 
 But now, the young men who rally round the episcopal chair, with 
 the greatest zeal for high episcopal prerogative, are the stuff of 
 which to make presiding elders; that they may be brought up to 
 the episcopal hand. The episcopacy having breathed official life 
 into them, and made them in their own likeness, have a right, to take 
 the life they gave, when they please. Thus situated, the presiding 
 elder goes by the episcopal will, in all his acts. Therefore cannot see, 
 or feel the rights, interests, or will of preachers, or people, only as 
 he views them connected with, and subservient to, the interest of 
 the office of which he is the deputy. 
 
 The man, old or young, put in charge of a circuit, is placed at 
 the will and direction of the presiding elder, and still liable to the 
 primary episcopacy. 
 
 We see then, that the tuition, induction into itinerancy, and the 
 several gradations and ordinations, as performed and in such cases 
 made and provided, are all calculated to make men tyrants; espe- 
 cially in the administration of a system of such construction. 
 Each one, in the several grades of advancement, having believed 
 and felt himself in conscience bound, to submit to such authority 
 and government, he now thinks all others equally bound to submit. 
 Hence he is prepared to wield the episcopal sceptre, as far as it is 
 committed to him; — to wield it 'in all good conscience' as did 'saul' 
 of Tarsus to wield the power committed to him by the Jewish 
 High Priest. And equally, as intelligently: that is, "to do it igno- 
 rantly." It is evident, the only way a man thus situated can be 
 saved, or redeemed from being a tyrant, is to have the light of his- 
 
141 
 
 tory, reason, truth and scripture, to irradiate his mind, show him the 
 error with which he is surrounded, and bring him to a sense of the 
 duplicity that has been practised on him; and discover to his mind 
 the various forms of church polity the world has witnessed; — the 
 dire effects of corrupt systems, priests, and power set forth in the 
 history of the church. Then if a love of power, or some of its 
 auxiliaries has not gained the ascendency in his heart; he trembles 
 at the ruin which stares him in the face, and he honestly inquires, 
 "What wilt thou have me to doV y Otherwise he must recede from 
 the light, and convinced of error, persist in his course, and be the 
 willing vassal of priestly power, which neither reason, the history 
 of the church, scripture, nor his own conscience can approve. 
 
 Anti-Episcopal. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Persecutions of reformers for joining Union Societies, most incon- 
 sistent with propriety or benevolence. The real design of those 
 Societies. 
 
 That the agent and prosecutors were altogether reckless of the 
 cause or fate of reformers; that they had no thought of justice, but 
 with undeviating purpose laboured to make an impression on the 
 Methodist public, favourable to their course of cruel and unprinci- 
 pled persecution, will be more clearly seen by turning attention to 
 the following remarks, introductory to this paper. The travel- 
 ling preachers in different places, had expelled reformers for having 
 joined Union Societies a considerable length of time before the 
 commencement of similar proceedings in Baltimore. In Bedford 
 county, Tennessee, the friends of reform had a meeting in Feb- 
 ruary, 1825, preparatory to the formation of a Union Society. — 
 Nothing more was done, than to subscribe a paper and appoint a 
 committee to prepare a constitution to be presented at a meeting 
 in the month of May, following. 
 
 In April, Mr. James Gwinn, their presiding elder, for this offence, 
 proceeded at a quarterly meeting to read out the names of fourteen 
 members, who lived in different circuits. They may say in truth, 
 that these brethren were not expelled for being members of the 
 Union Society; it was not yet formed; — but they were willing to be 
 members, and were making preparation to organize, and for that 
 willingness, in the opinion of Mr. James Gwinn, they merited ex- 
 pulsion. 
 
 In September, 1826, we were informed of the expulsion of 
 brethren in North Carolina, for being members of the Granville 
 Union Society. A few days after learning that such a society had 
 been organized, Benton Field sent to each of the several individ- 
 uals, a letter of reproof, "for their unscriptural and peace de- 
 stroying conduct," — and said he, "if you see proper to yield to re- 
 19 
 
142 
 
 proof, so far as to engage in future to leave off such pernicious 
 conduct, I shall rejoice to hear the same; but if you refuse, you 
 will thereby bring me under the necessity of calling you to account 
 before the church, to answer for your conduct." 
 
 The brethren felt no obligation to obey such a tyrannical man- 
 date; and according to Mr. Field's threat, they were cited to trial, 
 having been charged with "uniting to sow dissentions, by inveigh- 
 ing against the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 
 Mr. Field endeavoured to substantiate the charge; but failing, he 
 put the question in the following words. "All you who think their 
 conduct will have a bad effect, will signify it by rising up." A 
 majority arose — and the brethren were expelled. A short time 
 afterwards, the preacher in charge of the Tar River circuit, had 
 three or four brethren expelled, for joining the Union Society. — 
 These acts of violence were practised first in February, 1825, in 
 Tennessee; and before October, 1826, in North Carolina. For 
 having been accessary to the formation of a Union Society in the 
 former, and for having joined such societies in the latter, reformers 
 were expelled. The reader is requested to take particular notice 
 of these facts, of the dates of their occurrence, and of the nature 
 of the offence with which they were charged by the preacher, viz: 
 1 'uniting 1 to sow dissentions, by inveighing against the discipline of 
 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church." When our prosecutors were 
 
 gathering extracts, to justify the expulsion of reformers for being 
 members of Union Societies, they ought to have selected some 
 such as the following, which is printed in the Mutual Rights for 
 February, 18*26, vol. II. with the signature of Paul. It reports the 
 real design for which Union Societies were formed. 
 
 "It is a just remark, that without system, nothing of importance 
 can be effected. System is as essential to all the studies and oper- 
 ations of men, as light is to their labours. It matters not how 
 complex the subject, if it be reduced to system, order immediately 
 arises out of confusion, light beams through the darkness, and the 
 whole becomes intelligible to the mind at a glance. Nor is it of 
 material consequence how difficult the enterprize, if those who 
 engage in it, reduce their operations to system, and proceed on a 
 wisely organized plan. If their object be lawful and their cause 
 righteous, they must succeed in the very nature of things. Re- 
 flecting on the cause of reform in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 we have been highly gratified, to witness the judicious and sys- 
 tematical plan of operations adopted by the reformers: — Their grand 
 object appears to be, the introduction of a well balanced form of 
 government into their church. This is certainly an object worthy 
 of the men who have engaged in its pursuit; and if effected, will 
 reflect honour upon their memories, and confer a blessing on the 
 church, the benefits of which, will be felt to the end of time. The 
 means they are using to effect this desirable end, are at once simple 
 and efficient. 
 
 "The first means employed by them, is the press with its powerful 
 energies. This is an engine, which, when guided by the unerring 
 light of truth, is mighty in pulling down the strong holds of 
 
143 
 
 error, and in establishing the civil and religious liberties of man, 
 on a basis not easily to be shaken. It was with this engine, guided 
 by the light of reason and revelation, that Luther made the papal 
 power, which had subjugated all Europe to its domain, tremble to 
 its centre; and gave priestly domination a defeat, from which it 
 can never recover. And it is by this engine, at no distant day, that 
 every species of usurpation and superstition is destined to be over- 
 thrown, to rise no more forever. 
 
 "Another means employed by the reformers to effect their pur- 
 pose, is, that of associating in companies, called "Union Socie- 
 ties." These are composed of pious, decided reformers; are regu- 
 larly organized, and correspond with each other on all subjects of 
 importance to the cause of reform. The advantages attendant on 
 these associations, are numerous. 
 
 "1. They are productive of much good to all the members of each 
 society, respectively. They introduce the reformers of several 
 states and counties to a personal acquaintance with each other, 
 and to a knowledge of their respective views and wishes; and mu- 
 tually edify and strengthen all the members of the association. In 
 the discussion of topics, the warmth of one member is corrected 
 by the cool deliberation of another. And the fears and despond- 
 ency of one man are removed by the encouraging arguments and 
 stimulating hopes of his brother. While the information received 
 from all quarters, gives to every member a comprehensive view of 
 the progress of reforming principles in the church. 
 
 "2. Union Societies are mutually beneficial to each other. By 
 corresponding with each other, they keep all the reformers advised 
 of every important transaction within the bounds of their respec- 
 tive districts. No reformer can be persecuted, even in a corner, 
 without its being speedily known to all the reformers in the United 
 States. They furnish a mutual support; for if the members of one 
 Union Society are persecuted or maltreated, they make common 
 cause with the sufferers, and use their utmost effort to obtain for 
 them redress of grievances.* 
 
 "3. They are beneficial to the church. They prevent many per- 
 sons from withdrawing, who otherwise, are fully prepared to leave 
 her communion; and some who had actually departed, have been 
 induced to return, and are now united with their brethren in the good 
 cause of reform. 
 
 "4. Union Societies will greatly promote the cause of reform, by 
 concentrating the views of the whole; and presenting to the General 
 Conference, petitions from all parts of the United States, which shall 
 speak the same language and breathe the same spirit. This last 
 particular is a very important one; the want of it was severely felt at 
 the last General Conference; for there was a great want of uniform- 
 ity in the multitude of petitions presented to that body. 
 
 "It has been said, by certain persons, that "Union Societies favour 
 separations." Those brethren will permit us to say, that we know 
 
 •This was one of the chief reasons wherefore the men in power desired 
 their destruction. 
 
144 
 
 the contrary to be the fact, and that had it not been for the institn> 
 tion of Union Societies, there would have been, long ere this, 
 separations in more places than one. It has been said a by 
 travelling preacher, in the north, who opposes the formation of 
 Union Societies, that, "when the reformers are all organized, have 
 ascertained their strength, and petitioned the General Conference 
 for a redress of their grievances, and the General Conference re- 
 fuse to listen to them, they will naturally break off, and form them- 
 selves into a separate church." 
 
 "Now we would ask, does this good brother suppose, that the 
 mere circumstance of the reformers being organized into Union So- 
 cieties, will, in the event of the General Conference refusing to 
 listen to them, necessarily induce them "to break off, and form 
 themselves into a separate church?" Or does he mean to say, if 
 they shall not be organized, they will have neither sense nor spirit 
 enough to come to an understanding among themselves on the 
 question "of breaking off," if breaking off be absolutely necessary? 
 If the former be his meaning, we are inclined to think, it will be 
 neither naturally nor necessarily the case. What will prevent the 
 Union Societies from remaining within the pale of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church? Might they not still cleave to her with as 
 much tenacity as they do now? We admit, that a refusal on the 
 part of the General Conference, to listen to the reasonable requests 
 of the reformers, would be a serious trial to all of them and would 
 produce some important additions to the plan of operations; but 
 it by no means follows, that, therefore, they will naturally or neces- 
 sarily leave the church, and organize a new one. 
 
 "If the latter be his meaning, we will take the liberty to say, he 
 is much mistaken; for if there were no Union Societies in the 
 United States, and it were made manifest, that the proper time was 
 come to raise up a new church, there would neither be men nor 
 means wanting to effect the object. 
 
 "But why all these foreboding fears of separation? And why make 
 this a ground of opposition to Union Societies? If we are to be- 
 lieve our brethren, which we really do, they wish us to depart. Yea, 
 some of their leading men have requested us to do so, again and 
 again. Why then will they clamour against us for adopting a measure, 
 which they say, will "naturally" take us off? If our "principles 
 are pernicious," and if "the reformers are like tares among the 
 wheat," the more carefully and effectually we collect them together, 
 with intention to remove them, the better it will be for the church. 
 Indeed, to be consistent, our old-side brethren should furnish us 
 with every facility to collect those noxious weeds, and to remove 
 them hence. But we will assure our brethren, that we have no 
 desire to leave the church; but if we are to go out, then, "verily, 
 let them come themselves and fetch us out." paul. 
 
 The foregoing paper could not have been misunderstood. It 
 most explicitly makes known the objects contemplated by reform- 
 ers, in organizing the Union Societies. It as clearly makes known 
 the fact, that these societies were intended to secure the integrity 
 
145 
 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the same time that they 
 were expected to ensure reform. It also must satisfy any candid 
 reader, that as certainly as we had a light to call the attention of 
 the Methodist public to the subject of a reform in their church 
 government, we also had a right to do so in a systematic way. It 
 follows that any attempt to hinder the formation of Union Socie- 
 ties, or to break them up, when formed, was in every instance a di- 
 rect act of opposition to the labours of reformers, as well as a vio- 
 lation of our rights. 
 
 If however there should still remain a doubt on the mind of the 
 reader, respecting the objects of these Union Societies, his atten- 
 tion is requested to the following occurrence. 
 
 The different seceders were invited by a circular sent in every 
 direction, to meet in New York, and form a constitution for a new 
 Methodist Church. An application was made through a special 
 messenger to the Union Society of Baltimore, to send up a dele- 
 gation, to co-operate with them. The application was met in a 
 manner consistent with our public declarations on the subject, as 
 will be seen by a perusal of the letter sent in reply, with the sig- 
 nature of brother John Chappell, the president of the society. 
 
 Baltimore, February 15th, 1826. 
 
 Dear Brethren, 
 
 Your communication upon the subject of a convention for the 
 purpose of uniting and consolidating the different societies of Dis- 
 senting Methodists, was received by the hand of the Rev'd. Sam- 
 uel Budd. The respectful manner of your application to us, to 
 unite with you for the accomplishment of this object, is duly ap- 
 preciated, and a suitable acknowledgement is hereby respectfully 
 tendered to you in return. 
 
 It must be obvious, however, to every intelligent member of 
 your association, as well as to us, that such a measure, if effectual, 
 would produce in regard of us, a result the reverse of the object 
 which we have in view. In the number of the Mutual Rights, for 
 August, 18*25, page % we have made the declaration to the world, 
 that we have no design to separate from the church, much less to 
 divide it; but on the contrary, that we are labouring to prevent 
 secessions and divisions. Our Union Society has organized itself, 
 and instituted the publication, called the Mutual Rights, with in- 
 tention to show to dissatisfied brethren, that a struggle is making, 
 and will be continued, for the accomplishment of a better state of 
 things, in the Methodist Episcopal Church. In doing this thing, 
 we intended to prevent secessions, and consequently, any participa- 
 tion in the measures which you propose, would be inconsistent 
 with our avowed intentions. 
 
 John Chappell, President. 
 
 With the foregoing exposition of the true character and design 
 of Union Societies, the friends of truth and equal rights, will be 
 prepared to perceive the amount of the injury done to reformers, 
 by the expulsions in Tennessee and North Carolina. And it ought 
 
146 
 
 not to be considered to have been improper on our part to have 
 rebuked such tyrannical proceedings with suitable pungency. In 
 the notices that will be taken of the remaining extracts, as they 
 appear in the Narrative and Defence, references will be made to 
 the occasions which were in view of the printing committee, when 
 the papers which have been "indicated" were severally admitted 
 for publication. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Timothy, alias Rev. George Brown's Defence of himself, on account 
 of extracts from his address to the junior Bishop. This paper was 
 written in the year 1827. It was recently revised, by request, and 
 forwarded for insertion in this review. 
 
 In all cases of controversy, there is danger of an undue excite- 
 ment of the passions. This fact may receive a practicable illustra- 
 tion, by an appeal to the history of all the controversies that have 
 ever been carried on in church or state. Man is but man, in whatever 
 condition he may be placed; and to engage him in controversy, is 
 to surround him with circumstances, calculated to enlist his pas- 
 sions; this point must be evident to all candid men, of the least 
 observation. 
 
 Our passions generally, become enlisted, in proportion as we 
 conceive the subject of discussion to involve important interests. 
 We, our friends, the church, the world, are all concerned, it may 
 be in the decision. Multitudes yet unborn may have a heavy stake 
 in this affair. — Human happiness may be affected by it in this 
 world, and in the world to come, to an extent not easily known. 
 It will, therefore, be found extremely difficulty, if not impossible, 
 to make a subject, on which so much appears to hang, a mere 
 question of intellectual investigation, from which all feeling is to 
 be entirely excluded. Were men turned into angels, this thing 
 might be expected. We conclude, therefore, that candid allow- 
 ances should be mutually made, for the frailties of our common 
 nature; and that we should labour diligently and prayerfully to rule 
 our own spirits in such a manner, as to allow the present contro- 
 versy in the Methodist Episcopal Church to be carried on, as fully 
 as possible, under the influence of reason, and in strict accordance 
 with the holy word of God. 
 
 In the course of this controversy, our minds are sometimes struck 
 with a kind of superstitious fear, and we feel ourselves considera- 
 bly embarrassed. If the subject were of a different character, if it 
 were some philosophical or political question, if it were some 
 question of science, not so intimately associated with religion, if 
 it did not draw around it, so much apparent sacredness; we could 
 proceed with more firmness, and should consider our church gov- 
 ernment, as legitimate a subject of intellectual investigation, and 
 as open to the public eye, as any other in the world. Aye, and 
 many of our people, who still remain silent, would come forth to 
 our help, and render important service to our cause. Now, why is 
 
147 
 
 it, that we attach all this sacredness to church government? Why 
 does the tongue faulter, the head become giddy, and the heart 
 faint, when we enter upon an investigation of the high claims of 
 the itinerant clergy of our church? Is it because the polity of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in all its details is actually from hea- 
 ven, and was revealed to doctor Coke and Francis Asbury, on the 
 holy mount? No man will pretend this. The fact is, all ecclesias- 
 tical establishments, as well as civil, are of an earthly growth. They 
 are alike the offspring of human reason, and of human weakness too. 
 All such establishments are fit subjects for rational investigation, 
 and no superstitious sacredness, drawn around them by the craft of 
 either kings or priests, should save their arbitrary principles, from a 
 just exposure to the light of open day. 
 
 If reformers are not continually on their guard, "the fear of 
 man," that always "bringeth a snare" may prove injurious to our 
 cause. The church authorities are beginning to array themselves 
 against us, not to argue, but to punish. It will require no little 
 mental and moral energy, to look these men in the face and not fear. 
 No matter how good our cause may be; — no matter how ably 
 it has been, or can be supported by arguments of Stirling worth;— 
 our opponents have the power to punish, and are beginning to em- 
 ploy their punitive power against us. To write arguments with 
 becoming independence, or examine them impartially, will be no 
 easy matter, while men in power are holding over us, all the terrors 
 of an unjust excommunication from the church of God. We will, 
 however, quiet our fears the best way we can, and address our- 
 selves to the task of making replication to the "Narrative and De- 
 fence," so far as we are concerned. 
 
 My present undertaking is extremely delicate. Two of our 
 bishops will be concerned in my remarks, both of whom I really 
 wish to honour, on the account of their age, talents and great moral 
 worth. I cannot, however, forsake the high ground of free and in- 
 dependent inquiry on their account. This I trust, they do not wish. 
 In my observations I desire to move forward, with cautious and un- 
 wavering steps, and with an unfaultering voice, speaking the truth 
 in love. 
 
 I shall commence with the case of our senior bishop, noticed in 
 the Narrative and Defence, p. 56. It would have been better, if 
 my meaning had been more fully explained and guarded, in the ad- 
 dress to the junior bishop, where it is said, u and our senior bishop 
 is arched over the whole." It never entered into my mind, that any 
 one acquainted with the arrangement of matters among the bishops, 
 at the General Conference, of 1824, would misunderstand me on 
 that point. In this matter, it seems, I was mistaken. I owe to 
 bishop McKendree for whom I entertain the highest respect, I owe 
 it to myself, and to the community at large, to say definitely, what 
 I did mean. This thing, for which the seven prosecutors "were 
 not prepared"* — "this accusation of usurping an arch episcopal 
 authority" — this taunting appellation" — "this biting sarcasm" — 
 
 * He was not informed, respecting' the Agent. 
 
148 
 
 "this unfeeling insult" — "this bitter phillipic," as these very amia- 
 ble brethren, in the overflowings of their christian charity have 
 seen proper to call it,* can, I hope, be so explained, as to do no 
 one any harm; and that too without any, the slightest departure 
 from the truth, as it is in Jesus. 
 
 I did not intend to convey the idea, that our senior bishop had 
 "usurped an arch-episcopal authority," or that in any sense he was 
 "legally superior" to his colleagues. I only meant that on the part 
 of the General Conference, or the other bishops, perhaps both; on 
 the principles of courtesy, not of law or usurpation, a relation was 
 now given to Mr. McKendree, which might, in the very nature of 
 things, eventuate in the establishment of an arch-episcopal or a 
 patriarchal authority, over the Methodist Episcopal Church. — In 
 other words, I meant that by an arrangement entered into at the 
 last general conference, not in strict accordance with former usage, 
 or the rule of our discipline (p. 25.) which requires our bishops se- 
 verally, "to travel through the connexion at large," bishops Roberts 
 and Soule, were restricted to the south, as to labour and support. 
 Bishops George and Hedding to the north, as to labour and support. 
 And that our senior bishop, without any notice of superannuation at 
 all, had the whole connexion for his field; and as to labour and 
 support was at home in the north, and at home in the south, or in the 
 language of the address, on the score of courtesy, not of legality, 
 or of usurpation, he was "arched over the whole." 
 
 Full credit is here intended to be given to our senior bishop for 
 "his faithful labours" — "his devoted life" — "his long and valuable 
 services to the church," but to me it did appear that in the above 
 arrangement a bad precedent had been set. I calculated that each 
 succeeding senior bishop, might claim to be similarly situated, until 
 this thing would grow into a regular usage in the church, and final- 
 ly be established by the General Conference as a law in our Israel. 
 All history will attest the fact, that, in all ages, and in all countries, 
 civil and ecclesiastical power, has maintained its onward march, from 
 less to more, in this silent, and almost unnoticed manner. May 1 
 not hope that this explanation will be deemed satisfactory by all 
 men of candour; and that even the seven prosecutors themselves, 
 will admit my explanations, and that in future, they will no more, 
 in an ill natured way, take the very worst meaning they can, out of 
 a brother's words, and then fall on him in an unmerciful manner, 
 with their "taunting appellations" — "biting sarcasms" — "unfeel- 
 ing insults," — and "bitter phillipicsr" How their "Narrative and 
 Defence," blooms with these ungodly flowers, which send forth an 
 ill savour! I have understood from as high authority as any in the 
 church, that this matter, respecting the "arch over the whole," is 
 pretty generally understood to the north, as I have now explained 
 it, and since the members of our conference said nothing to me on 
 this subject, I infer, that they generally understood it in this way. 
 In all probability, it would have been interpreted thus, by the pro- 
 
 * These pithy sentences are to be placed to the credit of the w riter of the 
 Narrative and Defence, not of the seven prosecutors. 
 
149 
 
 securing committee themselves; but for "the infelicity of the times," 
 and the great work to be accomplished. "Carthage must be de- 
 stroyed." — In other words, by whatever means, radicalism must be 
 put down . 
 
 The Rev. Jesse Lee, in his "History of the Methodists," ob- 
 serves in reference to the title "bishop," that, "this was the first 
 time (1787,) that our superintendents ever gave themselves the title 
 of bishops in the minutes. They changed the title themselves, with- 
 out the consent of the conference; and then at the next confer- 
 ence, they asked the preachers, if the word bishop might stand in 
 the minutes, seeing it was a Scripture name, and the meaning of 
 the word bishop, was the same with that of superintendent. Some 
 of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to retain the 
 former title, but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word 
 bishop remain," p. 128. — On this piece of our history we remark, 
 1st. That to all human appearance, the motive for taking the "title 
 bishop" was a good one. "It was a Scripture name." And cer- 
 tainly all christians should be allowed to cleave close to the Scrip- 
 tures. 2d. No man at that time, would have thought of charging 
 doctor Coke and Mr. Asbury, with ambition in effecting this change 
 of title. All allowed as the word (( bishop, meant the same as the 
 word superintendent," that no increase of power could be expect- 
 ed by the change. How great the disappointment! The change 
 once effected, Methodist episcopacy became independent of Mr. 
 Wesley, and an increase of power did follow. 3d. But suppose 
 no increase of power had followed this change of title, Messrs. 
 Coke and Asbury, were to blame, for taking the responsibility on 
 them, of "changing the title themselves, w ithout the consent of the 
 conference." Aye, and contrary to the directions of Mr. Wesley, 
 under whose authority they acted. 4th. I think it is pretty clear, 
 that "our fathers" did feel themselves a little to blame in this mat- 
 ter. That in fact, they had gone entirely too far, or why did they 
 humble themselves, and "ask the preachers at the next conference, 
 if the word bishop might stand on the minutes." 5th. So it ap« 
 pears, that the "title bishop" was first taken without law or consent t 
 and "printed in the minutes," according to the sovereign pleasure 
 of two Englishmen, and at the next conference, what was thus taken 
 by illegal seizure, these gentlemen had the address, by crouching a 
 little, to get confirmed to them by law — "a majority of the preachers 
 agreed to let the word bishop remain." "But some opposed," to 
 their honour be it spoken. 
 
 We shall only trouble the reader with one other passage from this 
 author; — it has respect to the origin of presiding elders. Mr. Lee 
 informs us, p. 183: "That such an order has never been regularly 
 established before. They had been appointed by the bishop for 
 several years; but it was a doubt in the minds of the preachers, 
 whether such power belonged to him. The General Conference 
 now (1792,) determined that there should be presiding elders; and 
 that they should be chosen, stationed, and changedby the bishops." 
 On this portion of our history we remark: 1st. Our bishops may 
 20 
 
150 
 
 have sincerely thought, for aught we know, that the prosperity of 
 the work required them to appoint presiding elders, "for several 
 years" before any "such an order" had been "regularly established," 
 by any law in our church. 2d. This power, great as it was, the 
 preachers conceded to them, for a time. Probably they deemed 
 such officers necessary to the welfare of the church, and for peace 
 sake, declined laying in their objections to the arbitrary manner of 
 appointing them, by the single will of the bishop alone, uncontrol- 
 led by any law of the church on that subject. 3d. Even then it 
 seems, there were "restless spirits" in the ministry, who disapprov- 
 ed of our bishops using more power than had been given them by 
 the laws of the church. "It was a doubt in the minds of the 
 preachers, whether such power belonged to them." 4th. This 
 power, so taken, conceded and employed "for several years," was 
 finally, (as in the other case noticed,) confirmed to our bishops by 
 law. "The General Conference now determined that there should 
 be presiding elders," &c. 5th. From both of these quotations from 
 our own history, and from many others that might be made, may 
 we not conclude without giving offence to our present bishops or 
 to the General Conference that probably concurred in the arrange- 
 ment mentioned in my explanation, that there is at least a call for 
 caution. What has been, may be again. "The best of men, are but 
 men at the best." Our present bishops are made out of the same 
 kind of materials, that "our fathers" were. These are good men 
 upon the whole. So were those. But all fallible like ourselves. A 
 concession made by the juniors to>the senior bishop, and accord- 
 ed to him by the General Conference, may really terminate in some- 
 thing very little expected or desired by any of us. "A prudent 
 man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself; but the simple pass on 
 and are punished." 
 
 The prosecuting committee are volunteers, it seems, and act 
 wholly on their own responsibility; I shall regard them accordingly. 
 I will not complain of their calling me to answer at the bar of the 
 entire community for what I have written; — for there, it gives me 
 pleasure to stand with permission to speak for myself. I will not 
 complain, that I stand charged by these brethren, in company with 
 many other valiant friends of christian liberty, with "evil speak- 
 ing" — "slander," — "defamation" and "calumny." To prove these 
 against me, the extracts have been taken from my "address to the 
 junior bishop," and published to the world. Vain effort! But I 
 will complain that I was not called before this tribunal sooner, so 
 that my explanations, arguments, fyc. might have saved the editorial 
 committee, and the Union Society in Baltimore, an unjust expul- 
 sion from the church of the Lord. I will complain, that after my 
 name was officially demanded, and given up to Bishop Hedding; 
 after I had on the principles of pacification conceded to him all I 
 could, at our last conference; — still my supposed offences are visit- 
 ed on men who are not responsible for them. If any further suf- 
 ferings were due for my offences, I alone deserved to suffer. I was 
 always ready for my fate, and never dreamed that after my name 
 was delivered up, the editorial committee or Union Society, were 
 
151 
 
 any longer endangered by what I had written. If this is justice, I 
 am persuaded it is not current every where. It is not civil justice. 
 It is not the justice of the New Testament. It can only be the 
 justice of inflamed party zeal, from which may heaven deliver, even 
 our prosecutors themselves! 
 
 These brethren have the goodness to assert, with all the confi- 
 dence of popes, that my "premises are false" p. 56, respecting the 
 "arch," Slc. and that they "cannot doubt the fallacy of my conclu- 
 sions," in reference to the "march of power" in the Methodist E. 
 Church. But waiving for the present, any notice of their pontifi- 
 cal manner, let us suppose, that my premises as I have explained 
 them, should turn out to be true. May it not follow, that my con- 
 clusions respecting the "march of power," are equally true? My 
 explanations are submitted to men of candour, and my conclusion 
 shall be defended in due time. All I ask is an impartial hearing. 
 
 The seven prosecutors [the Agent,] represent me as "accusing" 
 bishop McKendree, of "usurping an arch-episcopal authority," 
 &c. and then on the next page they say, "this author well knew 
 there existed no legal superiority among the bishops," &c. Mean- 
 ing to be understood, I suppose, that with all my knowledge to the 
 contrary, I had ventured to state, that there was a legal superiority 
 of the senior bishop over his colleagues. Unless this is meant, 
 their observation is without point, as their object was to convict me 
 of slander. But they must be favoured with uncommon penetra- 
 tion indeed, to be able to find both of these meanings in the words 
 used by me. If I meant Mr. McKendree was an arch-bishop by 
 usurpation, I could not have meant, that he had attained to that 
 great dignity and authority, in a "legal" way, unless some rare ge- 
 nius among the seven, will be pleased to convince the community 
 at large, that usurpation and legality mean precisely the same thing! 
 
 For Mr. McKendree, to become legally superior to his episcopal 
 colleagues, it would be necessary for him to be advanced to that 
 eminence according to some law in the church. But as no such 
 law exists, and as I have not intimated its existence, nor yet, said 
 one word about his "legal superiority" to the other bishops, it can- 
 not, therefore, be fairly inferred, that legal superiority was my 
 meaning. As to the 1 'usurpation," of which our prosecutors say I 
 have "accused" Mr. McKendree, that word conveys a stronger 
 idea, than any thing said in my address will justify. My words, 
 "and our senior bishop is arched over the whole," can hardly be so 
 interpreted with fairness, as to mean "forcible, unjust, illegal, sei- 
 zure or possession," which is the definition of the word usurpation, 
 according to Walker. It is true, no law or usage of the church, 
 has made any provision for seniors in the episcopacy, to occupy 
 the ground now assigned to Mr. McKendree. Yet as he did not 
 force himself into that situation, but on the contrary, was perhaps 
 passive in relation to it, or as some say, was importuned by his col- 
 leagues and the General Conference to accept of it, I was, therefore, 
 never disposed to consider "the good old man" as an usurper. Still, 
 I blamed the entire arrangement, and am of the opinion now, and 
 expect to continue of the opinion, that in his case a precedent has 
 
152 
 
 been fixed, the tendency of which cannot fail to be injurious. Let 
 this arrangement stand, and an arch-episcopal or patriarchal gov- 
 ernment over the Methodist Episcopal Church, may be looked for 
 in due time. On this I calculate, not from any pretensions to the 
 spirit of prophecy; but from the natural tendency of the well known 
 principles of human nature. 
 
 Since the prosecuting committee have voluntarily taken upon 
 them, to involve my brethren and myself in the accustion of "wil- 
 ful slander," and thus to fix on us this foul disgrace, before the 
 whole community, let us inquire a little into the accuracy of their 
 statements. — They very gravely tell us, with a view no doubt, to 
 magnify my supposed offences, "We had considered Mr. McKen- 
 dree as superannuated." — "We believe, moreover, that this exemp- 
 tion from the burden and cares of office, were asked and obtained 
 from the General Conference. 5 ' p. 56. That bishop McKendree 
 is naturally "superannuated''' I most cheerfully allow, but that he 
 "asked and obtained" an official "superannuation from the General 
 Conference," does not appear from any document now before the 
 public. If the journals of the General Conference contain any 
 account of this fact, why were they not made public? And how 
 was I, or any other person, to regard him as officially superannuated 
 without any information to that effect? May we not conclude, 
 that his superannuation is quite problematical; seeing we have no 
 information of it any where, save in the "Narrative and Defence," 
 a publication most extraordinary for inconsistencies, and for severi- 
 ty far exceeding the Mutual Rights. — Perhaps it will be said, they 
 do not positively assert that Mr. McKendree was officially super- 
 annuated. They only say, "we believe moreover, that this exemp- 
 tion was asked and obtained." 
 
 But let me ask, to what does all this amount? Why plainly to 
 this, namely, that our prosecutors have attained to the great per- 
 fection of being able to believe, what will benefit themselves and 
 injure their opponents, without any evidence at all !! This is no 
 "new thing under the sun." If the General Conference do not 
 superannuate our senior bishop, which I hold to be pretty certain, is 
 it not strange that the prosecuting committee would take upon 
 them to do it? Do they intend to expel reformers, superannuate bishops, 
 publish "Narratives," and like Jehu, drive on furiously?— if so, let 
 them declare it openly, in the face of the sun, that we may all be 
 prepared for the hard times to come. 
 
 So far as the junior bishop is concerned, I really did intend, in 
 writing that address, to speak in respectful terms of bishop Hed- 
 ding's person, piety, and talents. It is a matter of deep regret, that 
 in writing to a person of his age, my language should have savour- 
 ed, in the least degree, of familiar disrespect. — I here beg the 
 bishop to be assured, that I only intended with manly and becom- 
 ing firmness, to address him, on the subject of his opposition to 
 the cause of reform, as manifested at the close of the Annual Con- 
 ference, in Washington, Pennsylvania. Had it it not been for this 
 opposition, I should probably have remained in silence during this 
 ecclesiastical war, beholding the mustering forces on the field of 
 
153 
 
 conflict, listening to the increasing clangor of arms, and trembling 
 with solicitude lor the success of liberal principles. Bishop Hed- 
 ding chose his own time, place, and method of opposition. I did 
 sincerely believe, that I had a right to ward off the blow, if no one 
 else did. And since he did not ask reformers, what plan he should 
 pursue, in his efforts against our cause; — so neither was I bound 
 to ask him, in what way I should make my reply. His opposition 
 being open, and public, and intended to have a paralyzing effect 
 on the investigation of an entire conference of preachers and peo- 
 ple, I did believe that no private explanations that could be given, 
 by letter or otherwise, to me or any other aggrieved brother, would 
 justify our passing over in silence, his opposition to public discus- 
 sions. The maxim that "the doings of the clergy are to bekept from 
 the eyes of the people," I did believe to be a disgrace to any re- 
 formed church. I think so still. It savours so strongly of the old 
 Roman Harlot, and opens the way for every ecclesiastical abom- 
 ination — unless some one will prove church history false, and that 
 human nature is purer than I have hitherto supposed it to be, my 
 views on this subject will probably remain unchanged to the end of 
 my life. 
 
 It was under the influence of such views and sentiments, the 
 address to bishop Hedding was prepared, and sent to the editorial 
 committee in Baltimore, for publication. When it came from the 
 press I read it with care, and corresponded with my brethren, and 
 found their sentiments in unison with my own, as to its being cor- 
 rect in matters of fact, but somewhat severe in language. It was 
 with sentiments and feelings of profound astonishment that I read 
 Mr. Hedding's note to doctor Jennings, demanding my name, 
 and calling the address 1 'unjust, a misrepresentation throughout, and 
 a vile slander on his character." My name was forthwith surren- 
 dered to bishop Hedding, under an unshaken conviction, founded 
 on the maturest reflection, that I had not treated him in the man- 
 ner reported in his note.* After reflecting awhile, and consulting 
 with faithful friends, selected by bishop George and myself, from 
 both sides of this controversy, I offered of my own accord, to the 
 conference in Steubenville, the following concessions, to be pre- 
 sented to Mr. Hedding by bishop George. I am obliged to pub- 
 lish this document, for the# purpose of correcting erroneous im- 
 pressions, which some of our own preachers have taken much pains 
 to make; and lest it should be supposed by any, that in my "ex- 
 planations and apologies, " mentioned by the prosecuting commit- 
 tee, p. 58, I had acknowledged myself guilty of all they charged 
 me with. 
 
 "Having understood that some of my brethren, are dissatisfied 
 with me as the author of an address to the junior bishop, signed 
 Timothy, I cheerfully avail myself of an opportunity to offer a few 
 remarks to the conference, on that subject. My object in doing so, 
 is to assure my brethren, that for peace sake, I am willing to enter 
 
 •We hold many certificates from men of standing-, several of which were 
 published in the Mutual Rights, confirming* the truth of Mr. Brown's state- 
 ments in his address to the Bishop. S. K. J. 
 
154 
 
 into measures of pacification. And that I may not be misled by 
 my feelings, and to prevent any future misunderstanding on this 
 subject, I have thought proper to place my present views and senti- 
 ments on paper." 
 
 "Peace is my object. I concede therefore, that in two particu- 
 lars in relation to bishop Hedding, I have erred, and failed to select 
 the most excellent way. In the first place, considering the age 
 and standing of bishop Hedding, and my own youth and relation 
 to the church, I think it would have been more proper for me to 
 have conversed with the bishop, or written to him for the purpose 
 of explanation, before I published. This seems to have been re- 
 quired by the law of brotherly love and christian usage. I admit 
 and regret my error in this particular. Secondly, I also concede 
 that in some reflections and inferences in my address, I was un- 
 necessarily severe, and that the asperity should have been evaded 
 as tending to disagreeable results and unpleasant excitements. — 
 This I also regret: for although I thought at the time, that my se- 
 verity was justified by the circumstances, yet I now believe a more 
 mild and cautious manner would have been preferable. 
 
 "I will farther concede, that I have misconceived the meaning of 
 bishop Hedding in some instances, and hence may have made an ap- 
 plication of his positions, beyond what he intended; but if this was 
 the case, it was an inadvertency, no unfairness of construction 
 was intended by me, and no departure from principle, truth, and 
 justice. Nevertheless, I do not admit the charge by bishop Hed- 
 ding, of "injustice," "misrepresentation" and "slander ." 
 
 "After mature reflection, I offer these explanations to the con- 
 ference, as due to bishop Hedding, to them, and to myself: and as 
 required by the ties of our common brotherhood, christian courte- 
 sy, and the pacific principles of our holy religion. 
 
 George Brown." 
 
 The foregoing concessions were deemed by my advisers and 
 myself, sufficient; and as the conference, the members of which 
 had heard the bishop's address, and had read my reply in the paper 
 signed "Timothy," asked nothing further, I felt myself to be toler- 
 ably safe, and so the matter rested.* 
 
 *At the General Conference in Pittsburg, in 1828, being" very desirous of a 
 good understanding- with bishop Hedding-, I went before the committee on 
 episcopacy, at the request of the bishop, and two of the members of 
 that conference, as I understood it, for the purpose of a friendly explanation. 
 When there, I found that great stress was laid by Mr. Hedding on tuowords, 
 viz: "reform," and "discussion," which he said I had used, in a sense far too 
 broad and undefined He insisted that from the manner of my using these 
 words, an idea might be taken up, that he was opposed to all manner of "re- 
 form," and all manner of "discussion," whereas, in his address he had ad- 
 mitted of reform, so far as the election of presiding elders was concerned; 
 and he had admitted of discussion among the preachers privately. My great 
 desire for an amicable adjustment of this affair, which the bishop's note to the 
 editorial committee, demanding my name, had made by far, too personal, led 
 me to go as far as possible in the way of concessions. I therefore conceded, 
 that I had not been sufficiently careful, in distinguishing the precise sense, in 
 
155 
 
 The Baltimore prosecutors have been pleased to say — "There 
 does not appear even from the writer's own showing, that there was 
 any thing amiss in the junior bishop's valedictory address to the 
 Pittsburg Confererence," p. 57. That there was nothing morally 
 "amiss in the bishop's address," is most cheerfully admitted by me. 
 In what I have written, his piety, talents, and personal respectabili- 
 ty, have been spoken of in a favourable manner; but that there was 
 something "amiss" in the principles and policy of the bishop's ad- 
 dress according to my "own showing," I think is very clear. In 
 order that the reader may judge for himself in this matter, I will 
 not quote the paraphrase on my "showing," given by the prose- 
 cutors in the "Narrative and Defence;" but I will quote from the 
 Mutual Rights, vol. 3. p. 109, where my "showing" of the princi- 
 pal facts of his address may be found. "You opposed our preach- 
 ers taking any part in the discussions of Mutual Rights: You op- 
 posed our members in church fellowship, having any thing to do 
 with that work: You supported your opposition by two arguments, 
 viz: that the Mutual Rights would agitate the church; that the 
 change called for by reformers, would never be brought about, be- 
 cause it was not desired by one in twenty of our people: You then 
 gave us an advice to be still, and say nothing, until we got upon 
 the floor of the General Conference, for there, and there alone, was 
 the proper place to discuss such subjects." Now as the Pittsburg 
 Conference has sustained me, in refusing to admit the charge by 
 bishop Hedding, of ''injustice, misrepresentation and slander," of 
 course, the prosecutors had to take this thing according to my 
 "own showing," and make the very best they could of it; or com- 
 mence an open attack on our entire conference. They prudently 
 chose the former of these alternatives. 
 
 I have shown bishop Hedding to be opposed to all public discus- 
 sions of ecclesiastical matters, by our preachers and people, any, and 
 every where, save "on the floor of the General Conference," and I 
 feel perfectly able to prove from the "Narrative and Defence" itself, 
 that our prosecutors in their coolest and most dispassionate mo- 
 ments, did see a great deal "amiss" in my "showing" of his ad- 
 dress to the conference in Washington. They say, "we have 
 never wished to prevent our brethren who differ from us in opinion, 
 from fully and fairly discussing the subject of church government 
 in general, or of our'sin particular," p. 7. These prosecutors did 
 
 which I used the words "reform*' and "discussion,-" and that possibly, infer- 
 ences might have been drawn, &c. which were incorrect. 
 
 But on the most mature reflection, I incline to the opinion, that my con- 
 cessions were hardly called for by truth. All cool-headed, impartial men, would 
 understand me to represent the bishop as oppposing the kind of "reform" 
 contended for in the Mutual Rights, and not all manner of reform; — as op- 
 posing "discussion,'* as carried on in that periodical, and not private "discus- 
 sion." — The very periodical then, in which my piece was published, limited 
 the meaning of the words reform and discussion, so as to leave the bishop un- 
 troubled about the little reform he befriended, and the private discussion he 
 allowed. See a statement of this whole affair in the 4th vol. of the Mutual 
 Rights, p. 380. 
 
 Geokge Brows. 
 
 Pittsburg, June 28th, 1831. 
 
156 
 
 certainly see something "amiss" in the bishop's opposition to pub- 
 lic discussion, when they made the above declaration. Again they 
 say, "we are not aware that any injury would arise from such 
 a controversy, if it were carried on with proper temper; — with a strict 
 regard to truth, and to the feelings and characters of all concern- 
 ed," ibid. — Here the seven prosecutors are in direct opposition to 
 the bishop. He was afraid of "agitating" the church to its "injury." 
 They are "not aware that any injury would arise from this contro- 
 versy;" — of course in their cool moments, they allowed such efforts 
 as his to be altogether "amiss." As to "proper temper" — "a strict 
 regard to truth, and the characters of all concerned;" we do not 
 desire liberty to violate these with impunity, and we will count that 
 man our friend, who, in a christian like manner, will point out our 
 errors in these respects; but would respectfully suggest to the pro- 
 secuting committee the propriety of a strict attention to "truth, 
 feeling, and character," on their own part, before they lecture 
 others, less deeply involved than themselves. Our prosecutors 
 farther say — "In these declarations we believe we speak the lan- 
 guage of our brethren generally," ibid. Now what is this but to 
 tell us plainly, that bishop Hedding in his opposition to public dis- 
 cussion, stands pretty much alone, and that they, and the Metho- 
 dists generally, are against him, and why against him so pointedly 
 unless his efforts were "amiss?" "We are prepared," they say, 
 "to follow the leadings of providence;" — "and to adapt our econo- 
 my to the circumstances of time and place, in such a way as may 
 be deemed best calculated, to promote the glory of God, and the 
 salvation of mankind," ibid. Now in all of this, the committee 
 seem to see something "amiss," in such efforts as we have shown 
 Mr. Hedding to have made. He was favourable to the election of 
 presiding elders, it is true. So far he went for reform, but no 
 further, and for this much, little as it is, I should have given him 
 credit in my address. But the prosecutors are disposed to "adapt 
 our economy to time, place and circumstances," as providence may 
 open the way. This is all we ask. Let us all agree to discuss the 
 subject calmly, and follow providence. If this is done, our church 
 government will certainly be altered for the better, because we shall 
 then be qualified as a people to enjoy a better. But should the 
 right of public discussion be denied us, and our people be thereby 
 involved in profound and perpetual darkness on this subject; a 
 despotism will be the very best kind of government that they will 
 be qualified to bear, and of course, providence will give them no 
 other. Our brethren wind up on this page by telling us, that neither 
 they, the preachers, nor our members, have any "wish or desire" 
 to "suppress inquiry," or to "prevent discussion." Nothing could 
 have been more opposite to Mr. Hedding's address, according to 
 my "own showing," and yet strange to tell, in my "own showing" 
 of that address, they can see nothing "amiss"!!! They very grave- 
 ly tell us, in their sage and weighty remarks, that bishop Hedding 
 "very properly advised them (the conference) to postpone the dis- 
 cussion until by themselves or their representatives, they should 
 have an opportunity calmly and deliberately to consider it on the 
 floor of the General Conference," p. 57. Now is it not clear that 
 
157 
 
 at page 57, they go all lengths with reformers, as to the right and 
 utility of free discussion? And is it not equally clear, that in their 
 unguarded moments, they have contradicted themselves, by going 
 the whole way with the bishop in his opposition to public discus- 
 sion? And we are to consider the bishop's opposition, &c. under 
 the notion of very "proper advice," are we? Why now, how hard 
 things are softened! — What a white washing committee is this! — I 
 shall leave them to reconcile their own contradictions in the best 
 way they can, and shall conclude this part with two observations. — 
 1. If, according to my "own showing," there was nothing "amiss" 
 in the bishop's addre&s, then surely I have not slandered him, un- 
 less these seven wise men can make it appear, that it is slander in 
 reformers to state nothing "amiss" of brethren in the opposition. 
 This is not the first time that speaking nothing "amiss" has been con- 
 sidered slander, by the supporters of the enormous claims of our 
 itinerant clergy. 2. Nothing morally "amiss," is pretended in this 
 case, but we do think there was something "amiss" in the princi- 
 ples indicated by Mr. Hedding's address, in opposition to public 
 discussion. His motives may have been good. He wanted, no 
 doubt, to preserve the church from "agitation," and to keep peace 
 within all our borders. But to attempt to preserve a community 
 unagitated and peaceful, by obstructing or withholding the right of 
 free and fair discussion, I contend is arbitrary in principle, and in 
 such a country as ours, must tend to very unpleasant results. Will 
 any man in this free and independent nation, venture in the face 
 of open day, to affirm or prove the contrary? Such a man will be 
 told at once, by a thousand tongues, and by a thousand pens, that 
 science can only advance — that civilization can only progress — that 
 governments can only be improved, and that religion itself, can only 
 extend its reign, in proportion as discussion is allowed on a liberal 
 scale. In speaking thus, I speak the language of a great and hap- 
 py people, and I have no doubt, but that I speak the language of 
 bishop Hedding too, in reference to all subjects except this one. O, 
 how detestable is the maxim, that "the doings of the clergy are to be 
 kept from the eyes of the World." I hope the day will speedily come, 
 when this proverb shall no more be used to the disgrace of our 
 Israel. 
 
 I will now answer to the charge of ascribing to Bishop Hedding 
 "a thirst for power and desire of dominion which is only equalled 
 by the papacy," p. 57. This is a charge of some magnitude, and 
 must therefore receive a candid consideration. If I really have 
 conveyed the idea, that Bishop Hedding's "thirst for power and 
 desire of dominion," was equal to that of the popes of Rome, I am not 
 sensible of it. The prosecuting committee only adduced one pas- 
 sage from my address to Mr. Hedding, in proof of this charge, 
 which is as follows: — "We should be more inexcusable than the 
 members of the christian church in the rise of popery, if we were 
 to suffer our spiritual rulers to enslave us; we have many advan- 
 tages unknown to them, particularly the printing press. What a 
 blessing this has been to the world, what a scourge to wild and law- 
 21 
 
158 
 
 less ambition'!" ibid. — In order that it may be seen, that their 
 charge is not supported by this quotation, the reader will indulge 
 us, in submitting the following remarks. 1st. Bishop Hedding is 
 no more concerned in this passage, than the travelling preachers 
 generally, for they are the "spiritual rulers" intended. 2d. Let it 
 be distinctly recollected, that these our "spiritual rulers," have all 
 legislative, judicial and executive power — all creed-making, proper- 
 ty controlling, officer appointing power, now in their own hands, and 
 Bishop Hedding, who is presumed to speak the language of at 
 least, a majority of our itinerant ministers, did strenuously oppose 
 our preachers and members, publicly examining into this order of 
 things. 3d. Although our "spiritual rulers" have hitherto been 
 good men in general; — indeed it maybe acknowledged, that their 
 goodness so far, has been almost the only earthly safe guard of the 
 church; there being very few redeeming principles in the govern- 
 ment; — yet this safe guard is beginning to be less worthy of trust t 
 than formerly. The arbitrary government of our church is a con- 
 tinual temptation to the itinerants to become arbitrary. We are 
 certain that long possessed, unchecked, unbalanced, irresponsible 
 power, is calculated to spoil the best men in the world, and as the 
 principles of the government are unrighteous and enslaving in their 
 character; how then was I to shut my eyes against the direct ten- 
 dency of this order of things, to enslave our people, in its practi- 
 cal operations? Dr. Paley says, in his evidences of Christianity, 
 "that they who are in possession of power, do what they can to 
 keep it," and that "Christianity does not universally condemn this 
 principle, because it is not universally wrong," p. 377. The power 
 to do good, is also the power to do evil. Good men may desire to 
 get, and keep power for good purposes; this "Christianity does not 
 universally condemn." And evil men may desire to get and keep 
 power, for evil purposes; this Christianity cannot allow — and since 
 power, or something else, may spoil any of the frail sons of Adam 
 now, as well as in former ages, and in other countries, it therefore, 
 clearly follows, that for our preachers to have all this unchecked, 
 irresponsible power, in their hands, is wrong; because human na- 
 ture now, must be greatly altered from what it used to be, or it will 
 end in absolute ecclesiastical slavery. 4th. In order for this quota- 
 tion to have supported their charge, it should have made our "spir- 
 itual rulers," to be as bad men as the popes of Rome; as wicked- 
 ly athir st for power, and perfectly given up to the "desire" of tem- 
 poral and spiritual "dominion," as they. This I have not said, 
 neither came it into my heart. Of course their charge is wholly 
 unsustained by this quotation. 5th. I refer to popery in its rise, 
 without saying one word about the goodness, or the badness of the 
 ministry in those days. We may suppose the teachers of religion 
 to have been good men. We may suppose people to have volun- 
 tarily given their share of church power, into the hands of their 
 ministers, for the purpose of increasing their usefulness: but what 
 was the result? Ask history, it can tell. All the sighs, groans, 
 tears and miseries, of the papal world, from Constantine down to 
 the present day, now call on us to learu wisdom, by the folly and 
 
159 
 
 miseries of others, and not to play the old game over again. 6th. 
 As to the "printing press" being a "blessing to the world," do our 
 prosecutors deny this? If so, let them speak out, that we may un- 
 derstand them. Let them tell whether, in their opinion, matters 
 would not move on much better, if men of their views could con- 
 trol all the "printing presses" in this nation. Had the first chris- 
 tians been blessed with "printing presses," as we now are, perhaps 
 they would have remained free from ecclesiastical slavery. 7th. 
 As to the "wild and lawless ambition" spoken of, however applica- 
 ble such a remark may be to some of the itinerant clergy, yet it 
 never was intended for them as a body, as all candid men must al- 
 low. I think that even our prosecutors might have perceived, that 
 as I represented the "press" as a "blessing to the world," in one 
 part of the sentence: so in the other, I meant, that it had been a 
 scourge to the "wild and lawless ambition" of the world, and I here 
 add, that the press has been a very necessary scourge, on the "wild 
 and lawless ambition" of men, high in ecclesiastical power. So may 
 it still continue to be, and if "our spiritual rulers" need scourging, 
 let them have it; and let all the people say amen. 
 
 Two of what the committee are pleased to call my "unwarran- 
 table inferences," must receive some attention. I have inferred 
 from the bishop's opposition to reform, and to public discussion, that 
 he held the doctrine, that "to obey was enough for the people" p. 58. 
 And is this an unwarrantable inference? Will the bishop, the pro- 
 secutors, or any other thorough going old side man affirm this? I 
 think they will not — and I declare it to be the very spirit of our 
 ecclesiastical government. So far from calling it an "unwarranta- 
 ble inference," these brethren ought to write on their phylacteries, 
 and wear it to the house of their solemnities, in order to let all the 
 zealous sons of the church know, that "TO OBEY IS ENOUGH 
 FOR THE PEOPLE" CALLED METHODISTS. 
 
 The other inference from the same premises was, that the 
 "bishops rule by a divine right, which ought not to be examined, or 
 called in question," ibid. The former part of this inference, may 
 possibly be incorrect, since without believing in the "divine right" 
 of episcopacy, he might have manifested the same opposition to 
 reform. But the latter part of the inference, namely, that the "right" 
 by which our bishops do "rule, ought not be examined or called in 
 question" stands good, and will, until the right of free discussion, 
 is allowed to the whole church. The prosecutors speak of me as 
 "holding up the bishop to the political execration of the people," p. 
 58. This charge deserves particular attention. To support it they 
 make the following quotation from my address to Mr. Hedding. 
 "I do sir think it my duty, to hold up your conduct to public view, 
 (not execration) that all men may know what a genuine friend to the 
 rights of man you are, and how entirely republicanism governs all 
 your movements," ibid. — And are the prosecutors opposed to the 
 bishop's principles being known by the community at large? To 
 make them known was all I aimed at. Must we all get back to the 
 hateful maxim, that "the doings of the clergy" — especially, the 
 principles and doings of bishops, "are to be kept from the eyes of 
 
160 
 
 the world?" No, indeed, the principles and conduct of all public men 
 should be known, in order that every man may pass for what he is 
 worth, and no more. On the above quotation the committee re- 
 mark: "Now would not any man infer, from all this vituperation and 
 abuse, that the bishop had greatly infringed on this author's rights, 
 or uttered some opinions on government subversive of our civil 
 institutions? yet nothing of all this had happened," ibid. — Here 
 we shall take occasion to observe: 1st. The irony of this piece 
 might have been spared, as too nettling in its character; but to 
 hold up the bishop's principles and "conduct to public view'' for a 
 valuable purpose, was not "vituperation and abuse" — the real truth, 
 told for beneficial purposes in church or state, is not abuse on public 
 officers. 2d. The liberty of public discussion, is the indubitable 
 right of the church, as well as the state. — Bishop Hedding did op- 
 pose public discussion, any and every where, save on the floor of 
 the General Conference, and I have not questioned his good inten- 
 tions in doing so. He no doubt meant to preserve the church from 
 "agitation." 3d. But the course adopted by the bishop in order 
 to accomplish his wishes, in the preservation of tranquillity, was a 
 little unfortunate, and can never be reconciled with the rights of man, 
 or sound republican principles. God does not save us by destroy- 
 ing our freedom: so neither should bishops undertake to save the 
 church from "agitation," by laying an embargo on the liberty of 
 public discussion — this the bishop did, with all the force of emphatic 
 exhortation and advice — aye, he threw all his influence against it, 
 before the whole conference and many citizens who were present. 
 4th. The prosecutors may glory in declaring that my humble 
 "rights were not infringed upon," if they will; — they very gravely 
 tell us, that "nothing of all this had happened," but what is all this 
 but to say, either that I was already a slave, and had no rights at 
 all; or that the bishop never opposed public discussion, for which 
 I contend, as a right of the church. 5th. Let some politician un- 
 dertake to assuage the "agitations" of the American people, in the 
 true style of Bishop Hedding, by opposing public discussion, any, 
 and every where, save on the floor of Congress, and see if he is 
 not immediately charged from all quarters of our happy country, 
 with "uttering opinions on the subject of government, subver- 
 sive of our civil institutions." Would not Mr. Hedding himself 
 charge him? — would not our prosecutors come out long and loud 
 against him? Aye, and the editors of the "Christian Advocate" too. 
 Let all candid men reflect a little on this matter. 
 
 We have one item more to notice, and then we are done. The 
 prosecutors say: — "As to the stealing march of ecclesiastical power, 
 which is complained of, the writer knew that the march had been 
 retrograde," p. 5S. Is this so? Have I, with perfect knowledge 
 of the contrary, stated "the stealing march of power," to be on- 
 ward? No truly, what I stated, I knew to be the fact, and I shall 
 now sustain myself, by an induction of particulars, and leave the 
 community to judge, whether "ecclesiastical power" has been on 
 the "stealing march," backward or forward. 
 
161 
 
 1st. In 1784, in the city of Baltimore, on Christmas day, at the 
 organization of the government of the Methodist E. Church, the 
 itinerant preachers did then, and there, boldly march up to a princi- 
 ple of ecclesiastical polity, and take it into their safe keeping, after 
 which the Roman clergy struggled, by trick, stratagem, and pious 
 fraud, for 1160 years before they laid their hands upon it, and took 
 it into their safe keeping; and when they got it, the church was 
 ruined. The principle is this, namely, that to the itinerant clergy 
 alone, does pertain of divine right, all legislative, judicial and execu- 
 tive power, over the whole church; leaving nothing to the local preach- 
 ers and the lay members, but absolute submission to their will, or ex- 
 patriation from the church. — Their will officially expressed, by a de- 
 legation of one for every seven itinerant ministers, in the General 
 Conference, is now the law of the church, against which there is no bal- 
 ance of power, no check, or defence in any way. A single pope never 
 sat on St. Peter's chair at Rome, for 1160 years, without the elec- 
 tive voice of the people, as maybe seen by an appeal to Mosheim's 
 and Gregory's Church Historys; but when had our local preachers 
 and members a voice in the election of a bishop of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church? Never! 
 
 2d. In changing the title of superintendent, in 1787, for that of 
 bishop, without the consent of the American Conference. See 
 Lee's "History ot the Methodists," p. 128, and contrary to the ex- 
 press instructions of Mr. Wesley. See "Moore's life of Wesley," 
 p. 285, and when becoming an independent Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, doctor Coke, Mr. Asbury, and the itinerant preachers, did 
 abundantly strengthen themselves in the possession of the power 
 which they had assumed at the time of the organization of the go- 
 vernment. 
 
 3d.* According to Lee's "History of the Methodists," p. 183, 
 the power to make presiding elders, which was first assumed, and 
 "used for several years" without law, and was finally in 1792, estab- 
 lished to the bishops by the General Conference, "gave them a 
 power over the whole church," which indeed, "really looks alarm- 
 ing!" No man in his senses will pretend that the power of epis- 
 copacy is weaker by the presiding elder system. This system ren- 
 ders the whole government, in its practical operations, vastly more 
 powerful in every way. 
 
 4th. In 1796, according to Lee's History, p. 234, a "deed of 
 settlement" was got up, to be carried into execution throughout 
 the whole connexion, as far as the civil authorities and laws would 
 allow. This deed makes the property a kind of common stock, or 
 at least, the use of it is made common to all the Methodists in 
 every state and in every conference. It is placed under the abso- 
 lute legislative control of the "General Conference, of ministers 
 and preachers," for the people can only use it according to their 
 legislation. It is placed also under the absolute appointing power 
 of the bishops, who have power to put the occupants into the pul- 
 pits and parsonages, without consulting any will but their own. 
 Thus, the itinerant clergy, by taking this anti-christian hold of the 
 temporalities of the people, have immense power over them. By 
 
162 
 
 controlling the property, they control the people themselves: u jor 
 power over a marts substance, really does in most instances, amount 
 to a power over his will." Is this march retrograde, or onward? 
 
 5th. In 1808, the restrictive instrument, improperly called a con- 
 stitution, was formed, by which our bishops became officers for life. 
 The General Conference became a delegated body, and the whole 
 government was so saddled upon the Methodist community, by the 
 itinerant ministry alone, that no vital changes can be effected or 
 hoped for, ivithout the consent of all the Annual Conferences, and a 
 vote of a majority of two-thirds of the subsequent General Confer- 
 ence. This the bishops can easily hinder, as they hold all the ap- 
 pointing power, and consequently all the church livings in their 
 hands. This is onward too. 
 
 6th. In 1820, if I mistake not, our bishops became pensioned 
 upon the book concern, at New York, for all their table expenses. 
 Henceforth, they are not to know want like other men. Their sup- 
 port is as certain as that concern can make it. Numbers have 
 given them power. Wealth has given them power; for what would 
 a King be, with all his arbitrary principles of government, without 
 men and money? 
 
 In this induction of particulars, we think we have shown u the 
 stealing march of ecclesiastical power" in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, to be onward, fearfully ''tending towards accumulation," 
 and yet we are told by the prosecuting committee, because Mr. 
 Wesley's general assistant, and the itinerant preachers had done 
 pretty much as they pleased, before the church had any thing like a 
 settled government i. e. before the revolution, "that the march of 
 ecclesiastical power is retrograde!" What candid man, who knows 
 any thing of our history, can allow this? The fact is, the princi- 
 ples assumed by the itinerant clergy in the organization of the go- 
 vernment are without parallel in our country, for this tyrannical 
 character; and these principles the itinerant clergy have become 
 amazingly strengthened in, by their various additions, and by 
 nothing are they more strengthened, than by their firm grasp on 
 church property, through the medium of the "deed of settlement," 
 and the constitution, as they call it, of 1808 — this girds the govern- 
 ment fast upon the people, and leaves them no hope, but in eccle- 
 siastical expatriation. George Brown. 
 
 Steubenville, May 1st, 1828. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Miscellaneous remarks by Dissenter, published in January, 1827. 
 
 The extracts, from this paper, like the rest of Dr. Bond's selec- 
 tions for his Narrative and Defence, could not have had their in- 
 tended effect, had they been so exhibited as to have conveyed the 
 true and entire meaning of the writer. We have revised the pa- 
 per and can find nothing, considering the occasion which produ- 
 
163 
 
 ced it, to which we can raise any reasonable objection. It is only 
 necessary to replace the extracts and read them in their proper 
 connexions with the whole essay, to be convinced of their truth. 
 We proceed therefore to submit the paper in its own justification. 
 In order to assist the reader, the parts selected by Doctor Bond, 
 will be printed in Italics; and a few notes will be appended. The 
 reader is requested in the mean time, to keep it in his recollection, 
 that the travelling preachers, by the aid of those under their influ- 
 ence, had begun to expel reformers, for partaking in the formation 
 and exercises of union societies, before these remarks were admit- 
 ted into the Mutual Rights. 
 
 Messrs. Editors, 
 
 Under the date of October 20th, I sent you some thoughts 
 on the subject of reform in the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 
 that communication I briefly suggested, first, that there are multi- 
 tudes in the bosom of our church, distributed over this continent, 
 who are decidedly favourable to many changes in the government 
 of the church, but who from motives of prudence, remain silent on 
 the subject, and probably will continue to do so, until this contro- 
 versy shall assume some conclusive aspect. Of the truth of this 
 remark I have additional confirmation since the date of my last. 
 I suggested, secondly, that there were many weighty reasons for 
 the silence and neutrality of our preachers and members, on this 
 momentous question, and a principal one is, that a system of op- 
 pressive treatment and persecution has been organized and acted 
 upon, from New England to New Orleans. It is the policy and 
 practice of those in rule, to place in as obscure and irresponsible 
 relations and stations as possible, all our travelling preachers who 
 are suspected of being friendly to the proposed reform in the gov- 
 ernment of the church, while local preachers, leaders, stewards and 
 trustees are placed under the ban, and in the back ground of the 
 administration, for the same reason. And to finish this ominous 
 specimen of papal manoeuvre, numbers have been expelled from 
 the church, simply because they are retbrmers. This will doubt- 
 less deter and intimidate many, but not all. There are those who 
 will speak and write; and there are those who will hear and read, 
 maugre all this threatening array of distrust and persecution, held 
 up to reformers in terrorem: A third remark was, that those who 
 wish for reform, and act from conviction in trying to obtain it, 
 should be firm and fearless in the assertion of their rights. 
 
 J confess it is a source of peculiar gratification to me to see the 
 spirit of determined inquiry so extensively diffused among our people, 
 notwithstanding conference lectures, pulpit hints, and class room les- 
 sons to prevent it. These warning voices so often lifted up in our 
 hearing, are the evident misgivings of power, and so many proofs 
 that our arguments in favour of reform, are felt even by those who affect 
 to despise them. A fourth of my prefatory remarks was, that al- 
 though much good feeling may be lost in this controversy, yet as the 
 present and future interests of the church require it, reformers ought 
 not to blench from their purpose, whatever social sacrifices they may be 
 
164 
 
 culled upon to make; but ought to continue in the church, and multiply 
 and vary their efforts, until the existing anomaly of government in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, shall revert to its primitive Wesleyan 
 standard; in which state, if we can credit Mr. Wesley's declarations, 
 it was never intended that the Methodists should become an ecclesiasti- 
 cal establishment, headed by an episcopal hierarchy, consisting of an 
 indefinite number of incumbents, all possessing the same powers, and 
 ruling the same diocese.* The model for such a state of things, is 
 not to be met with in the whole range of church history, except when 
 four individuals at the same time, claimed by divine right, the chair 
 of popedom in the Roman see. If the reader is startled at this, let 
 him recollect that things that are alike in their nature and progress 
 will be compared by the human mind and classed accordingly. A 
 fifth remark, was on the right which every reformer has to remain 
 in the church. Why leave it? They believe and speak the doc- 
 trines of the bible, as taught by Mr. Wesley and his venerable as- 
 sociates. They do not object to the moral discipline of the church. 
 They are pleased with and determined to support the Wesleyan 
 plan of itinerancy. They are attached to all the peculiarities of 
 original Methodism, as taught by the Wesleys, such as class and 
 band meetings, love-feasts, and free-seated churches. A charge 
 I am aware, has been published by our patent rulers, from Maine 
 to Georgia, and from the Gulph of St. Lawrence to the mouth of 
 the Mississippi, that reformers intend the destruction of all these, 
 but we ask for the proof. Have reformers ever said it? Have 
 they written it? Is it to be inferred from their known character 
 and conduct? Have they not uniformly disavowed it? It is in this 
 way, I regret to say, the motives of reformers have been gravely 
 libelled, in order to maim and cripple their efforts in an attempt to 
 improve the church, and promote its best interests; but I sincerely 
 hope none of the friends of reform will be provoked to leave the 
 church. If the work of extermination be commenced, they will 
 find enough to do. Every such outrage will be avenged by an at- 
 titude of resistance and defence on the part of scores, who but for 
 such measures would have gone to their graves without marshalling 
 themselves among those with whom on this subject they had long 
 thought and felt. I repeat, therefore, a former suggestion, that 
 separation from the church is to be deprecated, until heaven by 
 ' 'obvious indication" shall point out the time. We cannot expect 
 to succeed immediately in the great objects we have in view. I have 
 no hope that the next general conference will do any thing for us. We 
 have too many men in power, bishops and would-be-bishops, that are 
 hovering over the nucleus of eclesiastical aggrandizement; and alrea- 
 dy laying their plans to prevent the election of reformers to the gen- 
 eral conference, to indulge the hope, even for a moment, that we shall be 
 able to accomplish much in that short time. But the fact, that they 
 are thus industrious to defeat the objects of reform, is the proof of our 
 
 *Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. Asbury as published in bis life by Mr. Moore, 
 puts this question for ever at rest. "How can you— how dare you suffer 
 yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder, 1 startle at the very thought, &c ! 
 Sec!" Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. 2, page 285. 
 
165 
 
 success. Let them manceuvre, let them caucus, let them buy men by 
 (he "sale of indigencies ," all will ultimately operate in our favour, 
 and only multiply our friends.* Witness the re-action of their con- 
 duct at the Baltimore conference in 1824. Witness the unintend- 
 ed effect of bishop Hedding's famous address at the Pittsburg con- 
 ference in August last. Also the effect that has followed the 
 defection of three or four half-hearted reformers in different sec- 
 tions of our country; men who publickly and privately committed 
 themselves to the interests of reform, and then for the sake of a 
 place, as it would seem, cowered down most civilly at the feet of 
 episcopal patronage. That this was their motive, I infer from the 
 fact, that reformers only ask now, what they then prayed for, a re- 
 presentative government. Reform is now, what it was then. If 
 their change has been the result of honest conviction, why not let 
 us know the powerful reasons which produced that conviction? 
 If we are in an error, and they have the proof of our folly, why not 
 let it be known? Why not declare this part of God's counsel that 
 has been so useful to their own souls? The result has been, that 
 their former friends on both sides of this question think, that these 
 men will, at least, bear watching. 
 
 Another method by which our views are furthered, is, the abuse 
 of "Mutual Rights," by old side brethren indiscriminately. They 
 denounce this publication as utterly treasonous: — Immediately the 
 people start up, and wish to see the odious thing.t — They seek it, 
 read, and become reformers. It is really surprising that so many 
 hard names, so many ill-natured epithets, should be given to a lit- 
 tle monthly paper, gotten up as its title imports, to evince by ar- 
 gument, that the rights of legislation in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church belong to the many, and not the privileged few. One says 
 it is "inflammatory;" another, it is "too sour;" a third, it is a 
 "wicked bitter thing;" a fourth, it is edited and supported by a 
 group of "backsliders;" a fifth, that the writers withhold their 
 names, and that nobody will notice it, not even to review it. These, 
 Messrs. Editors, are grave episcopal objections, and have all been 
 urged by our pious rulers. Now I would ask all who may happen 
 to be my readers, whether there is any thing in "Mutual Rights," 
 from its first to its last number, more inflammatory, sour, bitter, 
 wicked; — that furnishes more stubborn signs of backsliding; — that 
 has greater reason to be anonymous; that ought to excite less ad- 
 miration, or that should sooner shrink from a review than this lan- 
 guage of our overseers. Is the work good for nothing because no 
 one has replied to it? What then will become of scores of publi- 
 cations that issue from our book room? Who reviews the Meth- 
 
 *The appeal which the writer makes to the facts which immediately follow, 
 is sufficient explanation of the extent of his meaning- and amply justifies his 
 statements. 
 
 f We know there are few exceptions to this statement. Some read the 
 work to find additional ways and means to sustain their power. And there 
 are others, the slavish adherents to the powers that be, who read to find fault, 
 that they may better please their masters. 
 
 22 
 
166 
 
 odist Magazine? Bangs on Episcopacy, McKendree's Address, 
 the famous circular of the Bishops in 1824, and so of other publi- 
 cations stamped with the magic authority of the Methodist book 
 room. All these have received as little notice in the light of 
 review, as Mutual Rights, and less, except from reformers them- 
 selves. But the work is anonymous, and therefore unworthy of 
 confidence. And does the intrinsic value of a work, professing 
 to state facts, and discuss principles which every one has the means 
 of investigating, depend on the authority or credit of a name? If 
 so, what will become of some of the most valuable productions of 
 the literary world, even a portion of the Holy Scriptures? the books 
 of Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Job, many of the Psalms, and 
 the Epistles to the Hebrews? These were all anonymous, and 
 the writers only ascertained from the internal evidence of their 
 productions, and some of them remain unknown to the present 
 day. Were the papers of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, now 
 forming the political text book of this country, unworthy of confi- 
 dence because they all withheld their names at the time of publi- 
 cation? Have the letters of Junius been of no service to the world, 
 the author of which is still unknown? Should Belshazzar have 
 been unmindful of the hand-writing on the wall, because he did 
 not know the hand that traced it? Ought the blind man in the 
 gospel, to have listened to the advice of the Pharisees, because 
 the character and claims of his benefactor were only accredited by 
 the convictions of his own understanding? But Messrs. Editors, 
 I will not proceed. Every reader will perceive, that these are the 
 arguments of children, although urged by men grown. The fact 
 is, these men perceive that their idol is in danger; if light be diffus- 
 ed on this subject, principle will become triumphant. A church 
 ruled and governed by men and laws, whose official creation does 
 not emanate from the intelligence and will of the people, was the 
 capital blunder of the primitive church, and gave birth to popery 
 with all its train of debasing and damning evils. Are we better 
 than the primitive church? if not, the warning voice of history tells 
 us we are in danger. But say the advocates of the present mono- 
 poly of power in the church, the people do not ask for their rights; 
 for even a bishop has admitted in my hearing, that if they did, they 
 ought to have them. This is well enough, it is conceding, at least, 
 that all is not right; and, that when the people have sense enough 
 to find it out, and independence enough to induce complaint, then 
 they must be attended to, on this subject. It would seem then, 
 that we are not to "render to all their dues," unless we are asked 
 to do so. We are not to do justice unless the injured implore 
 mercy. * * * * Messrs. Editors, what we ask is, that Methodism 
 may be in these United States what it was under the eye and man- 
 agement of Mr. Wesley, with this difference, that the government 
 of the church shall correspond with the genius and policy of the 
 political institutions of this country. This is plainly suggested, as 
 1 conceive, in Mr. Wesley's letter to Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, 
 in relation to the civil rights of American Methodists. But Mr. 
 Wesley seems not to have contemplated an episcopacy in any shape. It 
 
 % 
 
167 
 
 is, to be sure, asserted in the preface to our book of discipline; but the 
 oldest preachers in the United States, with whom I have conversed and 
 corresponded on the subject, never saw the warrant. It has been called 
 for by friends and foes for thirty years, but is not yet forthcoming. 
 If such warrant exists, why is it that we can learn nothing about it? 
 I have a letter in my possession, saying that a venerable old 
 preacher in the neighborhood of Baltimore, for whom I have the 
 highest regard, is in possession of this document, — that is, written 
 instructions from Mr. Wesley recommending a Methodist episco- 
 pacy in the United States. Now if this highly esteemed contem- 
 porary of Mr. Wesley, will give this document to the world, he will 
 confer a singular favour on thousands in the Methodist church.* 
 But until such a document or warrant from Mr. Wesley, be produced, 
 I as an individual, must of necessity continue to doubt the histori- 
 cal probity of the preface to our book of discipline, in relation to 
 this particular. I am the more confident that no such document 
 exists, because Mr. Wesley has expressly, in a letter to bishop 
 Asbury, now before the public, ridiculed his pretensions as a bish- 
 op, in a way that plainly says, Mr. Wesley never intended Mr. As- 
 bury to be one of the type he was. But as this subject is soon to 
 be discussed by an able hand, I forbear saying more than is neces- 
 sary to my present purpose. Again, Mr. Wesley definitely disa- 
 vows his belief in the validity of a third ordination differing from 
 that of presbyter. Finally, as Mr. Wesley was only a presbyter 
 himself, he could not, if disposed, have conferred a third and higher 
 ordination on Dr. Coke, and directed him to confer the same ordi- 
 nation on Mr. Asbury; and if he even had done so, it is no reason 
 why we should perpetuate the error: Mr. Wesleys' motto was, 
 "follow me when I follow Christ." 
 
 The object of reformers, therefore, is, that Methodism in this coun- 
 try may be what it was under the personal inspection of Mr. Wesley, 
 subject to such revision and changes in its external discipline, as 
 shall best accord with the rapid increase of knowledge and the im- 
 proving spirit of the times. As an individual reformer, I am con- 
 vinced that I contend for nothing that Mr. Wesley would object to, 
 under similar circumstances; and this I propose to shew clearly and 
 unequivocally from Mr. Wesley's writings, in a future communica- 
 tion. When, therefore,, our bishops, presiding elders, preachers 
 and people, of the old school, sound the note of alarm, that Wes- 
 leyan Methodism is in danger, they either no not know what Wes- 
 leyan Methodism is, or they subject themselves to the charge of 
 disingenousness. What had Wesleyan Methodism to do with our 
 self-created and self-styled episcopacy? For I repeat it, Dr. Coke 
 was only set apart as a supvrintendent of the American Methodists, 
 and not ordained to a third office as a prelatical bishop. The ceremo- 
 ny of separation was only intended to confer Mr. Wesley's authority 
 to oversee the American Methodists upon another, as Mr. Wesley could 
 not attend to them in person. What did original Methodism know of 
 
 * We are assured, that the preacher alluded to has no such document in his 
 possession. — Eds. 
 
168 
 
 our order of presiding elder si One man having power to appoint 
 seventy, to overrule and remove at pleasure fourteen hundred. Where 
 in the annals of original Methodism did the framers of our dis- 
 cipline meet with the ceremony of ordination for a bishop? What 
 hand had Mr. Wesley in the selection? If original Methodism 
 was the object of the establishment in this country, why was Mr. 
 Wesley expelled from his own family, by the official decision of 
 his own children, in striking off his name from the American min- 
 utes? And why did Dr. Coke declare, when preaching the funeral 
 sermon of Mr. Wesley, that he deemed it the greatest sin of his 
 ministerial life, that he did not raise his voice against this act of 
 treacherous cruelty, from one side of the continent to the other? 
 The truth is, our brethren have widely departed from primitive 
 Methodism, and the principal object of reformers is to bring them 
 back. 
 
 Reformers are charged with "disaffection. " But if their object 
 is simply to deprive Methodism of its adventitious incumbrances, 
 and adapt it, in its external organization, to the primitive mode of 
 operation in the New Testament, surely the charge of disaffection 
 lies at the door of anti-reformers who first corrupted the simple 
 plans of Methodism, and now wish to give immortality to their 
 folly in refusing to reform. 
 
 We are told, reproachfully, that reformers are "few." We need 
 only ask, were not the knees in Israel unbent to Baal few, in Elijah's 
 time? Were not the apostles few, when they went out to evangel- 
 ize the world? How many were with the Saxon reformer when he 
 commenced his career of glory? How many with Wesley when 
 he began a reform in the church of England? If the majority are 
 most likely to be right, in any organized body of people, why with- 
 hold the privilege of election and representation from three hun- 
 dred thousand ministers and members of the church, and place it 
 in the hands of a "few!" 
 
 But we are told the "missionary character" of our ministry will 
 be destroyed if we alter the present system. But as in other cases 
 of objection, the proof is omitted. Did not missionary enterprize 
 succeed in the first ages of the church, when all the bishops of the 
 church together, did not possess as much power as one of our's 
 does now? We might quote here, the Waldenses and Albigenses, 
 the Moravians and others, who have been as truly primitive and 
 missionary in their character as ever we were, and yet without an 
 episcopacy resembling ours. So far from this being true, the fact, 
 I apprehend, is beyond cavil, that multitudes of the most able and 
 worthy ministers we have ever had among us, have been driven 
 from missionary toil altogether, because of the arbitrary and capri- 
 cious notions of the episcopacy, in sending them whither they 
 could not go, without a violation of other and paramount duties. 
 But it would seem anti-reformers "know nothing" of these things. 
 
 The improvements proposed in our present form of government, are 
 openly denounced as "innovations." This is somewhat singular when 
 every man of information knows, that our whole system of episcopacy 
 in the United States, is to all intents and purposes, an "innovation" 
 
169 
 
 upon the genius and plans of Wcslcyan Methodism, and one expressly 
 disapproved and disavowed by Mr. Wesley. 
 
 We are told by some, with an air of great confidence, that we 
 enjoy all the "rights and privileges stipulated for or acquired," at 
 the time of joining the church. This is not true of any ministeror 
 member of the church on the continent, who became members 
 prior to 1S08. Our restrictive bill of rights of this date, deprives 
 ministers and members of rights with which they were introduced 
 into the world, and born into the kingdom of God, and our book of 
 discipline has undergone alterations and received additions quad- 
 rennially ever since. When a few travelling preachers, who meet 
 in general conference, each representing his "sacred seven," and 
 to the whole body of the church beside, utterly irresponsible, see 
 proper, then our code of laws is incomplete; but when multitudes, 
 here and there, throughout a community of nearly four hundred 
 thousand human beings, complain of the unnatural and unscriptural 
 distribution of power among us, then we are hushed by an argu- 
 ment, that it seems must be received without defence or proof, 
 whether it is because it is too forcible to require proof, or too feeble 
 to admit of it, I cannot pretend to say, but the argument is, re- 
 formers are "few — disaffected, and innovaters;" and what is worse 
 than all, will say what they think; the prudence of the determina- 
 tion not to defend this position, must be obvious to every one. 
 
 It is said by our friends of the old side (not Mr. Wesley's 
 side, however,) that our plans and efforts to obtain a representative 
 government, and have the thousands of our Israel duly represent- 
 ed in the legislative councils of the church, are "visionary theories 
 and uncertain speculations." This dexterous stroke, obviously an 
 "appeal to the political feelings" of those concerned, betrays a 
 fearful want of attention both to civil and church history, and is 
 broadly contradicted by the records of ages and nations. The al- 
 leged incompatibility of representative government with successful 
 missionary enterprize, is equally contradicted by the history of 
 man and the bible, and a discerning public cannot fail to mark this 
 item of Methodist policy, as worthy of being called up again. 
 
 One remark more, Messrs Editors. It is said reformers "inveigh 
 against the discipline of the church." This charge we deny. We 
 think the discipline of the church defective, and wish it improved; 
 but where is the reformer that refuses peaceably to submit to the 
 order of the church? While we remain in the church, and its pre- 
 sent discipline is retained, it is our intention to submit to it. May 
 not a man find fault with the government under which he lives, 
 without treasonously inveighing against it? But if the discipline 
 be really, as we conceive, in many respects inconsistent with the 
 scriptures, and unprimitive in its character, where is the sin of op- 
 posing it, provided it be done in a proper manner? The framers of 
 our discipline doubtless saw, that this clause on the subject of "in- 
 veighing" would be of great importance, in support of the un- 
 natural and almost non-descript form of government, they were 
 about to adopt. We beg leave to ask, however, whether those 
 preachers "inveigh against our doctrines, who do not believe some 
 
170 
 
 of them, and publicly preach and openly write against them. That 
 the doctrine of Christ's eternal Sonship, is a doctrine of Metho- 
 dism, the merest novice knows full well, and yet this is denied and 
 denounced, by scores of our preachers every Sabbath. The abso- 
 lute omniscience of God, is another doctrine of Methodism, as it 
 is of the bible; and yet, I have frequently listened to Methodist 
 preachers, trying to demonstrate that the prescience of Deity is 
 only contingent, — that he could, but does not know every thing. 
 In a sermon, recently published under the sanction of the Metho- 
 dist Book-Room, it is expressly asserted, that Jesus Christ pos- 
 sessed ''two distinct persons," contrary to the express language of 
 one of our articles. If this is not inveighing against the "doc- 
 trines" of the church, surely we have not inveighed against its dis- 
 cipline. Our friends, therefore, need not talk so piteously about 
 the "impunity" extended to reformers, for some of them stand in 
 more need of this grace than we do. I suppose it was by a con- 
 structive torture of this part of the discipline, that the wary trustees 
 of the Methodist churches in Baltimore, recently refused their 
 houses to a man, whose genius and piety for thirty years past, as a 
 Methodist preacher, have thrown nine-tenths of the pulpits of this 
 country into shade. These men may account to their own con- 
 sciences for their conduct; but, the question arises, will their con- 
 temporaries and posterity receive their plea? 
 
 I close by simply remarking, that it is my sincere wish that this 
 controversy may be conducted with the temper and dignity becom- 
 ing the importance of the subject. The discussion, if properly 
 managed, can do no ultimate harm to the church; truth and facts 
 will be elicited and brought to light; our people will be able to 
 prove all things on this subject, and holdfast, in their form of gov- 
 ernment, that which is good. That much feeling will be excited, 
 is to be expected: this will occur on both sides, and, if duly man- 
 aged, is not to be deprecated. 
 
 One thing is certain, reformers, so far as I know them, have not 
 manifested the uncharitable disposition that has appeared in most 
 of our active anti -reformers. The former admit the piety and in- 
 tegrity of the great mass of the travelling preachers; they only 
 doubt their policy, or rather are convinced it is both unsafe and un- 
 scriptural: while on the other hand, it is, I am sorry to say, the staid 
 effort of those who oppose us, to represent us as fallen from virtue 
 and destitute of piety. This conduct may have the credit of zeal — 
 it may be glossed by the casuist, so as to appear plausible to many, 
 but still it is invidious in the judgment of the judicious, and im- 
 moral in the sight of God. Let reformers, while engaged in the 
 laudable work of refbrmering the abuse of church power, not forget 
 or neglect the moral discipline and practical purity of Wesleyan 
 Methodism. Let them remain in the church till they be cast out 
 or compelled to leave it; an event, at present, not to be strongly 
 looked for; but, should it occur, we shall then, in the order of provi- 
 dence, be under the necessity of resting our cause and appeal, with 
 men and churches, better informed, and God, the judge of all. 
 December SQth, 1826. Dissenter. 
 
171 
 
 The remarks which we have in view respecting this paper are 
 reserved, with intention to present them together with something 
 additional, at the conclusion of the paper by Neale. The propriety 
 of this, will be seen when the intended remarks shall be submitted. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Presbyter to the Editors of the Mutual Rights. 
 
 This paper was published in the April number of the Mutual 
 Rights for 1827: — the month in which the Baltimore Annual Con- 
 ference suspended Rev'd. Dennis B. Dorsey. Considering the 
 previous expulsions of reformers and the accompanying circum- 
 stances indicative of the arrogant purposes of the power party, 
 men of good sense will say, that we, as the editors of the periodi- 
 cal, ought not to have rejected any such papers as those bearing 
 the signatures of Dissenter, Presbyter or Neale. 
 
 Presbyter to the Editors of the Mutual Rights. 
 
 Messrs. Editors. 
 
 Permit an individual unknown, and unnumbered in the ranks of 
 reform, to say one word to you, and through the medium of*your 
 increasing popular paper, to the world, on a subject in which he 
 feels a deep and an abiding interest. It affords me no ordinary 
 pleasure, to witness from time to time, in various ways, and through 
 different channels, the enlarged borders, and abounding prosperity 
 of the American Methodists, and I should deeply regret the occur- 
 rence of any event that might tend in any way, or to any extent, 
 to prevent the unrivalled success, so invariably attendant upon the 
 evangelizing labours of our ministry. It has been suggested to 
 me, by many in different departments of the church, that the in- 
 fluence of the present controversy, on the subject of reform, is di- 
 rectly and extensively hurtful to the interests of practical piety 
 among us, and likely to render us less zealous and primitive than 
 we have heretofore been. This opinion, I conceive, is plainly an 
 error; so far as I can judge, it has no foundation, either in fact or 
 moral probability; as it respects the best means, and the grand ele- 
 ments of ministerial success, in labouring for the world's conver- 
 sion, we are all agreed, and all united. The only question of dif- 
 ference among us, is purely a question of government, and hitherto 
 has been, with few exceptions, and I think will continue to be dis- 
 cussed and canvassed apart, from the more immediate concerns of 
 the pulpit, the altar, and the closet. That this has been the aim 
 and course of the principle reformers, admits of no doubt, unless 
 we refuse to believe men who are as fully and fairly entitled to 
 credit as any men living; that there are men among us, professedly 
 in favour of reform, who are as rich in character, talent and useful- 
 ness, as any among the thousands our church embodies, not even 
 
172 
 
 excepting the "episcopal board," is a truth, that must be felt by all, 
 unless grossly ignorant. Now to withhold confidence from such 
 men dictating their sentiments without disguise or equivocation, is 
 to insult the human understanding, and outrage christian charity; 
 for it is obviously a departure from all those maxims, that govern 
 men in their intercourse with one another. Our controversy there- 
 fore, is one respecting discipline, and I sincerely trust, if our breth- 
 ren of the old school, are determined to remain unyielding, that they 
 will not attempt to impress the uniformed with an idea that the 
 friends of reform of the discipline of the church, are the enemies of 
 real and vital piety; that this has been extensively attempted, by 
 our non-reforming brethren, is, I think, in proof before the public; 
 and this single circumstance, in my opinion, (although others of a 
 bolder character are not wanting) would justify "Dissenter" in all 
 he has said in his "Miscellaneous Remarks" upon this subject. It 
 seems to have been agreed upon as an "argumentum ad hominem" 
 and this "Dissenter" calls a "system," and that it is "oppressive" 
 will be questioned, I apprehend, by no impartial examiner. What 
 reformers ask for is, that we may have (if any) a presbyterial epis- 
 copacy, and a representative government, while our brethren of 
 the majority publish to the world, in no ambiguous language, that 
 such a form of government would prove "ruinous" to the best in- 
 terests of the church, and that prelatical diocesan episcopacy and 
 non-representative government are necessary to the being and per 
 petuity of Wesleyan Methodism; and this is the actual state of 
 things among us, although Mr. Wesley declares his belief in pres- 
 byterial episcopacy and no other.* If the reader be startled, I 
 refer him to our old minutes, where Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury 
 styled themselves bishops, "by order and succession!" It appears, 
 however, they reformed in a short time and dropped this pitiful fig- 
 ment, as carrying its own refutation with it. In 1789, an attempt 
 was made to conciliate Mr. Wesley, by calling him "bishop of the 
 Methodist church in Europe in the American minutes; and what 
 is indeed remarkable, this was done after Mr. Wesley had written 
 to Mr. Asbury, definitely declaring he would never be called 
 "bishop with his consent." Now the object of these remarks, 
 Messrs. Editors, is to show that our episcopacy has nothing to do 
 
 * After a careful attention to this subject, our deliberate judgment is, that 
 a presbyterial superintendent, was the official character, with which Mr. 
 Wesley, assisted by two other presbyters of the church of England, consid- 
 ered himself to have invested Dr. Coke. That he in like manner, ordained 
 Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, and sent them with Dr. Coke to 
 America, that they might ordain Mr. Asbury a joint presbyterial superin- 
 tendent, to co-operate with Dr. Coke in supervising 1 the societies. And that 
 in this manner, he expected to continue his authority and exercise it, by 
 making" any other similar appointments, or by recalling any one or all of 
 those who might be appointed from time to time, to act as superintendents. 
 In course that he did not intend, that any one of them, should be an incum- 
 bent for life. It has been noticed in a preceding part of this work, that Mr. 
 Asbury got himself elected to prevent his being subject to the recal of Mr. 
 Wesley. And Mr. Freeborn Garretson in his last letter, certainly gives con- 
 firmation to this view of the subject. 
 
173 
 
 with original Wesley an Methodism, and is disowned by it. It can- 
 not therefore, be in any way essential to our prosperity, for the his- 
 tory of the British Methoclists, and that of the American Methodists 
 for eighteen years, proves clearly and indubitably that its alleged im- 
 portance, in order to the success of Christianity among us, is a per- 
 fectly gratuitous assumption, unsupported by reason, history or com- 
 mon sense. On the other hand, if our bishops, and their pertinacious 
 supporters as high-toned episcopalians, ill as it may look, (for 
 such they really are,) would yield and distribute throughout the dif- 
 ferent departments of the church that part of their power, that has 
 come into their hands "surreptitiously,"* it would abate the honest 
 inquietude of thousands; it would remove the just apprehensions of 
 the discerning, and bring worthy multitudes into the bosom of the 
 Methodist church, whose names, as things now are, will never adorn 
 our calendar. Of the truth of these remarks, I have no doubt, and 
 surely one who has travelled as a Methodist itinerant preacher, at 
 least fifty thousand miles, may be permitted to speak on a subject 
 that lies so near his heart, and is vitally connected with the individ- 
 ual and social interests of living and unborn millions! With these 
 remarks, Messrs. Editors, I close; but as I have passed the Rubicon, 
 you may hear from me again about the ides of March. 
 
 February 2&th, 1827. Presbyter. 
 
 P. S. In the number of Mutual Rights for the month current, I 
 observe some remarks fixing a difference between the terms "dis- 
 cipline" and "government," as used by some writers on the subject 
 of reform. I had observed this distinction in the singular publica- 
 tion of twenty-four "trustees, local preachers, stewards, and lead- 
 ers," of your city, in December last; but, like many other thing3 in 
 
 *In addition to what 19 adduced in justification of Mr. Walker, Luther, 
 &c. in proof of "assumption," and in explanation of the manner how, the 
 influence of the British preachers and Mr. Asbury, prepared and en- 
 listed the American preachers, to go with them and lay hold on all power, 
 legislative, executive and judicial. We here insert an extract from Mr. Free- 
 born Garretson's letter, alluded to above, and as puolished in the Wesleyan 
 Methodist Magazine, for the year 1828. 
 
 In the year 1787, May 10th, perhaps, he says, "Dr. Coke had just ar- 
 rived from England, with directions of considerable importance from Mr. 
 Wesley, which caused much agitation in our conference. The business was 
 Mr. Wesley had appointed Messrs. Whatcoat and Garretson, to be conse- 
 crated for the superintendency. The former (Mr. Whatcoat) as joint superin- 
 tendent with Mr. Asbury in the United States; — the latter (Mr. Garretson) 
 to have charge of the societies of the British dominions in America. " It is 
 known, that the conference rejected Mr. Whatcoat. After this occurrence 
 took place, Mr. Garretson, speaking of himself and Dr. Coke, says, "We 
 were grieved for the rejection of Wesley's appointments, and for the loss of 
 his name from our yearly minutes. After Dr. Coke returned to England, I 
 received a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he spoke his mind freely. He 
 was dissatisfied with three things: — the rejection of his appointments; — the 
 substitution of the word bishop for superintendent — and the discontinuance 
 of his name from our minutes." 
 
 23 
 
174 
 
 that production, I thought it more the effect of negligence and 
 inattention, than the result of discriminating reflection. I find, 
 however, that the Rev. A. Shinn, in his masterly and triumphant 
 appeal to the public, in reply to this imposing, but every way vul- 
 nerable document, has admitted and carried out the distinction. 
 Now, Messrs. Editors, however I may admit the abstract propriety 
 of this distinction, and I really think it ought to exist and be uni- 
 formly recognized, as one of obvious practical utility; and although 
 I am aware this distinction exists in its full force in the Methodist 
 Societies in Great Britain, yet I am compelled to think the saga- 
 cious masters of our present form of government, did not intend to 
 make or allow the distinction under notice. I refer you to our 
 Book of Discipline, title page, "The doctrines and discipline," — 
 by doctrines the authors of this book undoubtedly mean articles of 
 faith, and, in some editions, a few essays illustrative of them : by 
 discipline, every thing else in the book. Thus, you will perceive, 
 that the just and important distinction noticed by your able and 
 judicious correspondent, Mr. Shinn, is not in reality admitted, in 
 the authorized nomenclature of episcopal Methodism. If any man 
 among the thousands who belong to our establishment, should 
 venture to find fault, or suggest improvements in the government 
 of the church, be it done never so temperately or calmly, it is not 
 material, he is liable to arrest; the displeasure of that establish- 
 ment is sure to reach him, and the chances are ten to one if its 
 foot of oppressive memory be not placed upon his neck. In con- 
 firmation of an opinion of so serious a character, I offer the con- 
 duct of the late Virginia conference, in sanctioning the expulsion 
 of several members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for no 
 other reason than that they were reformers. It may not be amiss 
 to remind our readers, that three of our bishops were present at 
 this conference, and no doubt, felt their hands much strengthened 
 by the primitive zeal of "Benton Field," and the approving major- 
 ity who gave the salutary vote ! Mr. Wesley, in his "Appeal to 
 Men of Reason and Religion," declares opinions in matters of 
 church government are no part of Methodism: but, our more saga- 
 cious bishops, and others, seem to think opinions vitally essential, 
 at least to episcopal Methodism. Mr. Wesley was right, and so 
 are our bishops; and the remark is perfectly consistent, when we 
 recollect that episcopal Methodism is plainly and incorrigibly 
 anti- Wesley an. The preceding remarks, will, perhaps, satisfy 
 many readers that I am correct in using the term discipline in its 
 ordinary acceptation with our men in rule : but, I beg leave to 
 state distinctly, that I mean by it precisely what Mr. Shinn means 
 by government, as in strict propriety distinguished from discipline. 
 I used the term in accommodation to established usage in our 
 church. If discipline mean only our "general rules," as given us 
 by the Wesleys, I am satisfied ours is the best discipline of human 
 construction, on earth: but, if I am to understand the term, as 
 used by Coke and Asbury, to cover all the flimsy and fallacious 
 pretensions of Methodist Episcopacy, then, and only in this event, 
 I am opposed to some parts and features of what is called our 
 
175 
 
 discipline; and I claim the privilege of stating freely and fairly, the 
 nature and extent of my opposition: and, in doing this, I cannot 
 conceive that I inveigh against the discipline any more than our 
 reverend bishops themselves, who have consented to the repeal 
 of many things contained in the discipline, at the time this politic 
 precautionary clause, on the subject of inveighing, was introduced. 
 
 If the time has arrived, when a man cannot express his opinions 
 as to the scriptural character, and relative legitimacy of our mode 
 of church government, without subjecting himself to ecclesiastical 
 censure and anathema, as exemplified in the proceedings of the 
 late Virginia conference, then in this case, I think, the sooner 
 we arrive at a crisis, the better. The world ought to know, and 
 heaven and earth record, that the Methodist Episcopal Church of 
 the United States, is to be governed by human authority, and 
 not by moral evidence, as found in the Bible, and other kindred 
 sources of accredited information. The intelligent reader may 
 startle at the sentence he has just read; but let him recollect, re- 
 marks of this kind, are not without foundation in truth, and sup- 
 port from facts. Why are our friends, of the reigning administra- 
 tion, so vigilant in their endeavours to ascertain who are the real 
 authors of various productions on the subject of reform? Obvious- 
 ly, that they may reach them by a process, other than that of 
 argument and fair discussion. If the friends of the present state 
 of things in our government, were disposed to confine themselves 
 to the merits of the controversy on the subject of reform, it would 
 be entirely immaterial to them, who "Spectator" and "Dissenter" 
 are; and so of others: they would reply to them, and attempt to 
 refute them, as individuals who have a right, from God and men, 
 to say what they honestly think: we should not see so many en- 
 gaged in a furious hunt, or epistolary crusade, after writers, who 
 are too well acquainted with the present temper of Methodism, 
 to disclose their names; but whose productions, at the same time, 
 must convince good sense, wherever it is found, that they are 
 entitled to be heard, and will be read with interest, by all who love 
 and appreciate freedom of inquiry: even bishops can guess at au- 
 thors, to whose arguments they do not choose to reply ; and the 
 conjecture is received as oracular and published by pious minions 
 accordingly. Allow me, Messrs. Editors, to ask, what does all 
 this prove? To me, it demonstrates most irrefutably that one of 
 your correspondents, the influence of whose pen will be felt by 
 posterity, is correct in saying, we are to be silenced by authorita- 
 tive and not by rational arguments. As an individual, it is very pos- 
 sible, I may feel in no very pleasant way, the force of this reason- 
 ing; that I shall never be convinced by it, I am entirely certain. 
 I respect the sayings and the authority of the Son of God too much, 
 to call any man "master" in things affecting my eternal interests, 
 and those of my fellow creatures. John Wesley, the enlightened 
 and beloved founder of Methodism, was only a presbyter in the 
 church of England; Doctor Coke was nothing more: from these 
 the Methodist ministers in America, have derived their ordination. 
 Confident that the latter could not derive from the former, what 
 
176 
 
 they did not possess themselves, I renounce, as perfectly gratuitous 
 and trifling, the episcopal pretensions of those among us, with 
 whom the abused epithet of bishop means any thing more than a 
 primitive New Testament. Presbyter. 
 March VHh, 1827. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Reasons in plea for reform in the government of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, by Neale. This paper was published in the number 
 for July, 1827. 
 
 The same departure from candor and propriety was practised in 
 this, as in the two preceding instances; and, as in those, so in this, 
 an exhibition of the paper entire will justify its publication. The 
 part extracted will be recognized by being printed in italics. 
 
 It should be remembered, that this paper was published subse- 
 quently to the suspension of Rev'd D. B. Dorsey. 
 
 Gentlemen, — I propose sending you a few brief essays on the 
 subject of Episcopal Methodism, the distinctive character of which 
 will be understood from the caption above. I shall avoid all elab- 
 orate discussion, because I know your list of correspondents is ra- 
 pidly increasing; and I am deeply solicitous that my brethren, who 
 may think with me on this subject, should severally speak for them- 
 selves. I wish to be distinctly understood, I have no controversy 
 with original Methodism, I have no dispute with the doctrines and 
 duties of Methodism, considered as a systematic exposition, or 
 practical illustration of the word of God; and in the remarks 1 have 
 to offer, I have no concern (unless it be allusively) with Methodism 
 as it exists in Europe; my only concern is with episcopacy as an 
 appendage of Methodism in the United States. The distinguish- 
 ing system of religious doctrines and duties styled Methodism has 
 existed in Europe near a century, without the unnatural appen- 
 dage of which I am now speaking, and it existed in this country 
 without any such burdensome adjunct for eighteen years. It is 
 plain, therefore, that episcopacy is no part of Methodism in its pri- 
 mitive character and operations; it is not, in any way, essential 
 either to its being or success, as the creed and manual of one 
 of the reformed churches, and it remains to be inquired into, 
 whether it be a good or an evil, in its rather mysterious connection 
 with American Methodism. Hitherto it has been the policy of 
 Methodism, at least in most cases, to be bold and unshrinking, she 
 has not declined the light nor shrunk from inquiry, but has fear- 
 lessly challenged the most acute investigation; and if the supernu- 
 merary badge, under which she now appears, in the United States, 
 I mean episcopacy, suggests the propriety of adopting any other 
 policy, it is obviously a suspicious circumstance, and calls for ex- 
 amination. 
 
177 
 
 Impressed with the correctness and importance of this view of 
 the subject, we proceed to inquire into the origin and establishment 
 of episcopacy among the Methodists in the United States; on this 
 subject I submit to the reader a concise syllabus of facts, the grea- 
 ter part of which, admit of positive proofs, and the truth of the rest 
 is fairly inferable from an induction of authentic particulars. 1st. 
 The Rev. John Wesley, the father and founder of Methodism, ex- 
 pressly avows his belief, founded especially upon the reasoning of 
 Lord King, that there are but two orders of ministers by divine ap- 
 pointment in the church of Christ; — deacons and presbyters, and 
 that a third order differing from and superior to presbyters, is an 
 unscriptural and gratuitous assumption. He also affirms in so 
 many words, that a presbyter has the same right to ordain, that a 
 bishop has; hence Mr. Wesley, in language that nothing but igno- 
 rance or want of candour can misconstrue, definitely renounces 
 episcopal ordination, when we understand by it a third order of 
 ministers, in the church of Christ. 2d. Assuming that Mr. Wes- 
 ley acted consistently (and a charge of inconsistency here would 
 argue want of principle) we are only allowed to suppose, that Mr. 
 Wesley's ordination of doctor Coke, Mr. Hanby, Mr. Taylor, Mr. 
 Pawson, also Messrs. Mather, Rankin and Moore, was simply an 
 appointment to labour and govern, in given sections of the vast 
 field of missionary effort and pastoral care, to which the personal 
 inspection of Mr. Wesley could not extend, and not the creation of 
 a third order, as asserted and contended for, by the bishops and 
 their apologists of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 In the ordination of these men, Mr. Wesley conferred equal 
 powers upon all, at least we can find nothing to the contrary; one 
 was as much a bishop as another; and the power conferred by Mr. 
 Wesley, as the great father and leader of all the Methodists, was 
 simply to create them superintendents under himself, with the ex- 
 press understanding that they were to continue united to the estab- 
 lished church, or at least were not to seek a separation from it. If, 
 however, Mr. Wesley had intended his ordinations to create a third 
 order of ministers in the character of bishops, this would have been 
 publicly to disown the discipline of the church of England, and 
 must have been considered by all, as a bona fide separation from it. 
 It is, therefore, clear as the light of heaven, that all these were or- 
 dinations of appointment and not of office, they created no new 
 relations or powers, but simply gave the pre-existing relations and 
 powers of these men a new direction, in reference to the specific 
 divisions of labour for which they were set apart. 3d. We have 
 positive proof from the pens of the living and the dead, that in the 
 case of Dr. Coke, Mr. Wesley instructed him in the most explicit 
 and "solemn manner," not to take upon him the name of bishop, nor 
 allow himself to be so called; and we have it from the pen of Mr. 
 Wesley himself, that three years after this had been done, by Dr. 
 Coke and Mr. Asbury, in the United States, he conjured themin the 
 name of God, to redeem themselves from the disgrace, by putting 
 an end to their episcopal pretensions at once. Now it must occur 
 to the reader, that few men ever made a better use of language 
 
than Mr. Wesley, he was in the habit, proverbially so, of calling 
 things by their proper names; and had he considered doctor Coke 
 and Mr. Asbury as possessing episcopal powers, in any other than 
 a presbyterial sense, he would have joined with the world, and 
 christened them by their favourite self-selected title, bishop. But 
 Mr. Wesley tells them, that in his judgment, it would be more to 
 their credit to be called by men, "a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel," than 
 to be called "bishop," when they had nothing to entitle them to the 
 distinction, in the sense in which they used it, except their own 
 affectation of episcopal dignity. 4th. From the preceding facts, it 
 appears, that the introduction of episcopacy among the Methodists 
 in the United States, so far from being "recommended" by Mr. 
 Wesley, icas expressly disapproved and forbidden, and the proceed- 
 ings of the General Conference of 1784, in establishing diocesan 
 episcopacy among us, was in open violation of the instructions of 
 Mr. Wesley; and, I now take the liberty of saying, to the Rev. Wm. 
 M'-Kcndree, Enoch George, Robert R. Roberts, Joshua Soule, and 
 Elijah Hedding, that a statement on this subject, to which I find 
 tlieir names subscribed, in the preface to our Book of Discipline, is 
 believed by many to be a perversion of historical fact, and they are 
 hereby publicly called upon, to furnish some evidence of the truth of 
 the aforesaid statement; or leave us to infer, that such evidence can- 
 not be produced. In justice, hoxcever, to these distinguished indi- 
 viduals in the Methodist Episcopal Church, I would say distinctly, 
 I believe they are all innocent of having made this statement origi- 
 nally, but they have made it their own, by giving it tlie sanction of 
 their names, as I have not been able to learn, that this preface has 
 ever been sanctioned by any General Conference, if it lias, upon 
 learning it, I shall make (should God preserve my life) a similar 
 on the next general conference, as the proper organ of information. 
 Jit present the bishops appear to be the only responsible persons, and 
 on them I call. Should the policy of the cabinet induce them to re- 
 main silent, as heretofore on similar occasions, I shall take the 
 liberty of thinking they cannot answer me, without damage to tlieir 
 own cause, which it would seem must be supported by silence. 5th. 
 As it is in proof before the reader, tluit Methodist episcopacy can 
 derive no support from the name or sanction of Mr. Wesley, both 
 having been definitely withheld, so also, does it admit of proof, that 
 tlie great body of the Methodist ministers and members in the Unit- 
 ed Slates were not consulted at all, in the adoption of this enor- 
 mously misshapen system of aristocratic government. It was tlie 
 undivulged project, tlie favourite scheme of a few master spirits, 
 who meeting in secret conclave, and excluding tlie junior members, 
 even of their own body, (as living wit7iesses declare) acknowledging 
 no constitutional rights, and comprehending no legislative privi- 
 leges, as belonging to any except themselves, proceeded to the hasty 
 formation of tlie present plan of government among us, and un- 
 blushingly palmed it upon posterity, as the offspring of Mr. Wes- 
 
179 
 
 ley's wisdom and experience* 6th. The spurious origin of Meth- 
 odist episcopacy, is to be inferred from the fact, that those very in- 
 dividuals who made tliese pretensions, were unsettled and felt mis- 
 givings on the subject. 
 
 Dr. Coke, in a letter to Bishop White, of Philadelphia, doubts 
 the power of Mr. Wesley to confer legitimate episcopal authority; 
 he does the same in a letter to the bishop of London, written subse- 
 quently, in both of which he modestly asks for re- ordination. When- 
 ever doctor Coke was absent from this country, he was by common 
 consent unbishoped, both in Europe and America; — even the mitre 
 could not preserve those who wore it from doubts, and fears, and 
 change. Coke admits the whole system to be an ' 'aristocracy." 
 
 At one time they attempted to establish their episcopal preten 
 sions in one way, at another on very and widely different grounds. 
 In 1785, the bishops say, in their Book of Discipline, 3d section 
 and 6th page: "The uninterrupted succession of bishops from the 
 apostles, can be proved neither from the scriptures nor from anti- 
 quity." In 1789, while this statement was fresh in the recollec- 
 tion, and lying on the shelves of the Methodists throughout the 
 United States, these same bishops, publish in the minutes as fol- 
 lows: — "Ques. Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal 
 office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? Ans. 
 John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order 
 and succession." All this is passing strange! I will not dwell on 
 the fact, that the Methodists have never assumed the style of a 
 church in Europe, much less at the time that this was written. I 
 will not pause to animadvert upon the groundless assertion, that 
 Mr. Wesley exercised the "episcopal" office in Europe, although 
 every man of reading knows he did not. He himself affirms it was 
 the office of a "presbyter" he exercised; but, I come at once, to 
 notice the change of sentiment in these men, in the short space of 
 four years. In 1784, scripture and antiquity demonstrated the doc- 
 trine of "uninterrupted succession" to be a fable. In 1789, they 
 have ascertained that they are bishops "by regular order and suc- 
 cession." Now scripture and antiquity have become a little more 
 pliant, and speak a different language. Now that these self-created 
 bishops have a little more power, and are likely to become estab- 
 lished in the exercise of it, the want of countenance from "scrip- 
 ture," and the misty lore of "antiquity," are ingeniously kept out 
 of sight, and the hasty admission in the discipline, that bishops are 
 not the regular successors of the apostles, is struck out for ever. 
 Reader! as a man of sense and candour, I ask you to stop and 
 look at this, re-read the above, and ponder well its bearing. The 
 documents are all before me. 
 
 In the present preface to our Book of Discipline, the adoption of 
 our present form of government is attributed to the express instruc- 
 tions oj Mr. Wesley; but the venerable Wesley has, unequivocally, 
 disavowed the honour, and no one has ever shown or quoted the doc- 
 
 * Witness the transactions of 1773,1779— 178 4. 
 
180 
 
 ument, paper, or verbal instructions of Mr. Wesley. It is now 
 nearly a year, since all our bishops were respectfully invited to fur- 
 nish information on this subject, if they had any to furnish; — they 
 have not even deigned a reply of any kind. Passing by the uncour- 
 teousness of such an act, and the insult it offers to the wishes of in- 
 quiring thousands, who it is known to the bishops, feel a deep inter- 
 est in the subject, I shall plead their apology, by taking it for grant- 
 ed, that tliey would have replied, if they had been able to do so, with- 
 out defacing the beauty of those "institutions received from their 
 fathers" many of whom are still living; or, perhaps, like the Chi- 
 nese historians, they are unacquainted with their own origin, because 
 their living fathers conceal it. 
 
 But finally, Mr. Asbury pleads his authority, as a Methodist 
 bishop, on the following grounds: '1st. Divine authority. 2d. 
 Seniority in America. 3d. Election of the general conference, 1784, 
 4th. Ordination of Coke, Otterbine, Whatcoat and Vasey. 5th. 
 Because the signs of an apostle were found in him" See Asbury'' s 
 Journal for May, 1805, third volume, page 168. No "succession" 
 directly hinted at here, no allusion to Mr. Wesley. On this expose 
 of the arcana of Methodist Episcopacy, I would only say it is plain, 
 Mr. Asbury is here speaking of himself as a bishop of the third 
 order, and superior to presbyters. Of his " Divine authority" we 
 can say nothing, only we know it was not received from the Scrip- 
 tures. As to "seniority" we have yet to learn that it ever creates any 
 new civil or religious rights. With regard to the vote of the "gene- 
 ral conference" electing Mr. Asbury, it is only necessary to observe, 
 they might have acted unadvisedly in this vote of the conference of 
 1784, as well as in others, and we know that many of the acts of 
 that very conference, have been since repealed, as improper and dis- 
 advantageous. On the subject of "ordination" as it was only an 
 ordination by presbyters, we cannot admit Us a episcopal validity," 
 if more be meant than a presbyter. As it respects the last item, the 
 signs of an apostle can only be seen in an apostle, and of course 
 luive not been seen since the apostolic age. Thus the reader will perceive 
 that our "fathers" acted a palpably inconsistent part, in the intro- 
 duction of episcopacy among us, and have been under the necessity 
 {created by their own indiscretion) of acting an equally awkward, 
 and I fear posterity will think, ridiculous part, in defending them- 
 selves against the charge, of a reckless usurpation of unwarranted 
 power. For the present, Messrs. Editors, 1 must let this subject 
 rest; but by divine permission, its examination shall be resumed in 
 a subsequent number, of the series of essays; I propose to send you. 
 
 To reformers I would respectfully suggest, "the signs of the 
 times" are becoming rather squally and ominous. We have at pre- 
 sent a troubled atmosphere, the clouds lower and the tempest im- 
 pends, but we need an "Euroclydon" of the moral kind, to purify 
 the air. The only way to get rid of legalized error, and pernicious 
 practices consecrated by long usages, is fearlessly to attack by 
 
181 
 
 argument, and urge by expostulation, until you reach the point 
 of proper excitement, when those concerned will begin to think 
 and act for themselves. I am more astonished that we have done 
 as much as we have, than that we have not done more. When my 
 attention was first called to this subject, I stood alone in one of 
 the largest conferences in the United States. Now I have a score 
 of travelling preachers within the same limits, beside a large num- 
 ber of local preachers, and hundreds, if not thousands of private 
 members who think as I do. These changes are working every 
 where, and their influence must be felt. A few here and there, 
 like my unknown friend D. B. Dorsey. may be put down, by some 
 of our testy "lords over God's heritage," but they are destined to 
 rise. Sage deliberative bodies, like the Baltimore conference, 
 may pass and enforce and defy the contravention of such "resolu- 
 tions" as those offered by Mr. Roszel and Mr. Guest; these may 
 be rubricked on the journals and minutes of the conferences, as 
 important precedents and mere specimens of what can and proba- 
 bly will be done hereafter, "but the end is not yet," these delecta- 
 ble morceaux in ecclesiastical legislation, have to pass the ordeal 
 of public opinion. The above named gentlemen will be honoured 
 with readers as well as hearers, and their singular efforts to loyal- 
 ize the Methodists, so as to preclude even the freedom of social 
 inquiry, and epistolary correspondence, may not only affect the 
 character, but may induce their contemporaries to write their 
 epitaphs before they are dead! This "Bellum Episcopale," as 
 bishop Pierce calls it, this "war in support of episcopacy," is not 
 ended, they may yet need all the recruits their present superiority, 
 in point of numbers, will be able to furnish them. We have the 
 Bible on our side; the practice of the primitive church sustains us; 
 public opinion is our friend and ally; the civil institutions of our 
 country lend us aid, and the genius of American freedom, throws 
 her protecting shadow over every friend of equal representation 
 and mutual rights. If we should not live ourselves to witness the 
 achievement of the objects we have in view, the "clods of the 
 valley" will be sweetened by the reflection that our children 
 may. Let us, therefore, labour and faint not; if "cast down we 
 are not destroyed." 
 
 In this contest, my brethren, the similitude of our trials, may be 
 the "smoking flax and the bruised reed," but the one shall smoke 
 on, and the other unbroken, shall continue to bend before the blast. 
 Let your rulers insidiously expel you (as ministers) from their 
 pulpits, by not inviting you there, it will only lessen the number of 
 their own hearers, while the good sense and discernment of the 
 public, will take you up, and you will find yourselves cherished 
 in the high places of their affection and esteem, where your op- 
 pressors will seek in vain to intrude.* To conclude, our attitude 
 
 •We had been excluded from the pulpits in Baltimore, because we had the 
 impudence to espouse the cause of Rev. D. B. Dorsey in defiance of the Bal- 
 timore Annual Conference. 
 24 
 
182 
 
 is one of petition and address for our rights; rights which we 
 claim as Christ's freemen, in the bosom of a branch of his church 
 and people; rights founded on the testimony of God's word, and 
 the practice of the primitive church; we resist only when we are 
 oppressed ; as members of the great family of our common father, 
 we ask to be treated as his children, and we shall continue to ask. 
 If tauntingly requested by "the powers that be," to leave the 
 church, we reply, if you wish a division, separate yourselves; if 
 required to lay down our arms, (they are those of reason and scrip- 
 ture) we say to our rulers, "Come and take them." 
 
 June 1, 1827. Neale. 
 
 Doctor Bond, having selected those fragments which are print- 
 ed in italics, proceeds to make his remarks; and instead of touch- 
 ing the merits of the papers, he flies away from the arguments 
 and attempts to hide behind the cloud of ill founded prejudice, 
 which his party had raised against a certain pamphlet entitled 
 "The History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy." * * * "The 
 co-partnership" says he, "is obvious." 
 
 Previous to the publication of the Narrative and Defence, un- 
 bounded pains had been taken, to raise the prejudices of the 
 Methodist people against Mr. M'Caine's pamphlet. Mr. Emory 
 had attempted to answer it, and in the opinion of Doctor Bond 
 and his friends, had produced a "masterly refutation of all the 
 allegations in the History and Mystery, &c." Relying upon 
 this "masterly refutation" and the existing prejudices of his party, 
 he seems to have thought it all sufficient to secure our condemna- 
 tion, if he could shew, that Dissenter's, Presbyter's and Neale's 
 papers contained "assertions" which had an "obvious coincidence" 
 with those published by Mr. M'Caine — This, by the way, was an 
 argument for the good people who were prepared "unanimously" 
 to condemn the Mutual Rights "without having read the work at 
 all." Dissenter's paper is dated December 29th, 1826; Presbyter's 
 March 27th, 1827. And on the 30th of March, 1827, Mr. 
 M'Caine obtained from the clerk of the District of Maryland, his 
 certificate of copy right. The writer of Dissenter and Presbyter 
 was also the author of Neale ; and his residence too remote from 
 Mr. M'Caine to justify the conclusion, that there was any co- 
 partnership or collusion practised between them. The Doctor 
 and his friends must not be surprised if they learn before they die, 
 that many men of sound judgment are not quite satisfied with 
 the "masterly refutation." Any man of good understanding who 
 shall chance to read these papers of Dissenter, Presbyter and 
 Neale, will perceive, that the writer is not a man of ordinary at- 
 tainments. The papers speak in a language irresistible. And 
 neither Doctor Emory nor Doctor Bond has succeeded in shewing 
 that they ought not to have been published in the Mutual Rights. 
 Besides it should not be overlooked, that, outrageous as they 
 have represented the History and Mystery to be, and wicked as 
 they would have their people to believe the writer of that pamphlet 
 is, they found it necessary to prepare the "masterly refutation" with 
 
183 
 
 the hope of preventing its effect. If the refutation was so com- 
 plete, why did they not trust to the corrective power of this masterly 
 work, instead of having recourse to expulsion? Doctor Bond says there 
 is no doubt that we generally encouraged Mr. M'Caine to publish his 
 work. On the supposition that we were acquainted with Mr. Mc- 
 Caine's intended publication, in reply to which the "masterly refuta- 
 tion" had not then been published, was it at all inconsistent with our 
 duty, as editors of the periodical which was open for essays upon 
 the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to admit papers 
 written in the best style, because they possessed point, more espe- 
 cially when we knew they would be sustained by a pamphlet which 
 would require a "masterly refutation?" and which, after all this 
 boasting about its "refutation," in respect to the great question at 
 issue, still remains unanswered? Every sensible man in these 
 United States must see, upon an investigation of the subject, that 
 our expulsion for admitting these papers into our periodical was al- 
 together out of character. The perpetrators of this outrage may 
 keep one another in countenance, but the day will come, when those 
 who may wish to revere their memories, will not find it an easy task. 
 
 From the two succeeding papers, the one by the Rev'd. N. 
 Snethen, the other by the Rev'd. Asa Shinn, extracts were taken 
 which are represented by doctor Bond to be very objectionable. 
 They are therefore printed at large. Considering the occasions 
 which produced them, nothing more is necessary. The parts ex- 
 tracted, and commented on by doctor Bond, are in italics. 
 
 It is proper to state as a prelude to Mr. Snethen's address, that 
 it was written and published, immediately after the Baltimore An- 
 nual Conference had suspended Mr. D. B. Dorsey. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 An Address to the friends of reform, by N. Snethen. 
 
 Dear Brethren, 
 
 You have heard of what was done in the bounds of the Virginia 
 Conference; and will hear of the proceedings of the Baltimore Annual 
 Conference, in the case of Dennis B. Dorsey. I notice this last case 
 as proof of the fact, that the itinerant preachers have taken a stand 
 against reform, or representation, which must change our relation to 
 reform. We are no longer to consider ourselves as standing upon the 
 open and equal ground of argument with those brethren in behalf of a 
 principle; but as the supporters of what we conceive to be truth and 
 right, opposed by power. From the beginning, I have considered the 
 avoiding of written discussion by almost all the itinerant preachers on 
 the old side, as ominous of this issue, and have not ceased to antici~ 
 pate the time when a display of the plenary powers in their hands would 
 in effect place us as lambs among wolves, and call upon us to be 11 wise 
 as serpents and harmless as doves." 
 
 I understand the text in its original application, "I send you forth 
 
184 
 
 as lambs among wolves, v that is, with truth and right, among those who 
 have both the power and disposition to resist your principles and to de- 
 stroy you, but I give you no means of self-defence, but the wisdom of 
 the serpent, tempered with the harmlessness of the dove. We have all 
 along asserted, that there is power enough in the rulers of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, to excommunicate us all, and we are still of the 
 same opinion; but if any one should doubt it, let him remember, that 
 the body of men of whom we mean to ask for a fish, may give us a scor- 
 pion; that the very general conference of J 828, may make rules, if they 
 conceive they are not already made, to reach every reformer. 
 
 Our relation I say was changed in point of fact, from the day the 
 power of the itinerant preachers waked into action. The most distin- 
 guished preacher who should advocate the principle of representation 
 would find himself obnoxious to power, as well as the least member in 
 the church. No man among us has power to oppose to power; and 
 truth or right in the mouth of a minister wouldnot lose its lamb -like help- 
 lessness, when assailed by the power of a majority of itinerant preach- 
 ers. I'his majority have all the claws and all the teeth, and therefore, 
 every man may be made to fear. 
 
 This fact, brethren, we ought not by any excitement of zeal, to lose 
 sight of for a moment. I therefore repeat it, truth or right in the grasp 
 of power, is like lambs among wolves. Hitherto reformers have spoken 
 and written freely and openly, they have had no secrets, the wisdom of 
 the serpent was not necessary. The charge of imprudence and the 
 general cast of all the objections brought against them, goes to shew, 
 that power was not roused, that the prey though within reaching dis- 
 tance, was not seized. Henceforth the character and conduct of Me- 
 thodists must rapidly change. On the side of power there will be 
 fierceness, and on the side of right concealment. Threatenings and 
 suspicions ivill mightily prevail. A name has already been demanded, 
 not I suppose to satisfy curiosity, or to confute arguments, but for pun- 
 ishment, or at least impeachment. 
 
 Heretofore it is doubtful if a single travelling preacher has written 
 for the Wesley an Repository or the Mutual Rights, who was not known 
 to his superiors. The writers themselves often confided their proper 
 names to their brethren, and so they felt not like lambs among wolves; 
 but a few examples in the Annual Conferences will put an end to this 
 kind af generous rivalship. Travelling preachers themselves will be 
 thus painfully taught the wisdom of the serpent — taught to eludepower 
 by policy. What a temptation will this prove to trespass upon the in- 
 nocence of the dove! Brother Dorsey, it seems, was advised by his 
 friends (in this advice I did not participate,) not to an sic er any ques- 
 tion which might criminate himself. This refusal to answer questions, 
 this putting the conference upon the proof of his guilt, made a part 
 of his offence. Who then did he thus offend! No one but the members 
 of the Annual Conference. Now mark brethren, the importance of 
 this whole transaction: not to brother Dorsey merely, but to us all. 
 Let this procedure be established as a precedent, and of what avail 
 will the maxim of our Master be to us? How can we maintain the 
 harmlessness of the dove? How escape the jaws of power without dis- 
 simulation? Surely if we have no right to keep our own secrets among 
 
185 
 
 those who make a man an offender for a word, we have no means of 
 self preservation, but in the unqualified wisdom of the serpent. — 
 Brother Dorsey by a vote of the Annual Conference, is deprived 
 of a station for one year. Will either of these voters feel any 
 twitches or qualms of conscience in treating either of us relatively 
 in the same way, if we refuse to answer and to promise as they 
 may please, and to punish us for contumacy, or contempt of court? — 
 And that too, while in our courts of law no man is required to an- 
 swer any question which goes to criminate himself. If brother 
 Dorsey were imprisoned or banished for one year, by an Annual 
 Conference for contumacy, all the state of Maryland would be up 
 in arms. The sound of the outcry of the deed would reach the 
 ends of the earth. Persecution! would be re-echoed in all direc- 
 tions; and yet, in case either of imprisonment or banishment, he 
 might preach as much in the capacity of a travelling preacher as 
 these brethren intend he shall in this case. The truth is, brethren, 
 that there is the very essence of persecution in this act of the Bal- 
 timore Annual Conference. As a precedent, it deprives us of our 
 last, our only resort to defend ourselves against power, which we 
 can employ consistently with our christian character. Is not pun- 
 ishment for telling the truth and a reward for dissimulation, in effect, 
 the same? I know brethren, that we shall be accused of party 
 spirit and party purposes, in espousing the cause of this brother, 
 but it is not so; by this dispensation we are sent forth as lambs 
 among wolves. Power has usurped authority over truth; we are not 
 to be reasoned with, but punished. In this new condition, what are 
 we to do? We must go to the New Testament for direction and 
 instruction; and there we learn, that we must be wise as serpents 
 and harmless as doves. Must we not then espouse the principle, 
 and can we do this, without espousing the cause of the first martyr 
 of it in the Baltimore Annual Conference? Your turn, my turn, 
 may come next. It is an awful thing to be driven by the power of 
 a majority from the last asylum of harmlessness — to be reduced to 
 the dreadful alternative of dissimulation or bearing witness against 
 one's self. 
 
 On the critical situation of brother Dorsey's health, passing from 
 his bed to the conference for several days, in which he was kept 
 in painful suspense, I shall not enlarge; for though these circum- 
 stances may have produced a crisis in his disease, though his death 
 may be thus accelerated, even this would be a small matter com- 
 pared with the consequences of this principle as it relates to the 
 souls of men, this sin against the brethren! It is not to your sym- 
 pathies that I am addressing myself; but to the sacred regard which 
 I hope and trust, you feel for the vital principle of all human so- 
 ciety. Let the wolf of authority, the unrelenting majority, either 
 in church or state, leave us to a harmless silence, let them not 
 compel us to bear witness against ourselves, and the wisdom of 
 the serpent may shield us, may yet enable us, in the enjoyment of 
 a good conscience, to elude their death-grasp. 
 
 / deem it proper, brethren, that in this portentous change, in this 
 
186 
 
 state of our affairs, that you should hear my voice, should see my 
 name. It will, I know it will, it must he asked, now the time is 
 come to try men's souls, where is Philopisticus? Where is Ady- 
 nasius? Where is Senex? Where is the man who was among the 
 foremost to challenge us to the cause of representation? Where is 
 Snethen? I trust that while he is among the living, hut one answer 
 will he given to this question — he is at his post, he is in the front of 
 the contest, lie is shouting, on, brethren, on! and if he fall, it will 
 be with a wound in his breast, and with his head direct towards the 
 opponent. 
 
 It is the command of the great Captain of our salvation, that we 
 may not hurt even a hair on the head of those who hold the power 
 to hurt us, even by the wisdom of the serpent. We may not lie, 
 even for the glory of God; but we may be silent, we may leave 
 those in ignorance whom we know will not only not see, but pun- 
 ish those who offer to give them light. The old side men have 
 done a strange thing in the earth: they have placed themselves 
 hors du combat; they have done more, they have tempted us to smite 
 them in the back, to aim invisible strokes at them — to conspire for 
 their overthrow. Let us not avail ourselves of the advantages 
 which their folly or want of foresight has given us! But I call 
 upon you by every sacred name, to resist this inquisitorial power, ' 
 this attempt to renew in America, the old, the exploded principle 
 of torture, this monstrous outrage upon the principles of civil and 
 religious liberty; — the punishing of men for not submitting to crim- 
 inate themselves. 0 defend to the last extremity, this final sanc- 
 tuary of oppressed innocence. What may not the traitor to this 
 cause expect? Where can he find shelter from the frowns of 
 Heaven and earth, and the self torture of his own reflections? 
 
 Of the labour of seven years, I make no account. I was not a 
 lamb among wolves. My courage, my resolution was not put to 
 the test. I have never been questioned, never called to account, 
 not even threatened. The fiery trial has come upon one who is as 
 the shadow of a man, a walking skeleton, and I yet go free! — 
 Mysterious providence! Thank God, the afflicted man's soul is in 
 health, his fortitude is unimpaired by disease, he has the courage 
 and the constancy of a martyr: Lord, let the young man live and 
 not die! Let not the wife of his youth be a premature widow. 
 I cannot now desert the cause and be innocent before God or 
 man. I cannot now be silent and be harmless. I therefore ad- 
 vertise you of the change, and earnestly entreat you to conform 
 to it by conforming to the directions of the Master, "Be ye, 
 therefore, wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Your af- 
 fectionate fellow labourer in the great cause of church represen- 
 tation. N. Snethex. 
 
 Every reader must see that the occasion called for this paper; — 
 and that the paper speaks for itself. 
 
187 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 The sovereignty of Metfiodism in the South. 
 
 Petersburg, Va. Feb. 22, 1827. 
 "The Virginia Annual Conference, which sat in this place, has 
 just risen. The Granville Union Society of North Carolina, pre- 
 sented to it a petition, praying that seven members, lately expelled 
 from the Methodist Episcopal Church for joining the Granville 
 Union Society, be restored to their former standing. The petition- 
 ers alleged, that although the charge exhibited against them was 
 that of inveighing against the discipline, yet nothing was proved 
 against them on the trial, but their having joined the Granville 
 Union Society. That when the preacher in charge* found he 
 could not substantiate his charge, he put the following question to 
 the society, "You that believe their being members of the Union 
 Society will have a bad effect, will rise up." That a majority of 
 those present were of that opinion and rose up, upon which the 
 preacher read them out as expelled. With the petition, the Gran- 
 ville Union Society presented a charge against the preacher for mal- 
 administration; but the conference decided that it was not mal-ad- 
 ministration. Thus the door is closed on our unfortunate brethren, 
 and opened for all the reformers to be pushed out of the church. 
 
 Willis Harris." 
 
 The first thing here demanding attention is, the charge present- 
 ed against those brethen of "inveighing against the discipline." 
 If the true notion of "an inveigher" is, "a vehement railer," as 
 our learned men have told the world it is, then surely it is possible 
 for a man to object to a principle or rule of government, without 
 "inveighing" against it. But let us have divine authority: "Michael 
 the archangel, when contending with the devil, durst not bring 
 against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee." 
 Jude 7. Hence it appears, from the authority of God, that if we 
 should so remonstrate against a law of discipline, as to say to the 
 author of it, "The Lord rebuke thee," this would not be "a railing 
 accusation," and consequently would not constitute us guilty of 
 the charge of "inveighing." 
 
 But the members of our ecclesiastical courts, doubtless claim 
 the right of explaining the law, as well as executing it. If they 
 refuse to receive the explanation above given, they must believe 
 that all objecting, reasoning and petitioning against a rule of dis- 
 cipline, is to "inveigh" against it. If they mean this, let them say 
 so in plain language; and let the free-born sons of America open 
 their eyes, and see what is claimed by these men: first, they claim 
 the right to make laws at pleasure, without having a single repre- 
 sentative of the people among them; secondly, they claim the right 
 to be the judges and explainers of their own laws; thirdly, they 
 claim the right to enjoin silence on all their subjects, so that they shall 
 
 * Mr. Benton Field. 
 
188 
 
 not speak, or reason, or petition for amendment, on pain of excom- 
 munication! If all this can pass in the United States of America, 
 and pass without the indignation of the community, I have mis- 
 taken the sense and spirit of my countrymen. 
 
 These august law-makers are free from all restraint. — First, they 
 are free from the restraints of representation: no delegate of the 
 people can open his mouth in their legislative assemblies. Se- 
 condly, they are free from constitutional restraint: for though they 
 have a little instrument of their own making, which they call a con- 
 stitution, yet it is evident to common sense, that it is no constitu- 
 tion of the people; and the makers of it can alter it when they 
 please, without the people having a single voice in the matter. 
 Thirdly, they are free from any restraint of scripture: for in their 
 law-book we read, that when members have broken their rules of 
 discipline, "If they do not amend, let him who has the charge of 
 the circuit, exclude them, [the church] shewing that they are laid 
 aside for a breach of our rules of discipline, and not for immoral con- 
 duct." Book of Discipline, page 82. Thus it stands glaring in 
 the open face of heaven, that the "Methodist Episcopal Church" 
 claims authority to expel members from the church of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who are guilty of no breach of his laws ("not for im- 
 moral conduct") but merely because they have violated such "rules 
 of our discipline" as, according to her own confession, involve 
 no immorality! It is evident, if the church has authority to make 
 one such law, she has authority to make a thousand: of course 
 she can make laws, and expel members, independent of Divine 
 revelation. 
 
 But, our Virginia brethren, in expelling those members in such a 
 lordly manner, practically assumed the principle, that in their ad- 
 ministration they need no law at all, save the will of the executive 
 officer. He put the question, "You who believe that their being 
 members of the Union Society, will have a bad effect, will rise," 
 &/C. What law can this brother find, even in "our discipline," 
 which says a committee or society have authority to expel members 
 for any thing which they "believe will have a bad effect?" This 
 would put supreme power in a court of judicature, and would 
 supersede the necessity of every other law: let the legislature pass 
 a law, that the court may condemn men for any thing, which they 
 "believe will have a bad effect," and this law alone will be suffi- 
 cient to regulate all judicial proceeding. Such was the conduct 
 of "the preacher in charge!" Who might as well have said, "You 
 who wish the brethren to be expelled, will rise up!" And, more 
 astonishing still! This pitiful and contemptible course of conduct, 
 we are informed, was brought before the Virginia Conference, and 
 they "decided that it was not mal-administration!" This loyal 
 and orthodox conference, appears to claim the right of exercising 
 the authority of Eastern despotism: "All people, nations, and lan- 
 guages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew: 
 and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; 
 and whom he would he put down." Dan. v. 19. So "the preacher 
 in charge," whose "administration" is before us: "he would that 
 
189 
 
 those "radical" members should be expelled; and as he had no law 
 of God nor man to support him, he had them expelled by a law of 
 his own will: "You that believe that their being members of the 
 Union Society will have a bad effect, will rise up!" And because 
 "a majority happened to be of this opinion," he "read them out 
 of society." 
 
 If a single preacher can exercise such power, and be patronized 
 by an annual conference, what may we expect to hear, when the 
 time shall come, for people to go up to the general conference? 
 If the bishop should be there, and have the weight of the confer- 
 ence made up with his presiding elders, will it be said, "All peo- 
 ple, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him : whom 
 he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive ; and whom 
 he would he set up; and whom he would he put down?" Suppose 
 the next general conference should pass a law, that every man 
 who has written any thing for the Mutual Rights shall be forthwith 
 expelled; and that every member who has a single number of this 
 "extraordinary publication," shall commit it to the flames, on pain 
 of excommunication: will any man question their right to pass 
 such a law? They evidently have as good a right to do this, as 
 to pass any law whatever to dismember the disciples of Jesus 
 Christ, who are at the same time acknowledged to be free from 
 "immoral conduct." It appears they not only claim the right to 
 enact such laws, and expel members for breaking them, but also 
 to expel them for making any objection to the law! Do these men 
 really think they can keep the people of the United States hood- 
 winked in this manner? If they are unwilling the people should 
 enjoy the liberty of speech and of the press, do they not give a 
 demonstration in the presence of heaven and earth, that ecclesias- 
 tical power has far greater eagerness to destroy the just freedom 
 and rights of mankind; than civil power has? Here, our civil rulers 
 let us quietly enjoy those privileges, without manifesting any signs 
 of reluctance; nay, they appear to take pleasure in protecting us 
 in the enjoyment of this liberty: while professed ministers of the 
 meek and benevolent Saviour of mankind, who call themselves the 
 followers of the great and amiable Wesley, wish to deprive us of it, 
 under pretence that we are inveighing against their laws! Tell it 
 not it Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the Ma- 
 hometans and Pagans rejoice and triumph, to see us equal or sur- 
 pass them in priestly insolence and dominion. 
 
 By the late act of the Virginia annual conference, in sanctioning 
 the administration of Benton Field and others, it is practically 
 avowed, that the Methodist people are not under a government of 
 laws at all. There must first be a law in existence, by which mem- 
 bers can be expelled for doing what the court may believe "will 
 have a bad effect," before "the preacher in charge" can execute 
 such a law; there must first be an act of the legislature, saying, 
 members shall be expelled for joining the Granville Union Society, 
 or signing its constitution, before an executive officer can arrest 
 members under such a law, and before a jury can have authority to 
 25 
 
190 
 
 judge of their innocence or guilt in the breach of it. This conduct 
 is still worse than passing an ex post facto law, which according 
 to our American constitution, is destructive of civil liberty, and 
 inconsistent with all good government. Let "our people" duly 
 consider what will be the consequences, if they tamely look on, 
 and see such precedents sanctioned by the high authority of "the 
 Methodist clergy." They will not stop at the Granville Union 
 Society; they will not stop at the reformers, for after all these "rest- 
 less spirits" shall be put out of the way, such "true friends of old 
 Methodism" as Benton Field and his coadjutors, will soon be on 
 the look-out for new offenders: and any persons among the "laity" 
 or "locality" will be liable to arrest and expulsion, whenever "the 
 preacher in charge" shall be displeased with any part of their con- 
 duct, and shall be able to persuade his jury, "it will have a bad 
 effect." 
 
 If the Virginia brethren should urge, that the Granville members 
 were expelled under the law which forbids "inveighing against our 
 discipline," it would be well for the Methodist people to reflect 
 seriously upon this plea. 
 
 The Bible, being clothed with the grandeurs of Divine Authority, 
 demands our implicit submission; so that we have no right to 
 object to any of its laws, to petition for amendment, or to use any 
 efforts whatever, to bring about any alteration. Now if the above 
 rule of discipline is intended to lay on us the same restriction, and 
 to enforce the Methodist episcopal government, as absolutely as 
 the government of the Almighty is enforced; does not this look like 
 the man of sin seating himsel f in the temple of God, and shewing 
 himself that he is God! But the Methodist Episcopal Church, it 
 would seem, claims even higher authority than the Bible does; for 
 she not only prohibits all objecting and petitioning against her 
 present laws, as the Almighty does, but also demands the same im- 
 plicit submission to all the laws she may see proper to enact in 
 future! We know not what her future laws may be, but we are 
 bound before hand, not to "inveigh" against them: that is, not to 
 object, or petition, or use any efforts towards any alteration or 
 amendment! If this be the "system" which is "approved" by the 
 "best judgment" of our official brethren of "Baltimore city station," 
 let this fact stand as the eighth wonder of the world; and if this ex- 
 plication of the "inveighing" rule be not contended for, then let 
 the Virginia annual conference confess, that the administration of 
 Benton Field was perfectly lawless. 
 
 But, it seems, we must argue upon principle, as well as upon 
 law: William Compton says, in his reply to Ivey Harris, "You 
 inquire under question 2d, 'Was our aged brother convicted, or 
 even charged with any thing that, in your estimation, would exclude 
 him from the kingdom of heaven? If not, why give your vote to 
 exclude him from the church militant?' The plain English of this 
 is, that no person ought to be excluded from the Methodist (which 
 you are pleased to call militant) church, unless he be guilty of 
 something that would exclude him the kingdom of heaven. This 
 plea, I think, was sufficiently met by brother Howard. But, as 
 
191 
 
 most of us are forgetful hearers of those things which confute our 
 strongest arguments in favour of a beloved theory, it may not be 
 amiss to repeat the substance of, at least, a part of what he said. 
 And to make this more forcible, permit me to preface it with one 
 or two questions. Will you say, that the Presbyterians because 
 they are Calvinists, or the Baptists because they deny infant 
 baptism and free communion, or the Protestant Episcopalians 
 because they contend for a regular succession in the ministry, are 
 heretics, and ought, therefore to be excluded the kingdom of 
 heaven? Let your conscience answer. Now, if the opinions of 
 neither the one nor the other of these denominations are sufficient 
 to exclude a man the kingdom of heaven, then neither are the 
 opinions of the whole, provided they were concentrated in one 
 man. Let us then suppose Lewellyn Jones, to be this man. In 
 sentiment he is a Calvinist — he denies infant baptism and free com- 
 munion — and contends that none ought to preach the gospel but 
 those who can prove their ministerial authority in a direct line 
 from Christ; — through the apostolical church — through the church 
 of Rome — and through the Protestant Episcopal Church. You, I 
 suppose, would say, that he is not to be excluded the Methodist 
 (that is to say, the militant) Church; because of the peculiarity of 
 his sentiments. Is this the way you argue? Or, is this the "free- 
 dom" of which you so often speak, and which, from your course of 
 reasoning, one would think is one of the constituent parts of your 
 contemplated change in the government of the Methodist Church? 
 If so, what I did in the case of your "venerable father in Israel," 
 I conceive to have been one of the best acts of my life. L. Jones 
 may, or may not be a good man, and so of I. Harris, it is not for 
 me to say." Answer; 
 
 1st. Supposing it were true, that L. Jones, in being "in senti- 
 ment a Calvinist," in "denying infant baptism and free commun- 
 ion," and "contending that none ought to preach the gospel but 
 those who can prove their ministerial authority in a direct line from 
 Christ," would thereby be guilty of a sin against "Methodism," 
 while it is acknowledged he would be guilty of no sin against God; 
 — still he could not be legally expelled, even upon "Methodist" 
 authority, until a law shall be found in the discipline, saying mem- 
 bers shall be expelled for being "Calvinists in sentiment," for "de- 
 nying infant baptism," &,c. Is there any such law in the disci- 
 pline? 
 
 The act of "inveighing against our doctrines" may be plead, but 
 there is no "inveighing" in the case: Mr. Compton supposes L. 
 Jones ought to be expelled for being "in sentiment a Calvinist," 
 and for "denying infant baptism." But perhaps after a while the 
 word "inveighing" will be made to signify denying, objecting, 
 petitioning, doubting or presuming! Nor can he plead the act of 
 "holding and disseminating doctrines contrary to our articles of 
 religion;" for, though he supposes L. Jones to "contend that none 
 ought to preach the gospel but those who can prove their minis- 
 terial authority in a direct line from Christ," yet said Jones could 
 not be condemned on this ground, by any law in being; because 
 
192 
 
 brother Compton cannot put his finger on one "article of our 
 religion" in the discipline, which this sentiment contradicts. And 
 how could L. Jones be expelled, for "holding and disseminating" 
 a sentiment which is not mentioned or alluded to in any one of 
 our articles? This same brother Compton appears to have been 
 so long in the habit of acting "without law," in his administration, 
 that he probably begins to imagine he has a right to do so; and that 
 "true friends of old Methodism" ought not to be restrained and 
 hampered with legal rules and provisions. 
 
 2d. It is matter of public record, that Mr. Wesley received Cal- 
 vinists into his societies in England, and openly disavowed the 
 practice and the principles, of expelling any "merely for their opin- 
 ions." I appeal to the case of Mr. Cennick and other members 
 at Kingswood. After Mr. Wesley had read several of them out of 
 society, for various crimes which he alleged against them, that they 
 had "belied and slandered Mr. John and Charles Wesley," that 
 "they had been guilty of tale-bearing, back-biting, and evil speak- 
 ing, dissembing, lying and slandering." T — B — replied, "it is our 
 holding election, is the true cause of your separating from us." "I 
 answered," says Mr. Wesley, "you know in your conscience it is 
 not. There are several predestinarians in our societies both at 
 London and Bristol: nor did I ever yet put any one out of either, 
 because he held that opinion." See "the works of the Rev. John 
 Wesley," volume 1, page 339, 340. Now as Mr. Compton and 
 "all" his "fraternity" take pleasure in announcing it "from New 
 England to New Orleans," that they are all good old "Wesleyan 
 Methodists," why should poor "Calvinists" meet with so much 
 worse treatment in their "Episcopal Church,'" than they did in Mr. 
 Wesley's "United Societies?" 
 
 3d. BrotherCompton appears to be agreat advocatefor "free com- 
 munion." Suppose on one day, he should solemnly invite our Baptist 
 brethren to the Lord's table, who "deny" this sentiment; and on the 
 next day expel several Methodists for holding the Baptist sentiment 
 on the subject; ought he not on the third day, upon his own princi- 
 ples, to admit those expelled Methodists back to the communion 
 table, who are owned to be no more disqualified for it, than the 
 Baptist brethren whom he invited? Ought he not to receive those 
 brethren back to the "communion" whose expulsion he "conceives 
 to have been one of the best acts of his life?" Suppose he should 
 say, you Presbyterians, who are Calvinists, we invite to our "free 
 communion," you Baptists, who "deny infant baptism," we also 
 invite; you Episcopalians, who contend for an uninterrupted suc- 
 cession in the ministry, we likewise invite: but if after the service 
 is over, we find any of "our people," who agree with any of you in 
 sentiment, we will immediately expel them from the church; and 
 they shall have no more communion with us "without confession, 
 contrition, and proper trial." 
 
 4th. "The plain English of this is, that no person ought to be 
 excluded from the Methodist (which you are pleased to call the 
 militant) church, unless he be guilty of something that would ex- 
 clude him the kingdom of heaven." The plain English of the 
 
193 
 
 matter is this, brother Compton: — the church is under law to Christ, 
 or she is not — her members are to be governed by his law, or they 
 are not; if they are, then, as the subjects of his government, they, 
 in their christian character, and church membership, must stand or 
 fall by his law, and by that alone; if they are not under law to 
 Christ, then please to tell me, how Christ lost his authority, and by 
 what means an usurper has got into the seat of Majesty? If 
 Christ's government cannot protect his own faithful subjects, while 
 they obey his laws, this must result from one of two causes, — either 
 that his government was originally defective, or that its salutary in- 
 fluence is supplanted by an usurped administration. You may 
 adopt which alternative you please; and if you reject both, you will 
 be so good as to point out a third. Do not the citizens of the 
 United States consider themselves protected from condemnation 
 and banishment, so long as they continue obedient to the laws of 
 our government? And have not the subjects of our Saviour's gov- 
 ernment a right to expect equal protection, while they continue 
 obedient to his laws? Or will you say, that the act of expulsion 
 did not expel the Granville brethren from the church of Christ at 
 all, but only from the "Methodist Episcopal Church?" This seems 
 to be twice intimated in your reply to I. Harris; for you seem quite 
 unwilling that the Methodist should be called "the militant church." 
 Do you mean, then, that she is the church triumphant, or that she 
 is not the church of Christ at all? Your only evasion must be, that 
 she is a part of the church of Christ; and that the intention was 
 not to expel those brethren from "the church militant," but only 
 to expel them from apart of the church of Christ, that they might 
 go to another part of it: if so, you own they stand in the same re- 
 lation to Jesus Christ, and to his church, in which they stood be- 
 fore. I entirely concur in this sentiment; because I believe they 
 were expelled in defiance of the Saviour's laws, and therefore, in 
 reality they stand related to him and to his government, as they did 
 before. 
 
 But Mr. Compton meant expulsion from the church of Christ, in 
 the full sense; and he believes all reformers ought to share the same 
 fate: for thus he speaks: "I think it very advantageous to Method- 
 ism, that those who are dividing our Zion against herself, should 
 be traced out and exposed in all their ramifications, both as it re- 
 lates to themselves, and to those with whom they are connected in 
 the great work of revolutionizing the government of the church. 
 I will suppose a case, C. is found carrying off the body of a mur- 
 dered man, upon examination, it is ascertained that A. caught the 
 deceased and held him fast, that B. threw him down, and that C. 
 stabbed him through the heart. They are all tried, and being found 
 accessary to the man's death, are all brought in guilty, and must all 
 die. In vain A. pleads that he only caught and held the deceased, 
 and B. that he only threw him down; the law says that they shall 
 die. But Ivey Harris asks, "whether it is just to name what B. and 
 C. did on the trial of A. and so try to tranfer their guilt to him," 
 who perhaps may say that he had no idea that matters would have 
 been carried so far. "But the law says that he must die." 
 
194 
 
 From this illustration, it is plain that Mr. Compton meant expul- 
 sion from the church of Christ, as fully as banishment would be 
 expulsion from the United States, or even as a public execution 
 would be expulsion from the protection and privileges of our gov- 
 ernment. For "the law says that they shall die." — "The law says 
 that he must die." Strange! that his mouth should be so full of 
 legality — "the law says" — "the law says" — after his perfectly law- 
 less career, and that of his "fraternity," in condemning our Gran- 
 ville reformers, in committee, in quarterly conference, and in the 
 annual conference, through "all their ramifications." How he in- 
 tends his illustration to apply to the reformers, we may be able to 
 ascertain. He seems to consider them, some how, as moral mur- 
 derers. By the "murdered man," he may probably mean episco- 
 pacy; for this is sometimes represented as the nerves and vitals of 
 the church; and when our opponents speak of the church being in 
 danger, their real meaning is, that the absolute power of the hier- 
 archy is in danger. It is supposed then, that at some time or other, 
 this formidable power will be slain, and that "C." will be "found 
 carrying off the body" of the "murdered man." "Upon examina- 
 tion" it will be "ascertained that A. caught the deceased and held 
 him fast, that B. threw him down, and that C. stabbed him through 
 the heart. The law says that they shall die." Mr. Compton will 
 be pleased, however, to wait till the law is enacted, before he at- 
 tempts to put it in execution. Suppose some President of the Unit- 
 ed States should succeed to establish himself in the presidential chair 
 for life, and should have a law enacted forbidding the citizens on 
 pain of imprisonment, ba7iishment or death, to "inveigh" against 
 the government, either by objecting to any of its laws, by petitioning 
 for their repeal, or using any argument, through the medium of 
 speech or of the press, to evince their impropriety; would not the 
 American people find this to be a u gag law," a hundred degrees 
 worse than any they have ever yet had to complain of? And in what 
 would such a laic differ from our present u gag law" in the disci- 
 pline, on supposition that it is to be so explained as to sanction tlie 
 administration of Benton Field? It loill require all the clerical 
 talents of old Virginia to point out any difference, excepting that 
 the latter only involves the church penalty of expulsion: in princi- 
 ple, they would be precisely the same; and this principle, with a suf- 
 ficient enlargement of power in the hierarchy, would soon bring the 
 christian community again under the penalties of corporeal punish- 
 ment. Yet this tyranny is sanctioned by the Virginia annual con- 
 ference! 
 
 An orthodox brother took an early opportunity to give the public 
 the following information: u We have had a fine conference, and 
 the appointments of tlie preachers you will receive in a few days. 
 Three bishops attended — bishop M'Kendree, whose health and 
 spirits are better than usual, and bishops Roberts and Soule, who are 
 in gooa health." Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that the preacher 
 in cliarge had several members expelled from the church, in defiance 
 
195 
 
 of all laws, both human and divine, and yet "a fine conference" 
 with "three bishops" at its head, and could not discover this to be 
 "mal-administration." The next number of the Christian Advocate 
 (the 21th) contains a more full account, in which we are informed 
 "the venerable bishop J\PKendree addressed them in a very affectionate 
 and feeling manner — He then concluded with an exhortation to 
 holiness," upon which the conference aftericards "adopted the fol- 
 lowing resolution." — " That the doctrine of holiness recommended 
 by our discipline, and forcibly impressed in the address of the 
 bishop, be duly weighed and enforced by the members of this con- 
 ference." 
 
 It is hoped, "the members of this conference," in "duly weighing" 
 the subject of christian holiness, will try to acquire just views of its 
 nature and extent; and that while they justly expostulate with those 
 who oppose the doctrine, as being advocates for sin, they will not 
 forget to raise a warning voice against those who make professions 
 of holiness and sanctification as a cloak for their sins. By what 
 tests is it to be ascertained that a man is not sanctified? They are 
 such as the following: "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth 
 his brother, is in darkness even until now." (1. Johnii. 9.) "If a 
 man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar." (1. John 
 iv. 20.) "But, why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou 
 set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ." (Rom. xiv. 10.) "But Diotrephes who loveth 
 to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not — prating 
 against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither 
 doth he himself receive tfie brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, 
 and casteth them out of the church." (3. John, ix. 10.) For a man 
 who is in the habit of such conduct, as is thus condemned by the 
 divine laws, to get up in love-feasts and say, "at the last prayer 
 meeting, or at the last camp meeting, I was sanctified," is an insult 
 to God, and to all christian morality. Alas!, how many thousands 
 are zealous advocates for the doctrine of sanctification, and are 
 ready to fly into a passion in defence of christian perfection, who 
 are merely jond of the sentiment, not because they have a true hun- 
 gering and thirst after righteousness, but because the doctrine is a 
 distinguishing peculiarity of Methodism? The doctrine of holi- 
 ness is valuable beyond expression, and may be justly regarded as 
 the great consummation of Christianity; but sectarian partiality ap- 
 pears to corrupt every thing it touches; and such are the mysteries of 
 human nature, that it would be no matter of surprise if the time 
 should come, when a man would be ready to cut his brother's throat, 
 in defence of the doctrine of christian perfection. In what way our 
 Virginia brethren intend to "enforce" the "doctrine of holiness," 
 they have not explained: perhaps their conduct will hereafter ex- 
 plain it. 
 
 By what tests are we to ascertain that a man is sanctified? They 
 are such as the following: "Take my yoke upon you, (that is, the 
 
196 
 
 law of Christ, and not the yoke of "episcopacy") and learn of me; 
 for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest to your 
 souls." Matt. xi. 29. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would 
 that men should do to you. do ye even so to them: for this is the 
 law and the prophets." (And of course, is christian perfection.) 
 Matt. vii. 12. "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then 
 peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good 
 fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." (James iii. 17.) 
 Let our brethren measure their sanctification by these rules, and 
 not suppose it sufficient merely to be said in familiar conversation, 
 
 at the last camp-meeting brother was sanctified, or at the last 
 
 prayer-meeting, sister was sanctified. And let them not for- 
 get to pray that the general conference may be sanctified; that is, 
 that the members of it, in their official deliberations, may be entirely 
 set a part for God, and not "reject the commandments of God, 
 that they may keep their own traditions." 
 
 As to the objection so repeatedly and confidently urged against 
 reformers (and which has been urged in the same way through all 
 past ages) that they intend to injure and destroy the church, we 
 reply: it is our design to guard and benefit the church, by oppos- 
 ing the progress of that clerical dominion which has been injuri- 
 ous and ruinous to her, for more than a thousand years. When 
 we make a stand against the high career of ecclesiastical episcopa- 
 cy, it is fondly pretended we oppose the progress of the christian 
 religion, and are secret friends to infidelity; whereas the truth is, 
 that the sovereign power of the priest-hood, which we oppose, has 
 greatly promoted infidelity in all ages, and has furnished deists 
 with a more plausible and influential argument against Christianity, 
 than they otherwise could have ever got hold of: for they appeal to 
 the conduct of "the clergy," in proof that Jesus Christ has author- 
 ized a succession of men to establish and perpetuate a tyrannical 
 hierarchy over the human understanding, and the human con- 
 science. But any set of men, who practically and officially say, 
 the Lord Jesus has authorized them to be tyrants, slander and blas- 
 pheme his gracious character; and the only way to repel the infi- 
 del argument, is to demonstrate that in all ages, tyrannical hierar- 
 chists have been usurpers, who have assumed and maintained their 
 unholy power, in defiance of the Saviour's laws. 
 
 A keen-eyed opponent will be likely to perceive, with terrible indig- 
 nation, that we are waging war against "the episcopacy!" Yes: this 
 absolute sovereignty is the centre point of our opposition; while it 
 stands, in its present mighty energy, all reformation is hopeless, and an 
 increase of moral darkness and corruption will be inevitable. We 
 have no quarrel with our present bishops: we believe them to be good 
 men; and that none of them have become by many degrees, so corrupt- 
 ed by this same great "Episcopacy," as many of their tame under- 
 lings and dependents have become. 
 
 If our brethren suppose any thing in this communication is too 
 sharp, the author, confident that nothing here expressed needs an 
 apology, requests of them to recollect what has been the occasion 
 of this paper; and then to read Tit. i. 13, 14. "This witness is 
 
197 
 
 true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in 
 the faith: (and the faith is to be found in the Bible, not in ecclesi- 
 astical canons) not giving heed to Jewish (or Gentile) fables, and 
 commandments of men, that turn from the truth." "For the 
 time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; and they 
 shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto 
 fables." 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. A Virginia Methodist. 
 
 April, 1827. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 Rev'd. Dennis B. Dorsey's case, fyc. before the Baltimore Annual 
 
 Conference. 
 
 LETTER FROM REV. DENNIS B. DORSEY TO VINDEX. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir> 
 
 I have had the pleasure of reading your affectionate communi- 
 cation, addressed to me through the medium of the Mutual Rights, 
 and now enjoy the equal pleasure of returning you, through the 
 same medium, my grateful acknowledgments for the solicitude you 
 evince in my behalf. In the mean time I am not unmindful of the 
 great principles, on which this matter is predicated, of which I 
 presume you are an advocate. And as you put several interroga- 
 tories relative to the case, for your personal information, I will give 
 you a glance at the whole affair. I am the more inclined to this 
 than to entire silence, under existing circumstances, for two rea- 
 sons. The first regards the reputation of our conference, which 
 is as liable to be tarnished as my own; and the second is grounded 
 on the special regard which I must necessarily feel for my own 
 character, as a christian, and a minister of the gospel. This brief 
 history shall be given from my best recollections, and the least ex- 
 ceptionable means of information. If there should be any apparent 
 mis-statement, I hope no brother will attribute it to design; and 
 that if any one be prepared to correct it, he will do so through this 
 public medium, before he undertake to contradict or criminate in a 
 private manner. 
 
 Some time last February, I wrote a few lines to a friend, Mr. 
 Hugh M. Sharp, in which I gave him information "of a work on 
 church government, publishing in Baltimore, by a committee of 
 Methodist preachers and members, exposing to open view, some 
 of the errors in our government and administration." I also in- 
 formed him that the work "was a very satisfactory one, well worth 
 his attention;" that I had "taken it more than eighteen months, 
 and was well pleased with it;" that it contained so many pages, 
 and came at so much per year; that several in that part took it, 
 and were well pleased with it; and, finally, requested him to let me 
 know immediately, if he desired to have the work, and to inquire 
 26 
 
198 
 
 of a brother, whom 1 named, whether he would take it also. In con- 
 clusion, I remarked to him, "You need not mention this to any other 
 person, if you please." But when Mr. Robert Minshall, the preacher 
 in charge of Huntingdon circuit, came round, my friend Sharp 
 betrayed me, by giving him my letter to read. Mr. Minshall then, 
 according to his own telling in conference, asked him for a copy 
 of the letter, to which he replied, that he might have the original, 
 as it was of no use to him. 
 
 About this time there was a letter written by Mr. Minshall, to Mr. 
 David Steele, giving him information, that I was actively engaged 
 in circulating the Mutual Rights, and probably censuring me for 
 such conduct. This information was communicated to Mr. John 
 Davis, who, in his turn reported it again, until, finally, it was 
 brought before the late Annual Conference, first in the form of an 
 objection, and then as a charge. 
 
 After the commencement of the conference, I had an interview 
 with Mr. Davis, who gave me an assurance, that as I would give 
 him no satisfaction in his interrogatives, he could not pass over it 
 on the examination of my character. Accordingly, when my name 
 was called, in the examination of characters, Mr. S. G. Roszel 
 arose and made some objections, stating, as I was informed by 
 members of conference, (for I was too unwell to be present,) that 
 I had been away from my circuit during the last year, under the 
 pretence of being afflicted, but had been travelling extensively, cir- 
 culating a work derogatory to the interests of the church. My 
 case was then postponed until I could be present. 
 
 The following, or second day after, I was present, when my 
 name was called, and the inquiry instituted, whether there was any 
 thing against my character: certain members of the conference re- 
 plied that there icas, but the brother who had made the objection 
 was absent. Mr. Roszel being sent for, came in and stated his 
 objection, on the ground above mentioned. This led to reference 
 for information, and Messrs. Steele and Minshall were referred to 
 as informants. My letter was now produced by Mr. Minshall, 
 who stated how he obtained it, and intimated that it had now acci- 
 dentally come in place, as he thought when he obtained it, might 
 sometime be the case. The letter was then read, and the presi- 
 dent, Mr. Soule, remarked, that if I had any thing to say in reply, 
 I was now at liberty to speak for myself. As I saw no formal charge, 
 I had nothing to say, only to acknowledge the letter read to be 
 my own production. I then retired, and after considerable deliber- 
 ation on the subject, the case was decided. Some brother, in pass- 
 ing out of the conference, remarked to me that I could now go in, 
 which left me under the impression that my character had passed. 
 I then went in and remained until conference adjourned; but heard 
 no official announcement of the decision, until the next day. I 
 learned however, in the mean time, the nature of the decision, in 
 part, but could find no one to give it me in full. 
 
 The next morning when the journal of the preceding day was 
 read, there was a foimal charge recorded, which was "for having 
 been actively engaged in the circulation of an improper periodical 
 
I})!) 
 
 work. The president then announced to me from the chair, that 
 the decision of the conference in my case was, "that my character 
 should pass, upon my being admonished by the president; and promis- 
 ing the conference that 1 would desist from taking any agency in 
 spreading or supporting any publications in opposition to our disci- 
 pline or government.^ The admonition was then given from the 
 chair; after I had signified my disposition to submit to it, for the 
 sake of brethren's consciences. I was then required to give a 
 pledge that I would comply with the latter part of the resolution; 
 which I refused to do, while the resolution remained in its unquali- 
 fied form. I then replied to all the important items of the ad- 
 monition, and gave my reasons for not complying with the latter 
 part of the resolution. The following is the substance: 
 
 Mr. President, 
 
 With you I admit the importance of clearly ascertaining that we 
 have found the truth, before we undertake to communicate it; and 
 that when we do communicate it, we ought to be careful to culti- 
 vate the spirit of Christianity, lest it be attended with greater in- 
 jury than good, to our fellow men. These considerations have 
 governed me throughout: and God forbid that I should ever depart 
 from them! 
 
 As it regards the allusion to my promises before I received ordi- 
 nation, to be obedient to my superiors, and not to "mend our rules 
 but to keep them,"* I reply, that I regret exceedingly, that when 
 I made such promises, I was not better qualified to judge of our 
 discipline and government. I was young, inexperienced and un- 
 informed. I perceived no errors in either of these. But, Sir, if I 
 now had to pass that examination, I should certainly be strict in 
 qualifying my promises, as I do believe there are rules of Disci- 
 pline, as well as practices in our administration, which ought to be 
 modified. 
 
 I do, Sir, as firmly and fully believe in our doctrines, generally, as 
 any brother; and have endeavoured since I became a member of 
 our church, to obey them: nor do I now feel any abatement of my 
 purpose, to persevere in this path of duty to the end, by the Grace 
 of God assisting me. I have uniformly recommended our disci- 
 pline to others, as well as laboured to conform to its mandates my- 
 self: and in this course too, I feel inclined to persevere, until some 
 better modification of them shall be introduced by the proper 
 authority of the church, or until they be repealed. And as to the grand 
 fundamentals of our government, (meaning the itinerant operations,) 
 no member of this conference feels more disposed to support them 
 than I do. But, Sir, believing as I do, that there are some of the 
 minutiae of our discipline and government, which could be modi- 
 fied to advantage, I wish to enjoy the privilege of examining the 
 subject, by reading ecclesiastical history, the Mutual Rights, or 
 any thing else which will afford me the necessary information. 
 And when I am fully convinced that I have obtained a knowledge 
 
 *Mr. Dorsey neither broke the "rules" nor mended them. — Eds. 
 
200 
 
 of the truth, I desire the privilege of communicating it in the best 
 possible manner to the church and the world, either verbally or 
 otherwise. And, although I should rejoice to have the sanction of 
 this conference, in so doing, yet if it cannot be obtained, I must 
 beg the privilege of pursuing the course which my judgment and 
 conscience dictate. 
 
 You admit that the preachers have a right to read and examine 
 the Mutual Rights, or any thing they please. And is it not ad- 
 mitted, that they have the same right to communicate to others, 
 what they learn? Are we to retain our information, and neither 
 speak nor write about it? No, Sir, I cannot suffer any man, or 
 body of men, to trammel my rational faculties, in their search for 
 truth; nor to restrain them from promulgating it when obtained: 
 and I now reserve to myself the entire privilege of doing so, either 
 verbally, or in any other manner I judge most expedient. 
 
 I have read the Mutual Rights, Sir, for myself, and think 
 highly of the work, and recommend it to every member of this 
 conference. 
 
 The bishops themselves read it, — the preachers read it, — the book 
 agents read it, and exchange the Methodist Magazine for it; — and 
 will any one say, that the people have no right to read it? With- 
 out an act of reason, my intelligence itself on the first blush 
 of the subject, forces this language upon me: — If bishops, 
 preachers, and book agents read this work with impunity, then all 
 the members of our church, ought to enjoy the same privilege. 
 But I must come to the conclusion and application of this argu- 
 ment. — If the members have as good a right to read the Mutual 
 Rights, as the ministry, (which all must admit, or else deny that 
 they are free,) and if the ministers undoubtedly have this right, as 
 has been admitted on this floor, by bishops and others, then there 
 is no argument to set aside the consequence, that it is the right of 
 any preacher to recommend the work to the people, if he judge it 
 would be profitable to them. [And every attempt to inflict punish- 
 ment on a preacher for recommending it to the people, is an abso- 
 lute, though indirect, declaration, that they are not at liberty to 
 read and examine for themselves.] And if it be a preacher's right, 
 how can you punish me for so doing? Yet I have been punished 
 with an admonition, for recommending the Mutual Rights to one or 
 two members; for this is all the proof you had against me. 
 
 After this I retired, and the sense of the conference was taken, 
 whether my reply was satisfactory, and the vote was given in the 
 negative. I was again called in and interrogated on the subject; 
 but replied as before, in my own language, qualifying my promises, 
 and yielding so far as I could, without sacrificing the clearest dic- 
 tates of my judgment and conscience. I again retired, and as I 
 was informed, the question, "whether my character pass," was 
 again put to the conference, and answered by a vote in the nega- 
 tive. It was then "moved, that the case be postponed till to-mor- 
 row." 
 
 The next day the case was again resumed, and I was once more 
 interrogated. I replied in substance as follows: 
 
201 
 
 Mr. President, 
 
 Upon a candid re-examination of the subject, I am prepared to 
 reiterate the remarks which I offered yesterday, relative to my dis- 
 position to render a respectful obedience to our discipline and 
 government. But I request the conference, if they please, to fa- 
 vour me with the rule of discipline on which I have been charged, 
 tried and punished, that I may be better prepared to conclude how 
 to shape my course. (No law was given.) If there be any rule, 
 and you have proceeded according to it. then I am subject to no 
 further penalty, unless I can be punished twice for the same of- 
 fence. 
 
 It has just now been suggested to me, by a brother at my left 
 hand, that there is a law of the general conference, passed at their 
 last session, requiring our preachers not to become agents for 
 other booksellers, &c. Now, supposing this law to apply to the 
 case in hand, (which we believe it will not,) / knew nothing about 
 its existence until half an hour ago; and how then could I keep or 
 break it? It is not in our discipline. A law must be promulgated 
 before it can be in force: for, "where there is no law, there" can 
 be "no transgression." How then can I be punished for the trans- 
 gression of that law? I feel myself as much bound as any member 
 of this conference, to keep the laws of the general conference, 
 until they shall be amended or repealed. When I violate any one 
 of those laws, I am amenable at this tribunal; and, if found guilty, 
 subject to punishment and am willing to submit to it. But I can- 
 not be punished now for an offence which I may or may not commit 
 hereafter, without a violation of justice. 
 
 Moreover, it has been suggested, (by the president,) that an 
 "annual conference has authority to make rules and regulations 
 for its own members." Admitted. Rules and regulations are not 
 laws to regulate moral conduct, I presume. This conference is 
 now sitting in an executive, or legislative capacity. If the former, 
 then not the latter; and if the latter, not the former. If you are 
 sitting in an executive capacity, how can you enact laws for your- 
 selves to execute? If in a legislative capacity, how can you exe- 
 cute your own laws? Unless you prove that these two powers 
 should be united in one body; which would astonish my understand- 
 ing, and form a monstrous anomaly in ecclesiastical government, 
 in this country. 
 
 But if this conference had the power both to enact laws for the 
 regulation of the moral characters of its members, and to execute 
 such laws, when enacted, surely none would argue that you had 
 authority to punish one of your members for a breach of a law be- 
 fore it is broken, or even enacted! And when was the law enacted, 
 which prohibits any of your body from recommending the Mutual 
 Rights? — the supposed offence for which I have suffered the pun- 
 ishment of an admonition. 
 
 I might easily say much more on the subject: for it is one of the 
 deepest moment to me: but suffer me to close my remarks, by re- 
 ferring brethren to the many hard things which some of them have 
 said on this floor: and also, to what some of them have written and 
 
202 
 
 published, in opposition to certain parts of our discipline and gov- 
 ernment; and let me request them to refer to those things, when 
 they shall give their vote in this case. 
 
 I now retired again; and Mr. Roszel offered the following mo- 
 tion: "moved that the character of brother Dorsey pass, upan his 
 being reproved by the president, for his contumacy in resisting the 
 authority of the conference." This motion did not prevail. The 
 following motion was then offered by Mr. Job Guest, but written 
 as the secretary says, by Mr. F. S. Evans:, 'Moved and seconded, 
 that the bishops be, and hereby are requested not to give Dennis B. 
 Dorsey an appointment for the present year, and that his name be so 
 returned on the minutes, with the reasons assigned why he has not an 
 appointment; viz. his contumacy in regard to the authority of the 
 conference." This motion was divided, and the first and second 
 parts adopted separately. The resolution being read to me, when 
 called in, I requested a transcript from the journal, of all the pro- 
 ceedings in the case; and signified a probability of my appealing to 
 the general conference against their decisions. My request was 
 laid over, however, till the next day. 
 
 When the case was called up on the following day, on motion 
 of Mr. Joshua Wells, it was resolved, that the last resolution 
 passed on yesterday, relative to the return of the name on the 
 minutes, be amended, and "that the words, 'with the reasons as- 
 signed why he has not an appointment; viz. his contumacy in regard 
 to the authority of the conference,' be retained on the journal, but not 
 published on the minutes." This motion was adopted. — The same 
 day, as I could not be present on account of bodily indisposition, 
 I wrote to the conference, informing them of my determination to 
 appeal to the general conference, and requested them to pass a reso- 
 lution, that this appeal be inserted in the minutes along with their 
 former resolution. In that letter I renewed my request for a tran- 
 script from the journals. Mr. Robert Cadden then moved, that 
 my '•'request be not granted;" The secretary, Mr. Waugh, and 
 others, made some remarks on the impropriety of my obtaining 
 such a document, without some restraint not to publish it until the 
 general conference. This motion was lost. After this, it was, on 
 motion of Mr. Roszel, "resolved that" my "request be granted." 
 
 Thus, dear sir, you have an outline of this afflictive and pro- 
 tracted trial; and you are now left to form your own opinion con- 
 cerning the nature and grounds of the charge — the manner in 
 which it was introduced — the proofs by which it was sustained — 
 the decisions of conference on the case — and my merit or demerit 
 of the penalties inflicted. 
 
 Soliciting an interest in your petitions to the God of all grace, 
 that I may have that love which "endureth all things," and "think- 
 eth no evil," I subscribe myself, dear brother, your fellow labourer 
 in the cause of religious liberty, and in the ministry of reconcilia- 
 tion. Dennis B. Dorsev. 
 To Vindex. 
 
 Baltimore, May 16th, 1827. 
 
203 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 A short address to the Members of the Baltimore Annual Conference 
 by Bartimeus. 
 
 FATHERS AND BRETHREN, 
 
 Permit an old friend, and an old member of your conference, to 
 address you in the language of mildness and expostulation. One 
 who was brought out of the kingdom of darkness, by the instru- 
 mentality of the Methodist ministry, and who has been raised up 
 among you, as an advocate for the pure doctrines of original Meth- 
 odism. One who, in the twenty-second year of his age, being 
 ordered by the bishop far hence into the wilderness, was noticed 
 by a distinguished member of your conference, who, casting a 
 benevolent glance at the timid young man, silently retired from 
 the busy scenes of the day, and went from house to house, to pro- 
 cure a little money from the generous friends in Baltimore, to aid 
 him through the dangers and hazards of his western tour. A 
 member this, who then stood so high in your ranks, and in the 
 public estimation, that when he had an appointment to preach, 
 his name was previously announced from the pulpit, that the citi- 
 zens might know when they could have an opportunity to hear 
 him. What distinguished member of your conference was this? 
 It was no other than that same Nicholas Snethen, who is now 
 regarded as the great troubler of Israel. That mild, inoffensive 
 man of God, who, for more than thirty years, through a variety of 
 trying circumstances, has held fast his righteousness, and main- 
 tained his integrity. Shall I forget thee, Snethen ! Now the shafts 
 of reproach fly thick around; shall I hide myself, and leave thee 
 to the pelting of the storm? I have arisen, thou knowest, to aid 
 thee in the mighty contest, and to share in thy reproach. I will 
 be thy fellow-labourer through the cloudy and dark day, until sum- 
 mer suns shall break the dense vapours of the storm, and clear up 
 the troubled atmosphere. Then like weather-beaten and war-worn 
 soldiers, lifting our eyes to the tranquil stillness of the heavens, and 
 looking abroad through the surrounding beauties of spiritual vege- 
 tation, we will sing together: — "For lo! the winter is past, the rain 
 is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of sing- 
 ing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; 
 the fig-tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the ten- 
 der grape give a good smell." 
 
 You, my brethren, who are yet members of the Baltimore annual 
 conference, will forgive this involuntary digression, this grateful 
 recollection of past events, and pleasant anticipation of the future, 
 while I solicit your attention to the intended suggestions of the 
 present address. 
 
 I am not insensible of my obligations to you, and have long ad- 
 mired that dignity and intelligence, which have caused you to hold 
 a distinguished rank among the annual conferences of the United 
 
204 
 
 States. You possess advantages which other conferences do not. 
 Occupying a central situation, and having easy access to the first 
 sources of information, you have it in your power to sustain a val- 
 uable weight of influence, and to stand among the most useful 
 bodies of men in our nation. The principles of reform have long 
 been in operation among you; and you have had ample means to 
 know and appreciate the evidence on which they rest. I retain a 
 lively recollection of the times and seasons, when an Emory, a 
 Ryland, and a Griffith, made a noble stand on your floor; and when 
 other intelligent brethren with them, plead the cause of liberty, 
 against the dangerous accumulations of ecclesiastical power. 
 Whence is it, then, that in your late session, you have laid an em- 
 bargo upon the Mutual Rights? Is Emory gone from among you? 
 Is the voice of Ryland no more heard? Has Griffith retired to the 
 mournful solitudes of discouraged silence? Poes modest Hanson 
 still refuse to open his mouth? And have Waugh and Davis found 
 out, that truth reaches too deep, to be safely followed in all its con- 
 nections? Does the thunder of S. G. R. still terrify the rising min- 
 istry? And have your young men "stipulated" to enjoy the conso- 
 lations of passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence is it, 
 that these dismal tidings have come out from Baltimore? Refusing 
 to notice our arguments, and unable to obstruct their influence on 
 society, by manoeuvre, are you now resolved that absolute authority 
 shall take our citadel by storm? An embargo is not unfrequently 
 a harbinger for an open declaration of war; and we may so regard 
 it, perhaps in the present case. 
 
 You have resolved, have you, that the members of your confer- 
 ence shall not recommend or circulate the Mutual Rights? Why 
 is this? Have you given any reason for such an extraordinary re- 
 solution? Or have you avowed your determination, not to enter 
 into any "discussion or controversy" upon the subject? If you will 
 not give a reason for your conduct, let your expostulating brethren 
 do it for you. We think the plain English reason why you will not 
 read the Mutual Rights, is, that the work contains more truth than 
 you are willing to endure. Ecclesiastical power will not come to 
 the light, lest its deeds should be reproved. 
 
 You have laid the heavy arm of authority on a young man, it is 
 said, because he has recommended and circulated our periodical 
 publication. Have you any law for this? Where is . it? In the 
 discipline? In the scriptures? In the codes of the United States, 
 or of the state of Maryland? If in none of these, must you not 
 own that it was a perfectly lawless act? And is the Baltimore an- 
 nual conference without law to God? or is she under the law to Christ? 
 
 Brethren, what do you intend to do? To prohibit the freedom 
 of inquiry, and of reading, is a greater outrage upon civil liberty, 
 than to take away the freedom of speech, or of the press. It is 
 rumoured that some great man among you, intends publicly to vin- 
 dicate the conduct of the Baltimore annual conference, in this 
 case. If I cannot fairly shew his arguments to be inconclusive, I 
 promise I will yield to them, and give up the cause of reform. 
 
205 
 
 If you forbid travelling preachers to circulate the Mutual Rights, 
 why not lay the same prohibition upon the local preachers, and the 
 private members? You profess to have equal authority over them 
 in your law-making power; and why not in your sovereign prero- 
 gative to act without law? 
 
 If you resolve still to be inattentive to our arguments, and to our 
 rights, have some regard, I beseech you, to your own standing in 
 society. Will your daring efforts to abridge the freedom of thought 
 and discussion, pass unnoticed in this land of justice and indepen- 
 dence, which reflects the light of civil and religious liberty over 
 both hemispheres? Will the free born sons of America, whose 
 fathers had such struggles to cast off the yoke of European despo- 
 tism, be silent and respectful spectators of your ecclesiastical 
 march after absolute dominion? Will not Methodists every where 
 open their eyes, and see that the efforts of reformers have not been 
 made without a cause? Think you, that, with trembling steps, they 
 will begin to gather up their scattered numbers of the Mutual 
 Rights, and commit them to the flames, lest the second edition of 
 the Baltimore act, should involve them also in its penalties? Will 
 they break up the Union Societies, and implore your royal clemen- 
 cy, pledging themselves no more to peruse the forbidden pages? 
 Will the reformers belonging to the Baltimore annual conference 
 tamely surrender to your high-toned injunction, and with an abject 
 meanness, go and ask you what books they may be permitted to 
 read and circulate? As well might you expect them to bow down, 
 and kiss the great toe of his holiness at Rome. 
 
 If you are men of reason, why spurn from you the many appeals 
 made to this noble faculty in the Mutual Rights? If you are men 
 of one book, the Bible, why forbid the reading of those pages, 
 where so many sacred quotations are to be found? If you are Wes- 
 leyan Methodists, why interdict a book, which contains so many 
 respectful appeals to Mr. Wesley's authority, and so many quota- 
 tions from his works? 
 
 A respectable number of you were zealous reformers four or five 
 years ago. Have you taken a retrograde motion, or become luke- 
 warm in the cause? If so, how is this fact to be accounted for? 
 Has it arisen from a dread of novelties, and a sanguine confidence 
 that nothing is true but "the old gospel which we had from the be- 
 ginning?" That nothing is true which contradicts the gospel of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ is very readily admitted, and it would be well for 
 the christian world, if it were more generally admitted than it is. 
 But I beseech you to reflect, that many of the warm advocates for 
 old things, with all their fondness for antiquity, do not look so far 
 back as to the days of our blessed Saviour and his apostles. Many 
 things have been invented since that time, which have now become 
 old; and these are the things which excite the greatest outcry 
 against novelty, and for which the most zealous efforts are made, 
 to magnify the argument of antiquity; because it is well known, if 
 this should be torn from them, they would have no other argument 
 to rest upon. Because the gospel is old, must we therefore support 
 27 
 
206 
 
 all the old absurdities of popery? The mere argument of antiquity 
 proves this, or it proves nothing. We believe the gospel, not be- 
 cause it is old, for it was as true eighteen hundred years ago, as it 
 is now; and will not be any more true, after the lapse of ten thou- 
 sand years to come. And as to church government, if you insist 
 on antiquity, we join in with you immediately, and invite you back 
 to the apostolic age. Is not this old enough for you? Or will you 
 make your official conduct demonstrate, that you think it quite too 
 old? 
 
 You are ready to say, perhaps, that one thing will open the way 
 for another, that for another, and if these reformers can have their 
 will, we know not where they will find a stopping place. If you 
 see them going beyond the oracles of God, and beyond the apos- 
 tolic age, then I will join you with all my heart, in endeavouring to 
 stop them. The church of Rome, in her church government, went 
 beyond the oracles of God, to borrow pagan rites, and beyond the 
 apostolic age, to borrow many of the pompous and obsolete cere- 
 monies of the Jews: had she regarded, and been governed by 
 divine authority, in all her discipline, what superstition and blood- 
 shed would have been prevented through the following ages! You 
 have no fears, have you, that Methodist reformers will wander as 
 far out of the way as she did? Allow us the stopping place just 
 mentioned, and we will never ask you to go beyond it. Nor do 
 we wish to urge a rapid motion, in our return to primitive usage 
 and simplicity. We only request you to take a step at a time; but 
 in the mean time, we wish to be looking forward, and clearing the 
 way for future movements, when the proper season shall arrive. 
 
 Remember, brethren, the interest you felt in the cause of reform, 
 in 1823 — 4. Where was then, your stopping place? Was it the 
 election of presiding elders? The election of a stationing com- 
 mittee? or both? Now, both these points of reform evidently con- 
 templated an enlargement of general liberty, and an abridgment of 
 episcopal power: and if we now request that the representative 
 principle should properly run through the whole connexion, what 
 is this but maintaining that consistency and impartiality in our 
 claims, which truth and righteousness require? Will our old re- 
 forming brethren in the travelling ministry, forsake us on this ac- 
 count? Or, if we plead for such abridgement and responsibility of 
 episcopal power, as shall make it correspond with the executive 
 power of the United States, will the free born sons of America 
 find fault with us for this? Will they go back, and support episco- 
 pal sovereignty in all its extent, giving up the presiding elder ques- 
 tion, and every other question of reform, merely because we want 
 Methodist bishops put upon a level with the dignified ruler who 
 presides at the head of the nation? Is it possible, that this will 
 frighten away any of the reformers belonging to the Baltimore an- 
 nual conference? Will they now give up their own rights and pri- 
 vileges, rather than see local preachers and lay members have the 
 enjoyment of theirs? To keep down the laity and locality, are they 
 now willing to surrender their own claims, yield a passive obedi- 
 ence to their masters, and do all that in them lies, to perpetuate an 
 
207 
 
 absolute hierarchy, to the end of the world? We hope better 
 things of Baltimore reformers. Too many in thai conference, we 
 know, are not reformers; too many are violently opposed to reform; 
 from them we hope but little. 
 
 But brethren, who are in any degree favourable to reform, would 
 do well to consider, that, however desirous they may be, to take 
 a neutral stand, or to pursue a middle course, the time appears ap- 
 proaching when our rulers will not suffer them to do either. — 
 They may pass along for a year or two; but an inquiry will proba- 
 bly be commenced before long, on the conference floor, to ascer- 
 tain who has been guilty of reading the Mutual Rights; or, who 
 has been guilty of conversing with others in favour of reform. — 
 Every thing of the kind will be considered ''inveighing against our 
 discipline." Our bishops, presiding elders, and their admirers, 
 will be likely to insist, that every man must come out, and let the 
 conference know where he stands.* It appears to be high time, 
 therefore, for every man to examine church history, search his 
 Bible, read the Mutual Rights, consult his conscience, exercise 
 his understanding, and deliberately make up his mind, concerning 
 the course he is to take, through the portentous and eventful scenes 
 which are before us. 
 
 Some of the brethren will probably reply, the eventful scenes 
 referred to, are the very things which stagger us. We were re- 
 formers, until we saw there was danger that the church would be 
 torn to pieces; and now we are afraid to persevere. Well, breth- 
 ren, you are perfectly right in resolving not to do any thing that 
 would injure the church. This resolution, it is to be hoped, will 
 be abundantly confirmed, in the mind of every one of you. And 
 what, think you, will injure the church? Will reason or revelation 
 do it? Will the church be injured, by her members searching for 
 the truth, or by assisting each other in the diligent communication 
 of it, through every lawful medium? Pause and think. Will the 
 church be injured by an increase of light on the principles of gov- 
 ernment? Will truth, justice, equal rights, and equal liberty, ever 
 do her any harm? Will it tear the church in pieces, to ask a Me- 
 thodist bishop to yield the least tittle of his power? Or to ask "the 
 Itinerancy" to do unto others, as they would have others do unto 
 them? And who intends to divide the church? Will reformers do 
 it, by voluntarily separating? Or will it be done by the episco- 
 pacy, through the sovereign power of expulsion? Time will an- 
 swer these questions. Can the Baltimore Annual Conference find 
 no other way to avoid injuring and destroying the church, but the 
 old way of absolute power maintaining silence — forbidding to read, 
 think, judge, or converse on the subject of church government? 
 And pray, then, where did this conference receive her education? 
 Where did she learn such a lesson? You will have to look across 
 the great water, to the Southern regions of Europe, for an answer 
 to this question. 
 
 But why do I write this address, to be published in the Mutual 
 Rights, after that publication has been proscribed by the very per- 
 
 *This prediction was soon fulfilled. 
 
208 
 
 sons to whom the appeal is made? Some of them may feel indig- 
 nant at it, and may be disposed to ask: "What emboldeneth thee, 
 that thou answerest?" I answer, because if you will not read in 
 order to inform your minds of what is going on in the earth, it is 
 probable some of your children will. If you are too wise, either 
 to yield to our arguments, or to answer them; your posterity will 
 be able to judge, whether our arguments were too weak to need an 
 answer, or too strong to admit of one. They will discover, whether 
 your declining cause had no occasion to defend itself, or that you 
 had no ability to give an answer which would bear the public 
 scrutiny. 
 
 Information has been received more than once, that some of 
 our old side men, among other schemes of low cunning, have 
 fondly whispered that Bartimeus is crazy. A clerical friend, within 
 the United States, lately expressed himself as being apprehensive 
 
 that brother S , from the appearance of his late writings, had 
 
 fallen into a state of insanity; and seriously inquired of a Western 
 acquaintance, if this were not the case. Bartimeus thinks it best 
 to meet this friendly and sympathising suggestion, with a smile, 
 and to wait patiently until the sane admirers of episcopacy, will 
 condescend to answer his crazy arguments. On this subject he 
 deems it sufficient to reply, "I am not mad, most noble Festus. 
 but speak forth the words of truth and soberness." 
 
 May, 1827. Bartimeus. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 Proceedings of the Baltimore Union Society, in relation to the Rev. 
 Dennis B. Dorsey' s case. 
 
 At a meeting of the Baltimore Union Society of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, held on the 15th day of May, 1827, it was 
 deemed proper to lay before the public, the following brief narra- 
 tive of facts relative to the case of the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey. 
 
 On Wednesday, the 18th of April, the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey,. 
 "was charged before the Baltimore annual conference, with having 
 been actively engaged in the circulation of an improper periodical 
 work." A confidential letter from Mr. Dorsey to a friend, recom- 
 mending to his attention the Mutual Rights, as an important work 
 on church government, was produced in evidence, and read in the 
 conference. Mr. Dorsey acknowledged the letter to be his; but 
 did not consider that he had violated any law by recommending 
 the above work. After Mr. Dorsey had retired, the following reso- 
 lution was offered by the Rev. Stephen G. Roszel, and adopted by 
 the conference; "Resolved, that Dennis B. Dorsey's character 
 pass, upon his being admonished by the president; and promising 
 the conference that he will desist from taking any agency in spread- 
 ing or supporting any publication in opposition to our discipline 
 or government." 
 
209 
 
 On the following day the admonition was given in due form, 
 from the chair; but Mr. Dorsey could not be induced to make the 
 promise required by the resolution. He objected to it as unrea- 
 sonable and unjust — there being no law in the discipline, prohibit- 
 ing any preacher from recommending or circulating such works as 
 the Mutual Rights. He stated that he was willing to promise the 
 conference to be submissive to the discipline and government of the 
 church; and to recommend like obedience to others, until by the 
 legislative authority of the church, some modification of the gov- 
 ernment could be effected. A promise embracing more than this, 
 he informed them he could not make. 
 
 On Friday the case was again resumed, and Mr. Dorsey was 
 pressed to make the promise required by the resolution, which he 
 still declined, urging as before, the injustice of the requirement. 
 Upon which, the Rev. Stephen G. Roszel made the following mo- 
 tion: "Moved, that the character of brother Dorsey pass, upon his 
 being reproved by the president for his contumacy in resisting the 
 authority of the conference." This motion, however, did not pre- 
 vail. After considerable desultory conversation on the case, the 
 following resolution was offered by the Rev. Job Guest, and adopted 
 by the conference: "Moved and seconded, that the bishops be and 
 hereby are requested not to give Dennis B. Dorsey an appointment 
 for the present year; and that his name be so returned on the 
 minutes, with the reasons assigned why he has not an appoint- 
 ment, viz: his contumacy in regard to the authority of the confer- 
 ence." On Saturday, the latter part of this motion was so far re- 
 scinded as to omit the publication of it on the printed minutes of 
 the conference, but to retain it on the journal. 
 
 Thus was brother Dorsey, a presbyter in the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, without any charge against his moral or religious char- 
 acter, left, by the order of the conference, without a prospect of 
 support for himself and family; and that too, with a constitution 
 seriously injured in the service of the church. 
 
 Now as it is the undoubted right of every man, to express his 
 opinion of the official conduct of his ecclesiastical as well as his 
 civil rulers; and whereas we deem the proceedings, against Mr. 
 Dorsey as intended to prevent the diffusion of light on a subject 
 of vital importance to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the 
 community at large. 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, 1st. That the conduct of the late Balti- 
 more annual conference, in the case of the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, 
 was oppressive in its character, and not warranted by the scrip- 
 tures, nor the discipline of the church. 
 
 Resolved, 2dly. That in the opinion of this society, the confer- 
 ence in thus oppressing Mr. Dorsey, has evinced a determination, 
 not only to withhold representation from the membership and local 
 ministry, but also to keep them in ignorance of the true principles 
 of church government. 
 
 Resolved, 3dly. That this society duly appreciate the firm and 
 dignified stand taken by Mr. Dorsey in the conference, in favour of 
 
210 
 
 the principles of religious freedom, and tender to him their most af- 
 fectionate regards. 
 
 Resolved, 4thly. That this society deem it but just to say, that 
 several members of the conference, together with bishop Roberts, 
 manifested a liberal spirit on the occasion. 
 
 Resolved, 5thly. That the above narrative and resolutions be 
 published. 
 
 John Chappell, sen. President. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 Letter addressed to the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, by a travelling 
 
 preacher. 
 
 My Dear Sir, 
 
 Not knowing you personally, nor the place of your residence, I 
 ask the privilege of addressing you through the medium of the 
 "Mutual Rights," for approving and recommending of which, you 
 now stand suspended as a Methodist travelling preacher! The 
 Baltimore annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church — 
 with three or more bishops present to direct and shape its measures, 
 have, by a solemn resolution, after several days' deliberation, offi- 
 cially decided that a presbyter in the church of God, deserves pun- 
 ishment and disgrace, because he adopts opinions and sentiments 
 on the subject of church government, which are received and acted 
 upon by a large majority of protestant christians, throughout the 
 various divisions of the religious world ! I cannot pause my brother, 
 to write the many denunciations that common sense, throughout 
 an outraged community, will pronounce upon this overbearing act 
 of abandoned tyranny! But I hasten to inquire why were you 
 selected as the victim, the sole victim, when it was in proof before 
 them that others were in the same condemnation! Why did not 
 my lord of Canterbury, who ''rides in the whirlwind and directs the 
 storm" among you, and by whom even bishops are tithed at will, 
 together with the active and zealous Doctor, the principal officer 
 in his "star chamber," select a goodly number of victims, and offer 
 an appalling hecatomb at once! Was it because heaven had de- 
 prived you of health? Was it because you were remote from home 
 and friends? Was it because like your Master you were poor, and 
 with the humble sharer of your fortunes, "had scarcely where to 
 lay your head!" Did they wish by increasing your mental inquie- 
 tude, to strengthen the desolation without, and so send you to a pre- 
 mature grave? Or was it intended by the horror of the example 
 made of you, to say to other reformers "if you have the word, we 
 have the sword ! !" I cannot refrain from asking where three or 
 four members of the Baltimore conference were during this laboured 
 deed of hard-earned infamy ? Did they sit by, in inglorious silence"' 
 But my brother, be not discouraged, recollect that the great father 
 of us all, as Methodists, was by a similar body, and in the same 
 
211 
 
 city, forty years ago, declared unworthy of a name or place, in thsi 
 communion, in the bosom of which, you now find yourself honour- 
 ably degraded. When Mr. Wesley was informed of this, he de- 
 clared in a letter, now in my possession, that the American bishop 
 had "no more connection with him — " But I trust you will not 
 so decide in relation to your blinded and prejudiced brethren — 
 "yet a little while," and this stupid, laudean zeal, will be cooled in 
 the humiliation and disgrace of your prosecutors; public indigna- 
 tion will chastise their pitiful pretensions, to lordly inquisition over 
 the rights and consciences of those, who have too much intelli- 
 gence and too much candour to think and act by their prescription! 
 To conclude, my dear sir, I beg you to accept the best wishes of a 
 stranger. "Faint not in the day of evil." The honorary over- 
 throw you have sustained, for the rights of conscience, will make 
 strangers your friends. On hearing of the treatment you and others 
 received at the Baltimore conference, ten or twelve persons within 
 my charge have declared for reform, and are ready to aid you with 
 their influence and purses. Wishing the speedy restoration of your 
 health, and that you may live to see the curse of religious oppres- 
 sion banished from the church and the world — I remain yours in 
 the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. 
 Rev. D. B. Dorsey. Vindex. 
 April 27th, 1827. 
 
 Upon the receipt of information from Baltimore, that the forego- 
 ing letter had given great offence and that it would have a place 
 among the papers "indicated" for the purpose of sustaining the 
 prosecutions which were then pending, Vindex forwarded the fol- 
 lowing note of explanation, to be inserted in the Mutual Rights. 
 
 Note of Explanation from Vindex. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I regret that you are about to be troubled on my account. 
 My letter to Mr. Dorsey, was written immediately on the receipt 
 of a letter from an old side brother in Baltimore, detailing the facts 
 in Mr. Dorsey's case, not one of which has been contradicted by 
 the famous manifesto of Mr. Wilkins & Co., but rather confirmed; 
 with the exception of a little varnish and misrepresentation. I ad- 
 mit that I have expressed myself in strong and severe terms, and 
 have all along been willing to have it in my power, to correct and 
 recall, by learning that my information was more or less incorrect. 
 But after hearing all that can be said on the subject, I am perfectly 
 satisfied that my error, if any, has not been a very serious one. 
 That the act of the conference, was an 1 'overbearing'' one, tending 
 to repress freedom of inquiry, and punishing an individual for hold- 
 ing opinions which we have published to the world in our standard 
 works, are not essential, is an assertion I shall prove by indubita- 
 ble evidence, when it becomes necessary. That the act was an 
 "abandonment' in executive practice of law, brotherly love, and that 
 liberality every where characteristic of the more enlightened Meth- 
 odists, is a proposition I am equally competent to prove, when it is 
 
212 
 
 called for by any thing, but abuse and personal vituperation. That 
 the act was 'tyrannical' that is ; that it resembled the policy of ty- 
 rants punishing without law, and beyond its provisions, acting an 
 inclement, imperious part, in relation to one whose conduct did 
 not deserve punishment, and who had not the means of successful 
 resistance and defence, at the time, is a position, the assumption 
 of which I again renew. I have said that the deed, by which Mr. 
 Dorsey was degraded, was an infamous one, that is, a notoriously 
 improper and unjustifiable one. This is what is always under- 
 stood by the term, I believe, when applied to acts of administra- 
 tion: at all events, it is what I meant by it. I intended to convey 
 the idea, that the conduct of the conference would become the 
 subject of open censure, of public reproach, and that the affair of 
 punishing Mr. Dorsey, in the anomalous way in which it was ef- 
 fected, would be a matter of deep and burning shame, to those 
 men, who in the character of heaven's best messengers to the pre- 
 sent generation, are continually praying "forgive us our sins as 
 we forgive those who sin against us?" And are daily haranguing 
 thousands on the duty and importance of forgiveness, forbearance 
 and brotherly kindness. Upon the whole, I consider my letter to 
 Mr. Dorsey, substantially correct, in its general meaning and bear- 
 ing. Had I written under different circumstances, I should pro- 
 bably have expressed myself with less severity; but the conduct of 
 the reigning party in Baltimore has shown, that I anticipated their 
 real temper and disposition, and developed pretty correctly their 
 collective character. I must atone therefore for the style of that 
 letter, by an expression of regret, that facts and principles subse- 
 quently disclosed, have fully authorized my impressions and fears 
 at the time of writing. Mr. Wilkins and Co. in their declamatory 
 address, assert, with as little regard to truth as "decency," that I 
 have employed the te most abusive epithets to which malignity itself 
 could resort." In reply, it will be sufficient to say, no honest man 
 will believe the assertion, who has seen my letter; and those who 
 do, are at liberty to bundle with my detractors. I am also said, to 
 be among the "enemies of Methodism;" public opinion, however, 
 will set this down also, where it ought to be, on the score of malice 
 and misrepresentation. To conclude, if in my strictures upon 
 the conduct of the Baltimore conference, in the case of Mr. Dorsey, 
 there is to be found any thing vicious, on account of its severity, it 
 is a vice, so nearly allied to virtue, that my defence will not be dif- 
 ficult, and so for the present I let it rest. Vindex. 
 Sept. 21sf, 1827. 
 
 A copy of the Narrative and Defence having reached Vindex, he 
 wrote and forwarded the following address to the Editors, which 
 the reader will find to be such as the occasion called for, and the 
 prosecutors and the agent justly merited. 
 
 Vindex to the Editors. 
 
 Messrs. Editors, 
 
 I perceive I am so unfortunate as to have fallen under the dis- 
 pleasure of Messrs- Earnest, Rogers, Toy, Harden, Yearley, and 
 
213 
 
 Israel — (or rather, as some think, the spleen of their pugnacious 
 secretary,) on account of the letter I addressed to the Rev. D. B. 
 Dorsey, in May 1827. — In the remarks upon my letter to which 
 these gentlemen have appended their names, found on pages 16 and 
 74 of their late "Narrative," I see nothing worthy of particular 
 notice, except the want of truth and candour, manifested in every 
 line, they have so flippantly conjured into a phillipic, upon the 
 writer of "Vindex." Every single statement they have made in 
 relation to my letter, betrays the facility and "recklessness" 
 with which they are capable of misrepresenting facts, connected 
 with the subject of reform. As it respects the relative "decency" 
 of my letter, it is not destined, I apprehend, to lose much in com- 
 parison with the productions of my critics in reply, whether of 
 "star chamber" or "Pitt street" memory. — The conduct upon 
 which I found it necessary to offer a few strictures, had but slender 
 claims to Christian "decency," or religious propriety, and hence it 
 was the less necessary for me to be particularly select in the choice 
 of language. But after all that has been said upon the subject, 
 the charge of indecorum in the use of terms, can only be fixed upon 
 Vindex by showing that he had no occasion to use severe language; — 
 and until this is done the writer of the "Narrative" (if I conjec- 
 ture right) or those who have kindly consented to stand godfathers 
 to "the precious bantling" — will receive no apology from the ob- 
 ject of their abuse. The allusion to the "star chamber" in my 
 letter to Mr. Dorsey, was intended to call the attention of those 
 concerned, to a few individuals, some of them members, and some 
 of them not members of the Baltimore Conference; who were try- 
 ing, as I conceived, by very unfair and high handed measures to 
 injure and degrade reformers — that the conference was not intended, 
 is plain from the connexion of the letter. — Vindex is of opinion, 
 further, that a legislative body, or executive tribunal, may enact a 
 law, or make up a decision, oppressive and tyrannical in its nature 
 and tendency, without deserving the denomination of "tyrants" 
 applied to the individuals composing the body, or tribunal in ques- 
 tion — such a law may be the effects of haste, surprise, or passion, 
 it may resnlt from want of information, or a few artful leaders may 
 impose on the rest, even when there is the appearance of serious 
 and solemn deliberation. The influence, therefore, of the saga- 
 cious committee of "inquiry" that I have charged the members of 
 the Baltimore conference as "infamous tyrants;" is far from being 
 either logical or just; it was not my intention to do so, and I take 
 pleasure in avowing it. But should that body, by a repetition of 
 similar acts, approve and perpetuate the policy of the single mea- 
 sure alluded to, then I should be disposed to apply to them the 
 language I have applied to a solitary isolated action of their lives. 
 Permit me to ask, was it the intention of the evangelists, to char- 
 acterize the apostle Peter, as a profane swearer and common liar, 
 when they narrate, that when under severe temptation; "he cursed, 
 and swore that he knew not the man" whom he had been follow- 
 ing for years? Or did St. Paul intend to denounce him as a dis- 
 28 
 
214 
 
 sernbler, when he affirms that on one occasion at least, he was 
 guilty of "dissimulation?" or again, we ask, did our Lord intend 
 to be understood, that the apostle was a devil, when he said "get 
 behind me Satan?" — If these questions are negatived, as they must 
 be by every man of common sense, then surely it does not follow 
 from the facts involved, that Vindex has said what the Baltimore pro- 
 secuting committee and council make him say. Have not deliber- 
 ative assemblies as well as individual rulers in all ages, been oc- 
 casionally guilty of cruel and oppressive enactments, without for- 
 feiting their claims, to general and enlightened benevolence? No 
 inference, therefore, can be drawn from the remarks of Vindex, 
 that will justify the language of his accusers — he indignantly ani- 
 madverted upon conduct, but except an allusion to one or two in- 
 dividuals, left general character alone. 
 
 Thus far I had proceeded when I received the intelligence, that 
 the Baltimore conference had expelled the Rev. D. B. Dorsey for 
 circulating the "Mutual Rights," and the "History and Mystery of 
 Methodist Episcopacy" — and also the Rev. Wm. C. Pool, for aid- 
 ing in the formation of a Union Society, and subsequently deliver- 
 ing an address before said society, in furtherance of its objects. Such 
 conduct, I confess, I consider, as inexcusably oppressive and 
 tyrannical, and I moreover believe it to be the natural offspring of 
 ignorance, bigotry, and misguided zeal. The committee who have 
 honoured me with their notice, can think on this subject as they 
 please, I want no higher praise than the censure of men who are capa- 
 ble of approving such unmanly and unholy persecution. Before I 
 close, I must beg leave to correct an error on the part of the com- 
 mittee, which must have resulted from ignorance, or a disposition 
 to garble the truth in imitation of one who had preceded them in 
 the business of studied defamation, they say, Vindex was a new 
 or "late recruit." — This happens not to be true. Vindex was one 
 among the reformers who drafted a memorial to the general con- 
 ference in 1816, 12 years ago, praying for important alterations in 
 the government of the church — and as early as 1822, published 
 his thoughts at length on this subject, in the "Wesleyan Reposi- 
 tory." It is therefore, in conclusion, respectfully recommended 
 to the "committee" having the supervision of morals in Baltimore, 
 that hereafter they should pay a little more attention to their ovml 
 
 With all due respect, 
 
 April, 1828. Vindex. 
 
 We never yet have thought Vindex too severe. The Baltimore 
 Annual Conference had determined to sacrifice Mr. D. B. Dorsey, 
 at the shrine of clerical power, in expectation, that such a decisive 
 step would deter our friends, and put a stop to the further progress 
 of reform. Their proceedings, therefore, merited a severe rebuke; 
 and no man was better prepared to do them justice, than Vindex. 
 Our readers have learned from the accompanying documents, that 
 the proceedings in the case were without law or established prece- 
 dent; — in course they were arbitrary and tyrannical. It put in re- 
 quisition all the talent and consumed much of the time of the con- 
 
215 
 
 ierence, to accomplish their purpose. Vindex, therefore, said of 
 it, truly, that it was "a laboured deed." — In pursuing their victim, 
 they were obliged to overcome all their personal regards for an af- 
 flicted brother! — They had to resist the relentings, which are uni- 
 versally felt by men of merit, on seeing such firmness as Mr. Dor- 
 sey evinced in asserting his rights before his oppressors; — and 
 which he did in a manner that will long be remembered to his hon- 
 our, as a man and christian minister! — They had to suppress the 
 disposition to forgiveness, which was excited by an affectionate as- 
 surance of his desire and purpose, as far as he could, with a good 
 conscience, to submit to the will of his brethren! — They had to 
 overrule all the sympathies which pleaded in behalf of a fellow ser- 
 vant of Jesus Christ, standing on the verge of the grave, out of 
 sight and out of the reach of any sinister interest! — Every tender 
 emotion, which the oppression of a brother in circumstances so 
 loudly calling for compassion was calculated to excite, they were 
 obliged to smother! — Surely then it was a "hardly earned" triumph. 
 And in despite of their hopes to escape merited reproach, the dis- 
 interested part of the community and posterity will brand the pro- 
 ceedings with "infamy." 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 It appears from the letter of Vindex to Mr. D. B. Dorsey, that 
 by some means, he has learned that doctor Bond, was a chief offi- 
 cer in the Star Chamber. This notice of the Doctor, led him to 
 retort upon Vindex, in his epistle dedicatory, addressed to Mr. 
 Snethen, and introductory to his appeal to the Methodists, in op- 
 position to the changes proposed in their church government, p. 
 6. "The subaltern alluded to," says the Doctor, has already dis- 
 tinguished me as the chief officer of the star chamber, to my lord 
 of Canterbury. Notwithstanding, I have the misfortune to be out 
 of favour with you, I will do you the service to rebuke the indis- 
 creet ardour of this recruit, lest he should do you more harm than 
 good, by his temerity. Let him know then, that his fictitious sig- 
 nature has not concealed him as well as he intended; we have had 
 a peep under his mask, and would advise him to be careful in future 
 not to expose his ignorance, in print. The star chamber was a 
 civil not an ecclesiastical tribunal, and therefore neither my lord of 
 Canterbury nor his chief officer, could have had any thing to do 
 with its decisions. Let him keep his learning for the pulpit — a 
 rhetorical flourish ad captandum vulgus, may pass as well as crude 
 geological arguments, when mixed up with the desultory matter of 
 a very long sermon, but it may not be safe to place either before 
 the public, through the medium of the press." 
 
 The Doctor ought to have been sure he was right, before he 
 ventured so bold a challenge. Now to let our readers see what kind 
 of a guide was followed by the Pitt street meeting, and again by 
 i he quarterly meeting conference, when they voted unanimously 
 
216 
 
 agreeably to the agent's wishes, the condemnation of the Mutual 
 Rights, without having read the work lor themselves, we here insert 
 the reply of Vindex to doctor Bond's rebuke and accusation of 
 ignorance. 
 
 Vindex, in Controversy with Dr. Bond. 
 
 Messrs. Editors, — I send you a few proofs and authorities, de- 
 monstrating the correctness of an allusion to the "star chamber," 
 in my letter to the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, published in your May 
 number for the year current. The testimonies I send you, will sat- 
 isfy the judicious and discerning, that my allusion was historically 
 correct, and strictly in place. As it respects the application of it in 
 the case of Mr. Dorsey, I would simply remark, I thought it just 
 and proper at the time of writing, and taking into consideration all 
 the circumstances of the case, I think so still. So far as individuals 
 are concerned, my communication left them to be "distinguished" 
 by the notoriety of their conduct, or not at all; and in this attitude, 
 I consider it fair and honourable still to recognize them. My only 
 concern, therefore, with doctor Bond, at present, is, to let our rea- 
 ders know, that but for his "ignorance," I should not have been 
 charged with want of information, in relation to the "star cham- 
 ber." The following authorities, will perhaps satisfy the public that 
 the star chamber had cognizance of ecclesiastical matters. This is 
 expressly denied by doctor Bond, and we are fairly at issue. The 
 doctor says, "the star chamber was a civil, not an ecclesiastical tri- 
 bunal, and therefore, neither my lord of Canterbury, nor his chief 
 officer, could have any thing to do with its decisions." To this 
 assertion, I oppose the following authorities. 
 
 "The star chamber was a court, composed of twenty or thirty no- 
 blemen, bishops, judges, and counsellors, nominated by the crown, 
 with the king or queen at the head, who was sole judge when pre- 
 sent, (which was seldom,) but in the absence of the king or queen 
 they decided by a vote of the majority, the lord chancellor having 
 the casting vote." NeaPs History of the Puritans, vol. 1. page 455. 
 "The star chamber, camera stellata, was a court of very ancient 
 original, consisting of divines, lords, spiritual and temporal, being 
 privy counsellors, together with two judges of the court of common 
 law, without the intervention of any jury." Blackstone's Com- 
 mentary, iv. vol. book 4, chap. 19. page 265 — 6. "The star 
 chamber consisted of the lords spiritual and temporal," with oth- 
 ers, "they stretched their power beyond the utmost bounds of 
 legality, punishing small offences, or no offences at all, but of their 
 own creating." Nicholson's Encyclopaedia, art. star chamber. 
 Bishops, therefore, as lords over God's heritage, had something to 
 do with the "decisions," of the star chamber, and so had "my 
 lord of Canterbury," as we shall see by and by. 
 
 "The star chamber was the most intollerant of all tribunals, and 
 encroached on the jurisdiction of othtr courts, its punishments 
 were enormous — Prynne, a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, for reviling 
 plays, hunting and public festivals, and for blaming the hierarchy 
 
217 
 
 and the new superstitions of Laud, in a book which he published, 
 was condemned to be put from the bar, to be pilloried in'two places, 
 to lose both his ears, pay five thousand pounds to the king, and 
 be imprisoned for life." New Encyclopedia, art. Britain. "The 
 star chamber was a court which exercised high discretionary pow-^ 
 ers, and had no precise rule or limit either with regard to the causes, 
 which came under its jurisdiction, or the decisions which it formed." 
 Hume's England, vol. 5, page 44. The statute of 1641 abolishing 
 the high commission and star chamber, is said by Charles in his 
 speech to the long parliament, to alter fundamental laws, civil and 
 ecclesiastical, lb. — In the reign of Elizabeth, 15S4, bishop Grindal 
 at the instigation of the queen, was by an order of the star cham- 
 ber, sequestered from his arch-episcopal function, and confined to 
 his own house. Hume vol. 4, page 25. Hume says, Laud's ven- 
 geance was the principal cause of the degradation of bishop Wil- 
 liams, in the star chamber, and that the severity of Prynne's sen- 
 tence in the star chamber, is to be attributed to his religious opinions 
 as a Puritan, vol. 4, page 246 — Bishop Williams, of Lincoln, 
 was cited to trial before the star chamber, by the instigations of 
 Laud, upon a charge of Puritanic principles. Neal, vol. 2, pages 
 172, 282. Prynne, Bostwick, and Burton, were all cited before, 
 and condemned by the star chamber, because they pleaded for 
 reform in the government of the church. Neal, vol. 2, pages 
 250 — 1 — 2. see also contents of chap. 5, page 23. — Mr. Neal says, 
 If they will call a relation of the illegal severities of the star cham- 
 ber a satire against the present establishment, they must use their 
 liberty as I shall mine! vol. 2, page 15. — In 1627, Prynne, Bost- 
 wick and Burton, were again cited before the star chamber, "my 
 lord of Canterbury" being present, and passing sentence! vol. 2 
 pages 278 — 9, also 280, note; see also notice of a speech of arch- 
 bishop Laud, in the star chamber. Page 285. "Laud who was 
 sitting in the star chamber, at the time of Prynne's harangue, moved 
 that he might be gagged." M'Cauley's England, vol. 2, page 243. 
 
 The court of the star chamber, punished individuals for publish- 
 ing books and pamphlets, and in some instances, for "recommend- 
 ing" them against the hierarchy, page 286. — In 1632, Mr. Sher- 
 field was tried and convicted in the star chamber for being evil- 
 affected to the discipline of the church, and Laud in person moved 
 his punishment! page 224. On one occasion, twelve laymen were 
 fined in the star chamber for employing ministers in their families, 
 without consulting "my lord of Canterbury!" vol. 2, pages 222-3. 
 "The prosecution of Mr. Prynne originated with archbishop Laud." 
 page 251. And yet Laud pronounced his sentence. "The report 
 flew into Scotland, and the discourse was there, that they must also 
 expect a star chamber to strengthen the hands of their bishops!" 
 page 287. The celebrated Mr. Rushworth, says, the acts of this 
 court were without law! Lord Clarendon states, that no man 
 could any longer hope to be free from the inquisition of that court, 
 than he resolved to submit to its extraordinary courses. The well 
 known Mr. Cartwright, the father of the Puritans, and fifteen other 
 dissenting ministers, were brought twice before the star chamber, 
 
218 
 
 and were all shamefully degraded and punished by its decisions. 
 Neal, vol. 1, pages 445-6-7. "The archbishop sent the most of 
 his prisoners to the star chamber." page 460. 
 
 "My pains or weakness must excuse me herein, when I was 
 younger, and had my health, I so diligently attended the star 
 chamber, that for full seven years, I was not one day wanting." 
 Archbishop Laud's letter, see Rushworth's Collections 1628, 
 page 453. 
 
 Dr. Alexander Leighton, was ordered by the star chamber, to be 
 degraded from the ministry, pilloried, whipt, fined and imprisoned 
 during life, for writing against the corruptions of the hierarchy; 
 Neal, vol. 2, pages 209, 10 — that he was degraded by the star 
 chamber solely on account of his principles, as a reformer, opposed 
 to the lordly pretensions, of an overbearing episcopacy,, is the tes- 
 timony of Pierce. See Vindication, page 177, and of Rushworth, 
 vol. 1, page 55, also Neal, pages 2, 9, 10. At one time, the king 
 himself, appeared in the star chamber and preached against reform, 
 his text was, Psalm 72, 1. The last sentence in this not "very 
 long sermon" would have been an excellent motto for doctor Bond's 
 book. "Plead not upon Puritanic principles, which make all 
 things popular, but keep within the ancient limits!" Rapin. vol. 
 2, pages 192, 3, and note 9, also Neal, vol. 2, page 101. I con- 
 clude these notices of the star chamber, as an ecclesiastical, as 
 well as civil tribunal, by citing another instance in Mr. Neal — 
 when the infamous sentence of the court of star chamber, was pro- 
 nounced upon the venerable doctor Leighton, "my lord of Canter- 
 bury," Laud, was present, and evinced his satisfaction, on witness- 
 ing this fiendish deed, of religious cruelty, by pulling off his hat 
 and giving God thanks! vol. 3, page 210. 
 
 The preceding proofs will place the correctness of my allusion 
 to the "star chamber" beyond doubt. The remaining charges in 
 the notice the doctor has taken of "Vindex," are too paltry to 
 merit replication — their want of fitness, will furnish sufficient refu- 
 tation, and I return them to the doctor, in company with the charge 
 of "ignorance," non constat. With these remarks, I take leave of 
 doctor Bond, until he shall feel it his "duty" to write again, when, 
 should he honour me with a second notice, I shall, if preserved., 
 attend to him as the nature of the case may require. 
 
 July, 1827. Vindex. 
 
 After such a specimen of doctor Bond's information and accu- 
 racy, our readers will judge how formidable we considered his pro- 
 mise or his threat, to ''write down" reform. 
 
210 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 An account of the Rev. Wm. C. Pool's trial before the Baltimore 
 Annual Conference. 
 
 We think it due to Rev. William C. Pool to insert in this place, 
 the following brief account of his trial before the Baltimore Annual 
 Conference. We introduce it here because it will serve to give a 
 further illustration of the spirit and temper of the travelling preach- 
 ers in respect to the friends of reform. The account is copied 
 from the Mutual Rights and Christian Intelligencer, bearing the 
 date November 20, 1828. 
 
 Mr. Editor: — To me it appears strictly necessary, that someone 
 should give an account of the trial of Wm. C. Pool, before the last 
 Baltimore Annual Conference; not only for the defence of his char- 
 acter, but also for the support of that cause with which it is con- 
 nected, only to oppose which cause was it at all assailed. 
 
 As no one has, to my knowledge, attempted this act of justice 
 and kindness to his suffering character, I venture it, although I 
 may in consequence thereof, be made to follow him. 
 
 In poceeding to give some account of brother P's trial, it may 
 be proper for me to observe that he knew nothing of his accusation 
 until the conference had been in session five days; nor did he know 
 who was to be his accuser. It is true, the presiding Elder did state 
 to him, some time prior to the conference, that it was likely there 
 would be something said about the pieces which he had written. 
 But surely no one would suppose this to be making him acquainted 
 with the charge against which he would have to prepare a defence. 
 
 When brother P's name was called and it was asked by the Pre- 
 sident, is there any thing against brother P.? Mr. Shepherd and 
 others made some objections to him; but in consequence of the 
 absence of his presiding Elder the case was postponed until his re- 
 turn. When he appeared in his place it was again asked, is there 
 any thing against brother Pool? The presiding elder answered, he 
 had nothing against brother P's moral character*, and stated he be- 
 lieved it stood fair: but referred at the same time, to some accusa- 
 tion which he believed others intended to produce against him. 
 Several members then stated the grounds of their objections to 
 brother P:, which were, his agency in the formation of a Union 
 Society in Harford, his address to that Society, and some other 
 pieces which he had written. Brother P. then stated that, as he 
 was accused, and as what he had said before the Union Society, 
 together with the part he had taken in the formation of that socie- 
 ty, were the grounds of the accusation, and as he could not know 
 the crime with which he was charged, nor consider himself in pos- 
 session of the requisite means even to commence a preparation for 
 his defence, until he could have a list of charges, he wished to be 
 furnished with a copy of the charges before the conference pro- 
 ceeded any farther in his case. Mr. Roszel, with others, argued 
 
S2( > 
 
 against the right of brother P. to have a written copy of charges, 
 or else against the propriety of granting it, I know not which. 
 Brother P. contended that his demand was just, and that a copy 
 of the charges was his right in this case; urging that it was impos- 
 sible for him to know against what he was to defend himself with- 
 out it. At this time the president, bishop Soule, gave it as his opin- 
 ion, that, when a brother comes up to the conference with any thing 
 against his moral character, it is no more than just and right that 
 he should be furnished with the charges, that he may prepare to de- 
 fend himself at the conference. But, said he, in a case of mere 
 improprieties, I say in a case of mere improprieties in a brother's 
 conduct, I know of no instance in the usages of Methodism, in 
 which an accused member was furnished with a copy of charges: 
 such a practice is wholly new among us. These are as nearly the 
 words of the president as I can recollect. 
 
 After this opinion was given the case was referred to a commit- 
 tee. The persons composing the committee were Edward Smith, 
 James Riley, and John Thomas. This committee reported the fol- 
 lowing day, that brother P. was accused of immorality, as base as 
 that of slander. He now asked for a copy of the charges contain- 
 ed in the report, referring to the opinion of the President, given the 
 day before, for a support of the justness of his demand. Mr. Ros- 
 zel again opposed his having that copy, as warmly as he had done 
 the day before, and no copy was obtained. 
 
 The report, however, was recommitted, with the understanding 
 that the committee was to make out a list of charges, and furnish 
 brother P. with a copy. The committee then asked and obtained 
 an additton of two: when Job Guest and Christopher Frye were 
 added; and obtained leave to sit during the afternoon session, and 
 retired. After sitting during the afternoon, and finishing their re- 
 port, on the following morning, they came into conference and sat 
 during the morning session; but made no attempt to report, until 
 the afternoon. The chairman of the committee then expressed his 
 readiness to report, and stated as a reason why he had not reported 
 in the morning, that he had not time to prepare a copy of the 
 charges for brother P. before, holding the copy in his hand at the 
 same time. Brother P. discovering that the conference appeared 
 disposed to act upon the report before he received the copy of 
 charges, asked a third time, and on the third day after his case was 
 taken up, for that copy. Mr. Roszel opposed his having it, as he 
 had done for two days before, but with increased violence. Others 
 joined him in this unreasonable course; and the Rev. John Baer, 
 went even so far as to propose taking up the different items of 
 charge in the report, and examine the documents, to see whether 
 they could sustain the charges before that copy was given to brother 
 P. Brother P. exclaimed against such sports with his character, 
 and begged that the conference would not permit it. At this junc- 
 ture, Mr. Emory rose, and expressed his disapproval of the course 
 which the conference seemed disposed to pursue, remarking that he 
 thought it appeared to be a distinct understanding with the whole 
 conference the day before, that brother P. was to be furnished with 
 a copy of the charges. After this, the chairman of the committee 
 
221 
 
 handed brother P. the copy of charges which he had held in his 
 hand during the time that Mr. R. was endeavouring to prevent 
 brother P. from obtaining it. I will place that copy before the 
 reader. 
 
 Carlisle, April 16th, 1828. 
 
 Dear Brother: — The committee appointed to examine and report 
 in your case, have sustained the following items, and embodied 
 them in their report: 
 
 1st. That you did take an active part in the formation of a Union 
 Society, on Harford circuit, the acts of which go far to defame the 
 government and administration of our church. 
 
 2d. That you have neglected meeting class on the Sabbath day, 
 and instead thereof gave lectures on the subject of reform. 
 
 3d. That you have been actively engaged in circulating the Mu- 
 tual Rights, and defending the Union Society of Baltimore in their 
 defamation of this conference in the case of 
 
 4th. That you delivered an address to the Union Society of 
 Harford, in which a highly inflammatory attack was made, both 
 upon the preacher in charge and the constituted authorities of our 
 church in the city of Baltimore. 
 
 5th. That you made in said address an unjustifiable attack on 
 the episcopacy. 
 
 6th. That you represented the authorities of the church in Balti- 
 more as conspiring against the rights and characters of the citizens 
 of that place. 
 
 7th. That much of your conduct has been in direct opposition to 
 the resolution of last conference, and contrary to the spirit of the 
 gospel. You should have had notice sooner, but the committee 
 did not find it until this morning. 
 
 Your brother, Edward Smith. 
 
 Brother W. C. Pool. 
 
 After brother P. received this copy, the secretary handed him a 
 copy of the report, which is nearly the same as the above, and it 
 contains letters as marks referring to documents to sustain the 
 charges, I suppose in the room of specifications. The report was 
 now laid on the table, aud brother P. asked permission to make 
 some remarks respecting the time of taking up his case, but was 
 informed he could do that when the report was called up. On Thurs- 
 day in the afternoon, the report was taken up, at which time brother 
 P. asked if he was to understand that in taking up that report, the 
 conference had thereby determined to try him on the charges con- 
 tained in it. Being answered by the conference in the affirmative, 
 he took exception to their decision, and observed, were it possible, 
 he would appeal from that decision, on the ground of its being a 
 violation of one of their own rules recorded on the journal. He 
 claimed a reading of that resolution, hoping it might procure him 
 further time to make his defence. The secretary with others, ad- 
 mitted there was such a resolution, but as it was passed some years 
 back, it would take some time to find it. From this cause, or from 
 29 
 
222 
 
 some other, which I think it unnecessary to mention, it was not 
 found, and consequently it was not read. The resolution referred 
 to, was intended originally to prevent any advantage being taken 
 of any member of the conference, by prefering charges against 
 him without first giving him sufficient notice of such charges, in 
 time to make his defence. When the effort of brother P. had failed 
 to obtain a reading of the resolution above referred to, and the 
 conference appeared inclined to proceed, he stated something like 
 the following: — "I am entirely unprepared to meet the charges. 
 The conference have now been eight days in session, and 1 knew 
 not until yesterday in the afternoon, against what I was to defend 
 myself; and to-day, it is determined that I shall be tried on those 
 charges, without any further time to prepare for a defence. There 
 are items in the list of charges which are absolutely false, and 
 which I can prove to be so, had I time to return to Harford. Be- 
 sides, those items which embrace things that I acknowledge I have 
 done and said, make it necessary that some further time to explain 
 and defend, should be allowed me. 
 
 The president observed, addressing the conference, if brother P. 
 says he is unprepared to meet the charges, and that there are 
 charges in the report which he can prove to be false, if he had time 
 to procure testimony, it would be unjust in this conference to try 
 him on those charges; — I say it would be unjust to try him on 
 those charges. But, said he, turning to brother P. Brother P. 
 can point out those particular charges which he says are false, and 
 which he says he is unprepared to meet, and the conference can 
 omit them, and proceed to trial on the rest. Whether this was 
 designed by the president as an ingenious turn to ensnare the ac- 
 cused, or not, I will not pretend positively to assert. But to me, 
 it appeared to resemble nothing else. It did not, however, ensnare 
 brother P. He rose and referred the president to the statements 
 which he had before made with respect to the whole of the charges, 
 and again declared he was unprepared to meet any of them; stat- 
 ing that he did not feel disposed to pursue the course proposed by 
 the president, in pointing out any one charge, or in submitting to 
 be tried on any, without further time to defend himself; because 
 the time allowed him, being only one day, he could not think was 
 sufficient to prepare for a defence against any one of the charges. 
 
 After much had been said against granting him any further time, 
 he observed he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he did not 
 design to treat the conference with contempt. But if the confer- 
 ence persisted in the determination to force him to trial on charges 
 which he had again and again, said he was unprepared to meet, he 
 would feel himself compelled as a last resort, to withdraw and let 
 the conference try him in his absence. On receiving an intima- 
 tion from the conference of their determination to proceed, he 
 withdrew, and the conference entered upon the examination of 
 documents to sustain the charges. The case, however, was not 
 finished until the next day, Friday, when the following resolution 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
223 
 
 Resolved, That Wm. C. Pool, be, and he hereby is, expelled 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 Having received official notice of the decision, and being in- 
 formed that the conference would meet again in the evening, he 
 appeared in the conference, signified his intention to appeal, and 
 asked for a transcript of the proceedings in his case. Mr. Roszel, 
 who had so violently for three days opposed his having a written 
 copy of the charges, now argued against granting him that tran- 
 script. But some appeared to be disposed to allow brother Pool 
 a chance of seeing the proof by which they had sustained the 
 charges. Mr. Slicer moved the grant of his request. Considera- 
 ble opposition was made to the motion. Perhaps some saw that 
 if such a paper were put into the hands of brother P. the public 
 would possibly see the whole amount of testimony, on which the 
 conference had acted, and thereby have something more from 
 which to form an opinion, than simply partial statements of those 
 men who were concerned in transacting this business with their 
 doors closed. Mr. Emory rose and instructed the conference to 
 be cautious how they acted in their business, obseving that it was 
 not certain the General Conference would admit the appeal. This 
 caution was well understood; for on motion of Mr. Roszel, it was 
 resoved indefinitely to postpone the motion made by Mr. Slicer. 
 
 Thus brethren, I have given a brief sketch of brother P's trial, 
 and know not how soon I may be made to follow him; but take 
 leave to assure you, that I am yet in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. A Minister. 
 
 This account of Rev'd. William C. Pool's excommunication, 
 will serve to shew, that he was expelled for being an active friend 
 to the cause of reform; so that he and Rev'd. Dennis B. Dor- 
 sey are to be considered martyrs for the principle of a lay-repre- 
 sentation in the legislative department of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church government. The many worthies, who have volun- 
 tarily withdrawn themselves from the communion of that church, 
 for the sake of the same testimony, would have been noticed in 
 this place, with suitable expressions of the high estimation in 
 which we hold them, if it had been practicable to obtain all their 
 names. But their numbers have increased exceedingly, amount- 
 ing to hundreds. We therefore, can only say, they have individ- 
 ually acted a praise-worthy part; and having in a manner so com 
 mendably distinguished themselves, they will receive from their 
 brethren that just respect, which is never withheld by men of true 
 worth, from those who are ready to forego interest or convenience 
 for the support of principle. 
 
 Those truly excellent men, who have devoted themselves to 
 the itinerant work; and especially, the heroic individuals who have 
 left the ranks of the itinerants where all power is in their hands, 
 with intention to unite themselves with the friends of Mutual 
 Rights, are entitled to very high consideration. 
 
224 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 A difference of opinion no just cause af discord. 
 
 The following essay, we wrote for the September number of 
 Mutual Rights, 1826. It is reprinted and inserted in this place, 
 to shew what was our disposition of mind and feeling towards our 
 old side brethren, at the time when our expulsion was first talked 
 of by them. We believe it to be a transcript of the temper of re- 
 formers generally. Our friends of after times ought to know this. 
 Those who have read the essay, will indulge us in giving to all our 
 friends this point of information. 
 
 A diversity of opinion is no just cause of discord. 
 
 The woman of Samaria, was greatly surprised, that a Jew should 
 have asked, at her hand, a drink of water. To a liberal and en- 
 lightened mind, this might seem to be a strange thing. It would 
 have been the mutual interests of the Jews and Samaritans to have 
 maintained a commercial intercourse. It was a common duty of 
 both, to have performed for each other, those acts of humanity and 
 kindness, which constitute the bands of social life. And yet, it 
 appears, that in all these respects, they looked upon each other as 
 Barbarians. "How is it," said the woman, "that thou, being a 
 Jew, askest drink of me, who am a woman of Samaria? — for the 
 Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." This statement car- 
 ries on its face, an insinuation that the fault lay chiefly on the Jews; 
 and in addition to the evidence afforded by the manner of the wo- 
 man's reply, there are considerations which seem to favour that sen- 
 timent. The Jews thought themselves superior in point of privi- 
 lege. Possibly they claimed precedence, because they were of the 
 old establishment. Be this as it may, there is a general propensity 
 in mankind, to disagree after the same manner, when there is no 
 cause for it, except only, that they have different sentiments of 
 religion, or are associated with a people of a different denomina- 
 tion, or think differently on the subject of church government. 
 Those who once seemed to be unanimous in their religious opin- 
 ions, and of one accord as to the system of church polity, by which 
 they had been united; have, nevertheless, indulged in this propen- 
 sity toward their brethren, because questions have arisen among 
 them, about which they differ. And this is the unhappy state of 
 things, however conscientious the party may be, with whom the 
 questions originated. This evil, therefore, is not confined to Jews 
 and Samaritans. It prevails among christians, and with strong symp- 
 toms of hatred, although the first principles of reason and the clear- 
 est precepts of revelation, discountenance and condemn it. Those 
 who are chargeable with this unjustifiable conduct, seem to expect, 
 that all others should think as they do, and subscribe to their prin- 
 ciples and persuasions. And when this expectation fails, their 
 affection cools, and their good will abates in proportion to the 
 
225 
 
 supposed difference. If any man presume to judge for himself 
 and choose his own way of thinking, he is looked upon, by them, 
 with a suspicious eye, and he forfeits some portion, at least, of 
 their esteem. It may happen that he will become an object of 
 their high displeasure, and be treated as an enemy. Why? What 
 evil has he done? He has followed his own judgment and not that 
 of others. And is this a reason which can justify such conduct? 
 If not, why do men claiming respect, act in such a manner? Will 
 any one say it is their love of truth, and their zealous concern for 
 the support of truth, which impels them? A sincere and genuine 
 love of truth, would produce very different effects. If it were 
 even admitted, that the opinions of old-side brethren were in all 
 respects, good and true, and of course that it would be right that 
 they should be maintained and propagated, how would this be best 
 accomplished? By ill will, hatred, injurious reproaches, or by love, 
 good-will, kind usage and gentle treatment? If either party would 
 recommend their opinions, ought they not to endeavour to procure 
 them a fair hearing? Ought not each, at the least, to appear to be 
 well affected towards those whom they are desirous to convince? 
 Whosoever has a real regard for truth, and is honestly desirous to 
 promote its interests, will correspond with men of different opin- 
 ions, fairly and friendly. He will evince a spirit of humanity, equity 
 and candour. He will not exasperate their minds by any expres- 
 sion of hatred or contempt, but will endeavour to conciliate their 
 good will, and cultivate their esteem, by a willing discharge of all 
 such good offices, as may reasonably be expected from him. He 
 cannot believe that animosity will succeed, when argument proves 
 ineffectual, or that reproaches will have a better effect than fair 
 reasoning. "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of 
 God." In fact, it is the most improper instrument in the world, 
 for the maintenance of truth. 
 
 To publish for the benefit of others what either party conscien- 
 tiously believes to be the truth, if it be done in a fair and amicable 
 way, is undoubtedly a v real service to the public. But strife and 
 calumny, and uncharitable proceedings, are the bane of human 
 society. It is right and proper that the one should be done; the 
 other cannot be done without great wickedness. 
 
 These views appear to be so clear and conclusive, that it cannot 
 be saying too much, to affirm, that every man of good sense, and 
 good religion, must admit that diversity of opinion, is in no case 
 a just cause of discord. And therefore, whenever a feeling of 
 hostility is produced by such difference of opinion, it never can be 
 ascribed to any cause or principle that is praiseworthy, no not even 
 that is innocent. The plain truth is, that it springs from pride and 
 immoderate self-love. Men become so swollen with a high con- 
 ceit of their own opinions, that every opposition gives them pain, 
 and their opponents become objects of their displeasure. And this 
 spirit has produced all those rigorous judgements and rugged deal- 
 ings, which have so often dishonoured our holy religion, and 
 brought reproach upon human nature. 
 
226 
 
 Reflections such as these, presented themselves after having read 
 brother A. Shinn's Address to the readers of the Mutual Rights, 
 vol. iii. page 12: where he says, "Therefore we do expect punish- 
 ment, in some form or other," &c. "whether we are to be punish- 
 ed by neglect, or contempt, or ridicule, or suspension, or expulsion, 
 remains to be explained hereafter; but every man among us may 
 prepare himself, either to give up the cause of reform, or to suffer," 
 &c. And will this prediction be verified? Is it possible that a 
 body of men, distinguished for apparent zeal for God, can do this? 
 They will have their difficulties to encounter, if they make the at- 
 tempt. We know there are some, who have shown themselves 
 willing to begin. But fearing consequences, have made their dis- 
 positions known, as yet, chiefly by the expression of wishes, that 
 we would go out of the church. This, of course, would save ne- 
 cessity of turning us out. But these are hasty and inconsiderate 
 men. Those who understand human nature better, and are better 
 prepared to judge of the probable effect of measures on the public 
 mind, will consider well before they begin to punish us openly. 
 And every good christian among them, will refuse to punish us in 
 any manner. A good citizen, much less, a true follower of the 
 meek and lowly Saviour of the world, could not partake in such a 
 work of barbarity ? By the law of nature, as well as by all the rules 
 which reason and religion have established, every man has a right 
 to good will, whatever maybe his character or conduct; — he is ever 
 entitled to esteem, till he forfeits it by misbehaviour and demerit. 
 — Therefore, whosoever entertains a hard thought, or an unfavour- 
 able opinion of any man, without good and sufficient cause, is 
 manifestly "unjust and injurious." And we would ask the favour 
 of every good man of sound understanding, to consider the follow- 
 ing question, and answer it according to the dictates of his own 
 conscience. Can any disagreement or difference of opinion on the 
 subject of church government, be a just ground for dislike, or a real 
 forfeiture of esteem? This question cannot admit of an affirmative an- 
 swer. For no honest man's opinion on this or any other subject, 
 which admits of a difference of opinion, is in his own power or sub- 
 ject to his own will. He must believe and conclude as he can. If he 
 judge at all, he is under the necessity of judging according to the 
 evidence of things, as they appear to his own apprehension. He 
 may err in his judgment. So may all men. It pertains to human 
 frailty. If it be said, he may be dishonest. That can be known 
 only to God and his own conscience; — and charity, that is, Chris- 
 tianity, thinketh no evil. The law which requires every man "to 
 do to others as he would have others to do unto him," makes it 
 obligatory on him to admit, that other men use their faculties, and 
 exercise their judgments, as fairly and uprightly as he does himself, 
 and still that they may differ widely from him in opinion. Nothing 
 else is to be expected among men. We differ from our old side 
 brethren, and what is the offence which we have committed? 
 What is the cause of blame? If we have carefully sought after 
 the truth, and then sincerely followed the best light we could get, 
 we are innocent in the sight of God, and are secure of his accep- 
 
227 
 
 tance; even if our conclusions were greatly erroneous. And shall 
 men, shall our brethren, be less easily satisfied? Will they take 
 offence, when none is given nor intended? Our thoughts are not 
 as their thoughts — our judgment in regard to church govern- 
 ment is not conformable to theirs. And is it true, that we have 
 therefore incurred their ill-opinions, their indignation, their cen- 
 sures? Do they, therefore, condemn us without mercy, and are 
 they, therefore, ready to punish us? They might with as much 
 propriety, quarrel with us, because we have different looks, differ- 
 ent features, as because we have different opinions. Our features 
 are the work of our Maker's hand, and our opinions are the result 
 of the evidence and the reasonings on the subject, as they have 
 been presented to our consideration. It may be said, perhaps, 
 that we might have been satisfied; we might have refused to inves- 
 tigate; we might have shunned the evidence, by refusing to read 
 or hear those reasonings. And will our good brethren say, it 
 would have been more compatible with all the principles and con- 
 siderations, which are implied in a proper sense of character and 
 true worth, to have closed our eyes against the light? We think 
 not. Many of them are unwilling to hear us, and refuse to read 
 our papers. We are bound to believe they honestly think it right, 
 and their best way. We think it right and our best way, to read, 
 inquire, and inform ourselves on church government, as well as on 
 any other subject in which we are interested. And we are very 
 confident that candid and enlightened men, will say, our choice 
 and conduct is more noble, in as much as it is more like that of 
 the Bereans. Perhaps they think it their privilege to dictate to 
 us, in this particular. Have we not as good a right to dictate to 
 them? If not, then their opinions are entitled to the proud dis- 
 tinction of being the standard for all the world. But we say they 
 are wrong, and we are willing, nay, we labour to shew them a rea- 
 son. They say we are wrong, and neither answer our arguments, 
 nor offer any in support of their own pretensions. And when this 
 is known, and known it will be, is it possible that even the most 
 bigotted will undertake to punish us? Brother Shinn, perhaps, 
 may know more about men in power, than we do, and he thinks we 
 must give up the work of reform or prepare to suffer for it. There 
 are none more ready to meet the fate of faithful reforms, than we 
 are. At the same time, however, we are determined to make it as 
 difficult as possible to the lovers of punishment, to indulge in their 
 wishes. In the most perfect accordance with Mr. Shinn's deter- 
 mination to appeal to the public, we also feel assured, that the 
 people of these United States will approve our struggle; and there- 
 fore, if those who have the power, should undertake to punish us, 
 the good sense of the people will avenge our wrong, and the in- 
 tended punishment will recoil upon themselves with more than 
 double effect. 
 
228 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 The reader has now an opportunity to make a proper estimate 
 of the extracts from the Mutual Rights which were read before the 
 Quarterly Meeting Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in Baltimore, as the testimony of the prosecutors, in support of 
 their charges against us. The Agent in his Narrative and Defence, 
 says, "from the extracts which we shall give from the Mutual 
 Rights, it will be shown" that they have "impugned the motives of 
 our venerable bishops and our itinerant ministers, with unrelenting 
 severity — and accused them without the shadow of truth." Can any 
 of our impartial readers believe this? The writers were careful to 
 avoid being personal? In fact, they could not have been less per- 
 sonal, and have done justice to their respective subjects. He says 
 also, that from the extracts, &,c. it will be shown that the bishops 
 are represented to the world, as usurpers; — as tyrants and despots, 
 lording it over God's heritage — as exercising an arbitrary authority, 
 which was at first surreptitiously obtained, and which has been per- 
 petuated by printing and publishing a falsehood in the preface to 
 our book of discipline, and by forbidding the people to inquire 
 into the truth of the affair." All such imputations are made with- 
 out avoidable personality; — explanations are given of the intended 
 extent of their applications; and, exceptions are furnished in fa- 
 vour of the men, at the same time that their government is impugn- 
 ed. And particularly, our complaints respecting the original as- 
 sumptions of power, are carefully qualified and softened, with in- 
 tention to save the feelings of present incumbents. 
 
 The extracts, when read in their proper places, so as to maintain 
 their connexions, and when examined in view of the circumstances 
 and occasions which led to their production, must forever stand 
 justified in the estimation of disinterested good sense. And yet 
 such was the effect of the Agent's garbling, or so great was the 
 prejudice of the members of the Quarterly Meeting Conference, 
 that although a majority of them had never read the Mutual Rights; 
 upon the bare reading of the extracts, they unanimously voted our 
 expulsion!! 
 
 These extracts together with the explanations and comments of 
 doctor Bond and Mr. Hanson, in justification of the prosecutions, 
 constitute the Narrative and Defence. Upon this Narrative and 
 Defence, the Baltimore Annual Conference, and the General Con- 
 ference must have relied in passing all those unfeeling and unjusti- 
 fiable resolutions, which they adopted in respect to our expulsions. 
 And as the members of the Quarterly Meeting Conference unani- 
 mously voted our expulsion, although a majority of them had not 
 read the Mutual Rights, at all, in course without a proper acquain- 
 tance with the subject; may we not conclude, that the Annual and 
 General Conferences, in like manner, without further investigation, 
 acted upon the decision of the Quarterly Conference? Or what 
 
229 
 
 amounts to the same thing, the two superior Conferences acted 
 upon the authority of the Narrative and Defence. Their organ, 
 Mr. Emory, in his publications on the subject gives indubitable 
 evidence, that the Narrative and Defence is considered by him, to 
 be an infallible record of the transactions of which it treats. But 
 we have demonstrated, that this work is disingenuous; — that it pre- 
 sents irresistible evidence of chicanery, in three important par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 1st. The extracts are garbled so that they convey a meaning, 
 very different from that intended by the writers of them. 
 
 2d. They are distorted by comments in direct opposition to the 
 true intent and meaning of the writers, whose papers they affect to 
 explain. 
 
 3d. The garbled extracts accompanied by the distortions of the 
 Agent, are all jumbled together, without regard to dates or circum- 
 stances, with intention to induce an opinion in the minds of his 
 readers, that all those publications had appeared offensive as he re- 
 presents them, before the patience and christian meekness of the 
 constituted authorities of the church were worn out, so as to permit 
 the angry passions of our prosecutors to expel us. 
 
 Our readers will now understand how*'greatly deficient in truth, 
 in brotherly love, and in fair dealing the Narrative and Defence is: 
 and will not believe that we were expelled for being the personal 
 calumniators of the bishops and travelling preachers. They will 
 know that a fear of our ultimate success in the work of reform, 
 and a determination to rid the church of a work so offensive to 
 clerical ambition, was the true cause of the shameful policy which, 
 we think, we have now fully developed and satisfactorily exposed. 
 
 30 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Bishop Asbury's Life. 
 
 We were much surprised in iooking over an article, entitled 
 "Bishop Asbury's Life," in the Methodist Magazine and Quarter- 
 ly Review of January, 1831. 
 
 In a quarterly critique, we had been accnstomed to expect en- 
 lightened observations upon important circumstances, connected 
 with the general welfare, or entertaining and useful reviews of the 
 different new publications, calculated to affect the taste, morals or 
 intelligence of a community. Hence arose our surprise, that, in- 
 stead of attending to these grave matters, the "Methodist Maga- 
 zine" should lay itself open to the charge, of being an invidious 
 review of private character. The manifest object of the article al- 
 luded to, (which takes up a large portion of the number,) is to de- 
 grade in public estimation, the character of a private individual. It 
 will probably be alleged that, it was written in self-justification: 
 but, besides that a Quarterly Review is not a fit arena for such self- 
 advocacy, the discriminative reader will perceive that, we speak 
 not unadvisedly, when we impute other and discreditable motives 
 to the Editors of that Periodical. They profess to give a correct 
 statement of the circumstances, connected with a projected biogra- 
 phy of Mr. Asbury; but, they so cunningly interlard it with selfish 
 impressions and suitable inferences that, while themselves are re- 
 presented pure and faultless, the whole character, moral and intel- 
 lectual, of the Biographer is involved in degradation. From the 
 statement, abstractly, the biographer can suffer nothing. Few, 
 however, who read the "Magazine," will, perhaps, have patience, 
 or candour, or discernment to divest the simple narrative of facts 
 of the misleading remarks interwrought with it. For, the truth 
 is, they have had neither the ingenuousness nor courage to come 
 forth openly, and directly accuse doctor Jennings, (the biographer 
 alluded to,) with lack of honesty and imbecility of intellect: they 
 knew that falsehood would be written too plainly on the front of 
 the charge. But, with such subtlety is their statement managed, 
 that a superficial reader is inevitably led to infer the justness of such 
 an imputation. 
 
 Let it then be distinctly understood that two charges are insinu- 
 ated against doctor Jennings: 
 
 1st. Mental incompetency to perform the task of composing a 
 biography. 
 
 •2ndiy. Rctainance of money to which he has no just claim. 
 
 We shall attempt to vindicate him from both these imputations; 
 and shall notice, likewise, the true cause of failure in the projected 
 biography of Mr. Asbury. Preparatory to our argument, we will 
 
231 
 
 give a brief history of the circumstances that have- led to this vindi- 
 cation. For the sake of comparison, an abstract shall be given of 
 the statements of both parties. 
 
 It seems that, in the July Number of 1830, the editors of the 
 "Quarterly" took occasion to express their regret that, though a 
 life of Mr. Asbury had been projected — a biographer employed, 
 and a considerable sum of money expended, the work had never 
 been produced. — "The gentleman, engaged to furnish it, failed in 
 the execution." Doctor Jennings, (the gentleman referred to,) 
 thus publicly mentioned in a way calculated to affect injuriously 
 his reputation, deemed it justifiable to give an exposition of the 
 circumstances of the case. 
 
 Without reference to date, of which he had not an exact re- 
 membrance, he states the conference to have passed a resolution 
 that Mr. Asbury's life should be written. A committee was, here- 
 upon, appointed, to carry the resolution into effect. Mr. Roszel, 
 whom doctor Jennings supposed to be chairman of the committee, 
 waited upon the doctor with a request that he would undertake the 
 work. After some deliberation, he consented, on condition that, 
 the committee should furnish such documents as would be neces- 
 sary, and especially, such facts and anecdotes, as would be more 
 particularly requisite to compensate for want of personal knowl- 
 edge: on condition, also, that, when all the materials should have 
 been selected, the committee should be present to assist in their 
 selection and arrangement. The reasonableness of the terms, was 
 admitted by Mr. Roszel, who promised they should be complied 
 with.* 
 
 Mr. McKendree, who alone had access to Mr. Asbury's papers; 
 was absent about that time, on a tour of duty. Nearly, if not quite 
 a whole year elapsed, before an opportunity offered of requesting 
 from him, what materials he could obtain: — and not a single scrawl 
 was furnished. Mr. McKendree, at length, returned, but was able 
 to furnish nothing useful, except the journal, and this, too, after 
 much delay. To add to the biographer's embarrassment, Mr. Hol- 
 lingsworth, the gentleman from whom Mr. McKendree had procu- 
 red the journal, soon called and made known to doctor Jennings 
 Mr. Asbury's objection to any attempt to publish his biography, 
 and the pledge which he had given for the publication of Mr. As- 
 bury's journal, stating, that, whatever use the doctor might wish to 
 make of it, he must lose no time; as he was determined to fulfil his 
 engagement with Mr. Asbury, who wished it to be published as soon 
 as practicable. 
 
 The journal was found to be deficient in many materials, requi- 
 site to the composition of a respectable biography; of which the 
 doctor repeatedly informed Mr. Roszel: adding that, unless further 
 information could be procured, the attempt at a biography would 
 be abortive. Hereupon, at the instance of Mr. Roszel, a general 
 
 ♦Doctor Jennings at that time did not know who were the remaining mem- 
 bers of the committee; he saw none of them but Mr. Roszel. 
 
232 
 
 call was made upon the friends of Mr. Asbury throughout the Uni- 
 ted States, to furnish whatever might be useful.* One annual con- 
 ference after another passed by, and nothing further was supplied, 
 except a small bundle of papers, of little value to the intended 
 work; one small package sent from the west by Mr. Thomas L. 
 Douglas, and one letter from South Carolina.! 
 
 Throughout the time of these delays, Dr. Jennings states, that, 
 "he had written out scraps and paragraphs in prospect of various 
 topics, which he intended to notice in the contemplated work; 
 amounting to several hundred pages: purposing, when the neces- 
 sary materials should be collected, to submit his scraps, together 
 with the materials, to the judgment of the committee; expecting 
 their assistance in selecting and arranging, according to the un- 
 derstanding with Mr. Roszel." 
 
 Having read over the journal and written many extracts from it, 
 he considered it necessary to bring the matter to a close. Wait- 
 ing upon the conference, at Alexandria, he requested a meeting of 
 the committee; expecting none other than the committee, with 
 one of whose members he had made his engagement. A com- 
 mittee met by order of the conference and sent for the MS.; 
 neither inviting nor summoning him to attend in person. They 
 proceeded to read, examine, and take notes on the MS. as if it 
 had been submitted, ready for publication: — his best effort as the 
 author of Mr. Asbury's life. They finally adjourned, after having 
 rejected the MS. and directed the secretary to serve the Biographer 
 with a copy of the notes. Dr. Jennings deemed these proceedings 
 as unjust as they were offensive, and determined to have nothing 
 more to do with the business. 
 
 Subsequently, however, the original committee assembled and 
 invited his attendance. He narrated to them, all the foregoing 
 facts and circumstances, not omitting to state the conditions on 
 which he had engaged to write the Biography. He informed them, 
 likewise, of the feelings with which he viewed their late proceed- 
 ings. The committee, then, inquired, if he were willing to re- 
 sume the work. He answered, that, as they had all been com- 
 mitted to the Methodist public, and community at large; he would 
 redeem the common pledge on the same conditions, originally 
 agreed to by him and Mr. Roszel. The committee unanimously 
 assented, and adjourned, sine die. From that day till the General 
 Conference, he heard nothing further from them; nor did he re- 
 ceive any additional materials, except about five or six letters 
 brought by Mr. Emory from England. 
 
 Meantime, at the peremptory request of Mr. Hollingsworth, the 
 manuscript journal was sent to the Book-room, at New York, for 
 publication. Hereupon, the Biographer had an interview with 
 
 *Mr. Roszel was without blame as to that part of the business. 
 
 -{-Doctor Jennings considers Mr. Kmory's insinuation as to the possibillty 
 of other supplies of materials than those above stated, as being very much out 
 of the way. Let him who furnished any thing more come forward and say 
 what it was. 
 
•233 
 
 Mr. Soule; and they, both, were unanimously of the opinion that, 
 the materials furnished, were entirely insufficient.* And finally a 
 messenger from the General Conference of 1824, called for the 
 few remaining papers; and there ended the business. 
 
 While the transaction was pending, however, Dr. Jennings 
 states that, Mr. Roszel presented him with $200. 
 
 The inferences, correctly deducible from this statement, if true, 
 are that, the Baltimore Annual Conference is not blameable, seeing 
 it made all due exertion to furnish materials; that there is nothing 
 to sustain an impeachment of the Biographer's character, in as 
 much as the want of matter appears to be the only cause, why a 
 sufficient Biography was not composed; and that the judgment or 
 justice of the committee of examination stands implicated, be- 
 cause, they unreasonably passed their opinion upon a MS. sub- 
 mitted for other purposes, as if the author contemplated its imme- 
 diate publication. 
 
 A replication to this statement, appeared in the article in the 
 January number of the Quarterly, to which we have alluded. It 
 professes to be a brief, veracious and complete history of the bu- 
 siness. 
 
 According to this, the subject of Bishop Asbury's life, being first 
 introduced in the Annual Conference of 1817, held at Baltimore, 
 a Biography was projected, and a committee appointed to super- 
 intend the work and employ a compiler. The committee, con- 
 sisting of Messrs. N. Reed, S. G. Roszel, J. Wells, W. Ryland, 
 and Dr. H. Wilkins, [through Mr. Roszel] subsequently employed 
 Dr. Jennings. 
 
 At the Annual Conference in Baltimore, in the spring of 1818, 
 Dr. Jennings came before the conference, and gave, they think, a 
 verbal outline of his plan, which was favorably received. 
 
 At the Annual Conference in Alexandria, (D. C.) in March, 
 1819, Dr. Jennings appeared in person before the conference, and 
 made a verbal communication of his "successful progress" in the 
 Biography. Inferring from the resolution immediately passed, the 
 conference seemed to be under the impression, that the MS. was 
 submitted, ready for the press. The resolution alluded to, was 
 the appointment of a committee of seven, to examine the work 
 with a view to its immediate publication. Messrs. Reed, Roszel, 
 Wells, Burch, Waugh, Griffith, and Emory, constituted this com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Meantime, the committee appointed to collect materials, &c. 
 assembled on the 5th of May, 1819, for the purpose of fixing the 
 compensation, to be made to Dr. Jennings, for his services in 
 writing the Life of Bishop Asbury. After an interchange of 
 opinion on the case, it was resolved "to furnish, at present, the 
 sum of $250, to Dr. Jennings, in part for compensation for his 
 services in the above work. According to a subsequent statement 
 made by them, he received only $225. 
 
 •And the more especially so, as a Biography written with no other infor- 
 mation than the journal afforded, would be so completely forestalled by the 
 publication of the journal. 
 
234 
 
 On the 15th of June, 1819, the committee of examination met 
 in Baltimore: present, Nelson Reed, Joshua Wells, Stephen G. 
 Roszel, Thomas Burch, Alfred Griffith, J. Emory, and B. Waugh. 
 In opposition to the Biographer's direct statement, that the com- 
 mittee sent for his MS. they say it is their ,, impression," that he 
 had previously delivered it to a member of the committee. Their 
 "impression" would have been correct if they had added, "by re- 
 quest of the member." They read the MS. with great care, de- 
 voting more than a week to it, in successive sittings of six hours* 
 per day. They say, the examination' was conducted with all the 
 "attention, and fidelity, and candor" of which they were capable. 
 They made exact minutes of all their criticisms, with a view of 
 furnishing the Biographer with them, to "afford him an opportunity 
 to avail himself of them, if he chose; and to reconsider, remodel, 
 or rewrite his work, if, on reviewing it with the committee's sug- 
 gestions, he should think it possible, to make it such a Life of 
 Bishop Asbury. as would be at all acceptable to the Methodist 
 community and the public. They admit, that they neither "in- 
 vited nor summoned" Dr. Jennings to attend in person, nor asked 
 for note, comment, nor explanation. 
 
 After a second reading of the MS. and an examination of their 
 minutes, notes, and criticisms, it was resolved that the following 
 question be propounded, and the sense of the committee be taken 
 upon it: — "can we now recommend the publication of the MS. 
 which has been submitted to this committee? — Their unanimous 
 answer was — No! — "and let it be remembered," say they, "that 
 the work was in truth a folio manuscript book, carefully bound, 
 regularly paged, divided into chapters, and fairly written out for the 
 press." They marvel greatly, therefore, that the Biographer denies 
 it was presented for publication. We shall have occasion to notice 
 this particularly, hereafter. We have seen the "book," read every 
 "chapter" and every line, and can easily explain with what reason 
 doctor Jennings denies what they wish to be believed. 
 
 After the general vote of the committee had been taken, the 
 particular objections of each member were required; — to serve as 
 the basis of a report to be prepared for the conference, by a sub- 
 committee. The report, accordingly was framed, and it was 
 unanimously adopted by the general committee. 
 
 At the close of their sittings, they directed the secretary "to in- 
 form doctor Jennings of their final judgment, with the reasons 
 thereof; as also, to return the MS. and inform him, that he should 
 be furnished with a copy of the notes of the committee, if he re- 
 quested." They believe a copy of the notes, in fact, was never 
 either asked or "served." 
 
 In consequence of information from the committee "for the col- 
 lection of materials," &c. that doctor Jennings was disposed to 
 resume and finish the Life of Mr. Asbury, the examining com- 
 mute held another meeting, just previously to the session of the 
 Baltimore Annual Conference, in March, 1820. They then de- 
 termined, influenced ostensibly by motives of friendship for doctor 
 Jennings, to withhold the report, originally prepared, and frame 
 
235 
 
 another and more favourable one, to be presented to the conference. 
 The amount of it was — it was their opinion that the MS. so far as 
 submitted to them, was not prepared for the press. They took 
 the liberty to recommend to the conference, to refer the whole of 
 what had been done in the business, to the disposal and decision 
 of the next General Conference. The subject of Mr. Asbury's 
 Life was accordingly introduced in the General Conference of 1820; 
 when a committee was appointed to consider and report on it. This 
 committee heard part of doctor Jennings' MS. read, and received 
 from him personally, such other information as he thought proper 
 to communicate. They stated in their report, "that they had been 
 led to doubt whether the plan of the work was the most suitable. 
 They recommended, if published, it should be done in two distinct 
 forms; one comprehending Asbury's Life; the other, a concise 
 ecclesiastical history. The conference did not approve the latter 
 project; but appointed a committee of three, to assist doctor Jen- 
 nings, in furnishing such further facts and information, respecting 
 Bishop Asbury, as could be obtained, and in reviewing the MS.* 
 
 "At the General Conference of 1824, little or no progress hav- 
 ing been made in the work, a resolution was passed, respectfully 
 to request doctor Jennings, to deliver the materials in his posses- 
 sion, together with the manuscript, so far as he had written it, into 
 the hands of the Rev. William Beauchamp, who was requested by 
 the conference to become the biographer in the place of doctor 
 Jennings." "The true amount of materials," say they, "with which 
 doctor Jennings was furnished, to assist him in preparing a life of 
 bishop Asbury, we do not precisely know. But, if other docu- 
 ments, placed in his hands, exceeded the amount, as stated by him, 
 in the proportion of the five or six letters, brought by Mr. Emory 
 from England, the difference must be pretty considerable." They 
 state that, the exact number of letters is twenty-five; of which 
 twenty were written by Mr. Asbury himself; two, by Mr. What- 
 coat; and three by other persons. 
 
 The abstract, we have given, will be found to be correct by a re- 
 ference to the distinct statements of the two parties. The reader 
 has now a fair opportunity for comparison, and a sufficient ground 
 for inference. 
 
 After the high-toned preliminary of the Quarterly, on the "bare- 
 faced misrepresentations and shameless prevarications" which they 
 seem to have discovered in Dr. Jenning's statement; after so much 
 ostentation of knowledge, of personal information upon the sub- 
 ject, and the seemingly ingenuous profession to give a trust-worthy 
 account of the business — we were prepared to read a statement, 
 at variance in all points, with that of the biographer. What was 
 our astonishment then, to behold the harmony of the two narra- 
 tives, on the most important points! And, how must the reader 
 be surprised to know, on comparing them, that they differ very lit- 
 tle in whatever tends to affect the matter at issue. 
 
 *This committee never made any communication to doctor Jennings. 
 
236 
 
 We request the reader candidly and rigidly to compare the two 
 statements. We said, on the most important points, they harmonized. 
 These points are, — the character of the contract between Mr. 
 Roszel and the biographer; the quantity of matter, collected for 
 the biography; the circumstances attending the presentation and 
 rejection of his manuscript, and the conclusion of the business. 
 The conditions of the contract between Mr. Roszell and the biog- 
 rapher, as stated by the latter, are not disputed. It is not denied, 
 that subsequently to the rejection of the manuscript, when doctor 
 Jennings, being asked, consented to resume the work, the com- 
 mittee acceded to these conditions. It is not denied, that the ma- 
 terials, furnished, were insufficient, for the compilation of a re- 
 spectable biography. It is true they take occasion to contradict 
 the biographer in one clause of his statement, and hence very un- 
 fairly intimate that he is not over scrupulous in perverting the 
 truth to his own purposes.* Instead of five letters, twenty-five, 
 they assert, were handed to doctor Jennings. The Doctor informs 
 us that he wrote according to his recollection, having reference as 
 he supposes to those alone, which, when he read them, in his opin- 
 ion appeared to promise him assistance. He cannot account for 
 his recollection having fixed on five or six, in any other way. Let 
 it be remembered, too, that even this additional help was not re- 
 ceived until after the composition, examination, and rejection of 
 the first manuscript. If the letters, then, had contained informa- 
 tion enough to supply all deficiencies, (which they did not,) they 
 came too late to benefit him in his first essay. 
 
 The Quarterly does not say, when doctor Jennings "reported 
 progress" to the conference, he requested his manuscript to be ex- 
 amined for publication; nor does it deny that the Doctor, instead 
 of himself declining the business, was requested by the conference 
 to give up all the papers in his possession and his appointment as 
 biographer. No! All these assertions of doctor Jennings, upon 
 these points, we are bound to accredit; — seeing they are not deni- 
 ed, of course, are tacitly admitted in a narrative, avowedly framed 
 in opposition to him, and naturally disposed to all sustainable con- 
 tradiction. Ignorance, they cannot plead, as the ground of their 
 admission: for they will not have us suppose that they are unac- 
 quainted with any thing pertaining to this subject. "All the mem- 
 bers of the committee are yet living;" "the thing, as it was, is fresh 
 in their recollection;" '-'while such an amount of original and au- 
 thentic documents is lying before us, that we cannot understand 
 how doctor Jennings" should make such a statement of proceed- 
 ings. "He must be aware, too, that we are in possession, not only 
 oAnformation on the subject, but of personal knowledge; and, 
 how in view of this, he could persuade himself to put forth such a 
 statement, as he has, is utterly beyond even our power to conjec- 
 ture, except on the single supposition that his memory had entire- 
 ly failed him, which, in regard to this matter, we charitably hope 
 
 * We shall notice hereafter, particularly this unchristian insinuation against 
 doctor Jennings. 
 
237 
 
 has been the case." The impartial reviewer of both statements 
 will find no difficulty in deciding, that this deed of charity may be 
 readily dispensed with, seeing the correctness of the Doctor's 
 memory is fully evinced, by the consistency of its report with the 
 authentic and veracious account of his opponents. If, after having 
 been taught by us the consequences, derivable from their admission 
 of the most important parts of doctor Jenning's statement, they 
 shall dare to come forth, and deny what, before, they assented to 
 by their silence, then will every one have abundant reason to ques- 
 tion the sincerity of their lips. 
 
 That there are some discrepancies in the two statements, we ac- 
 knowledge; but they are unimportant. We shall, however, notice 
 them. 
 
 Doctor Jennings, they say, has left the public mind liable to mis- 
 apprehension, by confounding two distinct committees. The com- 
 mittee for collecting materials, &c. was different from the commit- 
 tee appointed by the conference to examine the manuscript. This, 
 say they, doctor Jennings must have known. This, we say, doctor 
 Jennings did not know, till after the rejection of his work. Nor 
 could he anticipate such a circumstance. One part of the agree- 
 ment was, that the committee who employed him, should be pre- 
 sent, when materials should have been collected, and assist to select 
 and arrange them. We could not but suppose, then, that the 
 committee for collecting, &c. and the committee of examination 
 were identical; especially, when he received no official or private 
 information to the contrary. If doctor Jennings left the reader 
 "liable to misapprehension," he was himself under the same mis- 
 apprehension, when his manuscript was examined. His not hav- 
 ing been informed on this point, is one of the things which he has 
 never yet understood. 
 
 "Dr. Jennings," say they ; "states erroneously, that Mr. Roszel 
 was chairman of the committee." The Doctor speaks doubtfully: 
 "who was chairman of the committee, perhaps," — is his phrase- 
 ology. 
 
 They dislike the Doctor should say, "the secretary was directed 
 to serve him with the notes," &,c. They acted more politely: — "if 
 the biographer request, the secretary shall furnish him with notes." 
 They "do not believe that a copy was ever either asked or 
 'served.' " It is true, it was never "asked;" but it was left at his 
 dwelling, or "served," which is a very appropriate term. The notes 
 are now before us; and, on application to doctor Jennings any one 
 will be permitted to see an exact copy of them, which, though 
 ordered to be "furnished, if requested," was "served" without re- 
 quest; perhaps by Mr. Waugh 
 
 Doctor Jennings says, that he was presented with $200. The re- 
 viewers state, $250 were voted to him, though only $225 were be- 
 stowed. The Doctor admits that he may have erred in this, — still 
 he knows not why $250 weie voted, and only $225 sent him by 
 the hand of Mr. Roszel. 
 31 
 
238 
 
 We have thus noticed the principal discrepancies of the two 
 narratives, and we find them all to be unimportant; — by no means 
 affecting the matter at issue. There is one particular in the re- 
 viewers' account, we have forborne to touch in this comparison; 
 because, instead of being a legitimate part of the statement, we 
 believed it, an unproved assumption. If admitted, it would estab- 
 lish all they wish. We are therefore, willing, and we think, not 
 unable to demonstrate its incorrectness. It is asserted, that the 
 work, thus presented, was "a folio, manuscript book, carefully 
 bound, regularly paged, divided into chapters, and fairly written out 
 for the press." On this, is based the insinuated charge of mental 
 incompetency to compose a biography. Their argument may be 
 fairly stated thus: — 
 
 Doctor Jennings presented to a committee a fairly written out, 
 manuscript biography, to be examined for publication. The com- 
 mittee consisted of seven persons, of reputable judgment, knowl- 
 edge and impartiality. They were employed more than a week, 
 in successive sittings of six hours per day, reading the MS twice 
 over, with all the attention, fidelity and candour of which they were 
 capable. They unanimously rejected it, as unfit for publication. 
 Now, as doctor Jennings had been employed, several years, in the 
 composition of the biography; and, as the "conference was disposed 
 to render him prompt encouragement," and the committee to afford 
 him effectual aid, the conclusion is, that mental incompetency or 
 culpable indolence on the part of the author, was the veritable 
 cause of the unfitness of the MS. for publication. 
 
 It will, unhesitatingly, be acknowledged, should any one of the 
 data be false, then is the conclusion false. If the report of the 
 candour and intelligence of the committee be unsustained ; then 
 cannot the charge of indolence or incompetence be sustained. If 
 adequate and prompt assistance were not rendered him by the con- 
 ference and committee, then no inference can be drawn against the 
 character of the biographer. Although one of these suppositions 
 could, probably, be supported, and the other certainly established, 
 we will now notice only the first postulate; believing that we can 
 show its incorrectness, consequently the fallacy of the whole argu- 
 ment. 
 
 We propose, then, to demonstrate, that doctor Jennings did not 
 submit his manuscript biography, to be examined for publication. 
 His solemn asseveration in affirmation of this point, will have its 
 due weight with those acquainted with his character, and with all 
 impartial men, when it is found not to be contradicted by any tes- 
 timony. And it is true that there is no sustained denial of it in 
 the statement of his opponents. We glanced at this circumstance 
 in the comparison of the two narratives: we will now speak more 
 largely concerning it. Let us review their account. "Doctor 
 Jennings," say they, "reported successful progress in the biogra- 
 phy:" — true, but not a termination of his work, or its suitableness 
 for the press. "The conference, hereupon, appointed a committee 
 to examine it, with a view to its publication." This but shows in 
 what way the conference construed the report of doctor Jennings: 
 
239 
 
 because such was their construction, it does not follow certainly, 
 that such was the intention of the biographer. We appeal again to 
 the statement; we care not for the constructions of conference or 
 committee; — does their own narrative say, either directly or by just 
 implication, that the MS. was presented for publication? It does 
 not — "successful progress" only, was reported in the MS. — And 
 what of all this? A mechanic may "report successful progress" in 
 a machine he is framing: is it, therefore, inferred, that his machine 
 is finished, and ready for public examination? 
 
 It will be asked, "why did not the biographer, when he under- 
 stood a committee was appointed to examine his MS., avow it 
 was not his intention to have it published?" Because he fully 
 believed, that the committee, for collecting materials, would be the 
 committee of examination; and they, he knew, were well aware of 
 the condition that sets forth, — "provided also, the committee shall 
 be present, when materials shall have been collected, to assist in 
 selecting and arranging them." He, therefore, confidently be- 
 lieved, that the committee would act in accordance with the impli- 
 cation of that condition; — not examining the MS., as if submitted 
 for the press, but in view of revising and shaping it, as their judg- 
 ment might dictate. Instead of this a new committee was appoin- 
 ted. This doctor Jennings has never yet understood. That doc- 
 tor Jennings thought the two committees identical, we have addi- 
 tional evidence from the fact, that he knew Mr. Roszel, who was 
 on the first committee, was also on the second. Mr. Reed, too, a 
 member of the former committee, called upon him for the MS., and 
 did not then state to him, or even give him a hint, that a different 
 committee had been appointed. Nor did he, as before stated, re- 
 ceive official notice or private intimation of this in any way. 
 
 Hence we have another argument, that doctor Jennings did not 
 submit his work, ready for the press. The condition that the com- 
 mittee would be present, when the materials should have been col- 
 lected, to assist him to select and arrange them, precludes even the 
 shadow of a supposition that the MS. was submitted in a fit state 
 for publication.* He, therefore, very properly blames the commit- 
 tee for acting so inconsistently, — so much at variance with the 
 character of the contract. -Nor let them say that, being a different 
 committee, they were not obligated by the afore mentioned condi- 
 tions; nor, that knowing nothing of them, ignorance would have 
 prevented their fulfilment. The conference acted unjustifiably in 
 
 *When Mr. Nelson Reed called for the manuscript and gave no intimation 
 that the writer was expected to accompany it, doctor Jennings was greatly 
 surprised. He expected it until Mr. Reed had received the book and was 
 retiring; when, finding that the committee were about to examine his place- 
 book without his assistance, he was greatly embarrassed, and following Mr. 
 Reed to the door, in a word or two, intimated to him, that the w ork was not 
 in a fit state to be read by the committee, in that manner. Whether Mr. 
 Reed understood him or not, he cannot know. Mr. Roszel had conducted 
 towards him so properly in every other instance, he thought it unaccounta- 
 ble, that the committee was not informed of the conditions of the existing 
 engagement. 
 
240 
 
 appointing another committee, by which the contract would neces- 
 sarily be annulled. Messrs. Reed, Roszel and Wells, constituting 
 three of the five, on the first committee, were appointed members 
 of the second, consisting of seven persons. They, at least, ought 
 to have known the nature of the agreement. Mr. Roszel, who was 
 himself the contractor, must have clearly understood the intentions 
 of doctor Jennings in presenting his MS: — and it is curious if he 
 permitted the three remaining members to be ignorant on a point 
 so important. 
 
 Beside the evidence, already adduced, we have an irresistable 
 inferential argument, arising from an examination of the MS. The 
 biography, examined by the committee, embracing 269 pages, 
 which now lie before us, contains no account of the birth, parent- 
 age, boyhood, youth, or conversion of Mr. Asbury, nor any infor- 
 mation concerning the commencement of his ministerial career. 
 This is not all: it is only extended to the time of his ordination, — 
 we are told nothing of his life posterior to 1784, when he had been 
 only thirteen years in America; in course, the remainder of his 
 life, upwards of thirty years, is wholly untouched; nor have we 
 in it, any account of his death! Now we ask, is it possible, 
 that any man with common sense could ever have thought of sub- 
 mitting so incomplete a sketch, as a biography, ready for the press? 
 Yet this, the Quarterly would have us to believe; — that a few quires 
 of foolscap paper, roughly bound in boards, written out by three dif- 
 ferent hands at least, containing a few extracts from the journal of 
 Mr. Asbury, with remarks of the biographer interspersed, and in- 
 tended as a specimen of what the journal afforded; without a single 
 item, concerning his birth, or death, and omitting thirty of the most 
 important years of his life; — that such a work, on so much paper, 
 thus filled, constituted "a folio manuscript book, carefully bound, 
 regularly paged, divided into chapters, and fairly written out for the 
 press," and iulended by the writer to be a sufficient biography! 
 Whom here are we to charge with foolishness? Have we not 
 grounds for implicating both the judgment and candour of the 
 committee, who acted, and the editor of the Quarterly, who at- 
 tempts to vindicate their doings? Beside the deficiency of the MS. 
 in facts, there are inaccuracies in its grammar, tautology in some 
 parts, and sometimes inappropriate epithets and language, which, 
 while they argue nothing against the information or good taste of 
 the biographer, indicate the necessity and obvious intention of a 
 revision; and sufficiently prove, that the author could not. have 
 deemed it in a suitable state for publication. We speak this the 
 more confidently, inasmuch as we have seen a second and revised 
 MS. of the work,* in which inaccuracies are corrected, redundan- 
 cies retrenched, and, in fact, the philological defects of the first 
 
 * Immediately after the first committee met and reviewed the engagement 
 with doctor Jennings, he proceeded to correct and rewrite his work. This 
 revised and rewritten copy of 150 pages, on large sheets, was submitted to 
 the examination of the committee appointed by the general conference of 
 1820. 
 
841 
 
 MS. satisfactorily amended. Any man who is disposed to doubt 
 any part of this statement, on application to doctor Jennings will 
 be permitted to inspect for himself, when he cannot fail to be sa- 
 tisfied of the truth of this account, in all its details. 
 
 "But why so carefully bound!" — it is asked. After all, this "care- 
 fully bound, folio book" is no other than a kind of day-book, 
 roughly bound, and used for convenience. "It is 'regularly paged 1 
 and 'divided' into chapters'! ' This is flat! Who, that is at all ac- 
 quainted with writing, does not know, that nothing is more com- 
 mon than to page a MS. whether intended or not for the press? 
 And the operation of dividing into chapters and paragraphs be- 
 comes a kind of instinct in one who deals much in composition; 
 in truth, is as natural as that he should punctuate regularly: and 
 this too, whether the MS. be intended or not for the press. But 
 there is a peculiar reason for this division into chapters. The work 
 was to be submitted to a committee. The arrangement therefore, of 
 the information and facts collected, in judicious portions, under 
 appropriate captions, was intended to facilitate the labours of the 
 committee in inspecting, selecting, and arranging the materials of 
 the MS. "But why so fairly written out?" All that can be said 
 in truth on this point is, that generally, the penmanship is legible, 
 sometimes, however, quite obscure. Besides, as noticed before, 
 three different autographs, at least, are discernible in the MS. 
 
 We shall sum up our argument under this head, thus: 
 
 1st. Doctor Jennings solemnly affirms, that he did not submit his 
 manuscript biography, as being prepared for the press. In care- 
 fully looking over the statement of his opponents, we find nothing 
 to nullify this affirmation. They never once state that he even in- 
 timated a wish to have his work examined in view of its publication. 
 Their strongest language is, "he reported successful progress." 
 Now, no matter how conference or committee understood this — 
 their constructions, or rather misconstructions, avail nothing: we 
 are bound to accredit the unqualified and uncontradicted affirma- 
 tion of the biographer. 
 
 2d. The nature of the agreement, between Mr. Roszel and the 
 biographer, affords another argument. By this agreement the com- 
 mittee were obligated to be present when materials should have 
 been collected, to assist in preparing the MS. for the press, by se- 
 lection, arrangement, #c. Doctor Jennings could not, therefore, 
 have contemplated the immediate publication of his work. 
 
 3d. Our last argument arises from a view of the character of the 
 MS. It gives us no account of more than thirty years, which in 
 course included by far the most important and interesting events 
 in the life of Mr. Asbury. It has various extempore inaccuracies 
 of style and grammar, and is not unfrequently incorrect in its re- 
 ference to dates and authorities. Now, supposing doctor Jennings 
 to possess common sense, he could not have thought of submitting 
 so incomplete and defective a composition as a biography, to be 
 examined with a view to its publication; — "his best effort as the 
 author of Mr. Asbury's life." 
 
242 
 
 We therefore, conclude that so far, the charge of incompetence 
 against the biographer is invalid, since the MS. was not a fair sam- 
 ple of the author's ability. 
 
 "Why then," they ask, "was not his work prepared for publica- 
 tion!" "Surely he had time sufficient, and great encouragement: 
 why did he not make his MS. ready for the press!" We trust we 
 can answer this in a manner, which shall convince every one that 
 the defectiveness of the MS. biography was attributable to other 
 causes than to the inability or indolence of its author. We say, 
 then, the reason was, want of necessary materials; which we will 
 prove. 
 
 1st. Inferentially from the fact, that though the committee, who 
 employed doctor Jennings, must have known the amount and kind 
 of materials furnished, they have not, in the slightest particular, 
 contradicted his statement concerning the sparsity of requisite in- 
 formation; except in one, and this we have noticed. We allude 
 to the letters brought from England by Mr. Emory. That it may 
 be borne in mind, however, by the reader, we repeat, these letters 
 were never furnished, till after doctor Jennings had consented to 
 resume the biography, of course, cannot be included in the amount 
 of materials, out of which the biographer framed his first MS. We 
 cannot but notice, here, the ungracious insinuation of the "Quar- 
 terly," conveyed in the following: "The true amount of 'materials,' 
 with which doctor Jennings was furnished, to assist him in prepar- 
 ing a life of Bishop Asbury, we do not precisely know. But if 
 other documents placed in his hands exceeded the amount as stat- 
 ed by him, in the proportion of the 'five or six letters brought by 
 Mr. Emory from England,' the difference must be pretty consider- 
 able." If the Quarterly be here the organ of speech for the com- 
 mittee, we are compelled to believe that the "difference" between 
 their words and truth, "is pretty considerable." What! engaged 
 to furnish the necesssary anecdotes, facts and documents, and not 
 "know" the "quantity" of information furnished! Impossible' 
 "Their memories must have entirely failed them," "which, in regard 
 to this matter, we charitably hope has been the case," or they have 
 stooped to a degrading untruth, to blast the reputation of an inno- 
 cent man. If the Editor of the "Magazine" be the speaker, we 
 appeal to an enlightened community to determine, whether he does 
 not act beneath the character of a christian, and a gentleman, when 
 possessing sufficient "information," and "personal knowledge," to 
 detect falsehood, if there were any, he ventures an unsupported 
 and malignant insinuation against the veracity of a christian min- 
 ister? 
 
 2d. So far as the testimony of a respectable minister of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church will go, we have another evidence of 
 the want of materials. The biographer, after the reception of the 
 letters from England, affording him the last information he obtain- 
 ed, had an interview with Mr. Soule, who entirely accorded with 
 the Doctor in opinion, that the materials, already furnished, were 
 insufficient. 
 
243 
 
 3d. The proceedings of the General Conference of 1820, in re- 
 ference to the biography, affords another very conclusive proof. 
 The Quarterly says, a committee of three was appointed "to assist 
 doctor Jennings in furnishing such other facts and information, as 
 could be obtained, respecting Bishop Asbury." Would the con- 
 ference have done this, unless with the belief, that the facts and 
 information, already gathered, were insufficient for the compilation 
 of a respectable biography? Is it not a plain confession, there was 
 a lack of materials? 
 
 4th. The character of the MS. bears strong presumptive evidence 
 of this same dearth of materials. Would any man, in his right mind, 
 giving a biography of another, neglect to insert, in the account, the 
 most important particulars of his history, if they were obtainable. 
 Had doctor Jennings have known any thing satisfactory of Mr. 
 Asbury's birth, his conversion, call to the ministry; of his corres- 
 pondences with other ministers — his address to the conferences, 
 &c. &c. would he not have communicated it in his MS. It is 
 true, that a sermon was preached by Mr. Snethen and printed, af- 
 fording some information on some of these subjects; inasmuch, 
 however, as it was incomplete, and in a degree unauthentic, Dr. 
 Jennings determined to defer any account of these matters, till he 
 should lay his MS. before the committee, who might from authentic 
 and sufficient documents supply the deficiency. 
 
 We are compelled then to conclude, — from the character of the 
 MS. from the avowed opinion of one of their principal ministers, 
 (Mr. Soule,) from the uncontradicted statement of doctor Jennings, 
 and from their own account, that there was a want of materials; — 
 and this was why a sufficient biography was never compiled. 
 
 "Why, then, did the doctor request a meeting of the committee, 
 and submit his work in so incomplete a state, to their inspection?" 
 The answer is plain: — he wished to bring the business to a close. 
 From the MS., which ought to have been considered as a com- 
 mon-place-book, prepared for that particular purpose, when laid 
 open before them, the committee might learn how much informa- 
 tion had been collected, and how much was still needed. If no 
 more materials could be furnished, he wished to know what course 
 they would advise him to pursue. And if the design of framing a 
 Biography was not to be abandoned, the committee would then 
 perceive more fully the necessity of bestirring itself in the obtain- 
 ment of the necessary information. 
 
 It is strange that blame should be bestowed on the Biographer, 
 for persevering in his purpose of writing a Biography. "If," says 
 the Quarterly, "Doctor Jennings, even after engaging to become 
 the Biographer of Bishop Asbury, on becoming convinced that, 
 with his want of sufficient personal acquaintance with the subject, 
 the documents and materials were altogether inadequate, had 
 thought proper to decline the task, with any reasonable notice to 
 the committee, and without subjecting them to useless expense, 
 we apprehend no censure would or could have been attached to 
 him from any quarter. This would have been the only course of 
 propriety." We take the liberty to differ from the Quarterly. Had 
 
244 
 
 doctor Jennings have been convinced, not only that the "docu- 
 ments and materials," already furnished, were "inadequate" but 
 that an adequate supply never could be furnished, then was his 
 course plain — by all means he should have declined the task. But 
 he waited in hope: he depended on the committee who employed 
 him, for such documents and facts as should be necessary; and the 
 discouragements which afterwards were multiplied, had scarcely 
 commenced when he received the money; — and, therefore, does he 
 deserve much praise for maintaining to the last his agreement with 
 the committee, under so many disadvantages. Contending with a 
 multiplicity of impediments, he continued patiently and persever- 
 ino*ly to perform his part of the task, as well as circumstances 
 would permit. Had the committee done likewise, a Biography, 
 most probably, would not now be wanting. It was their business 
 to determine the possibility or impossibilty of procuring the ne- 
 cessary materials, and if convinced of the impossibility, it became 
 them, and not the Biographer, "to decline the task." They should 
 have communicated "reasonable notice," to the conference who 
 appointed them, and have satisfied the author whom they had em- 
 ployed, and we apprehend no censure could or would have at- 
 tached to them from any quarter, if they had abandoned the work. 
 They were at no additional expense after the two hundred or two 
 hundred and twenty-five dollars were sent by Mr. Roszel, the re- 
 ceipt of which served to impose perseverance upon the doctor. 
 
 We think we have fully confuted the insinuated charge of in- 
 competency or indolence on the part of the Biographer; established 
 the fact of a dearth of materials being the cause why a sufficient 
 Biography was never written; satisfactorily shown the object of 
 the author in requesting a meeting of the committee; and proved 
 the propriety of doctor Jennings' conduct in not declining the task 
 under so many inauspicious circumstances. 
 
 The second insinuated charge is retainance in his hands of 
 money, to which he has no just claims. Was doctor Jennings 
 entitled or was he not, to a compensation for his services? The 
 answer to this question depends on a single circumstance; — 
 whether or not the Biographer failed to perform his part of the 
 task. From what we have said, any unprejudiced person will feel 
 warranted in answering — he did not fail. He did all, that any 
 man could have been justly required to perform, with the means 
 afforded him. The committee failed in supplying necessary ma- 
 terials; they dismissed him from their employment, as Biographer; 
 not he himself: consequently, they, alone, violated the contract— 
 and he became justly entitled to a proper compensation. Even 
 could it be proved, (which is very far from the truth,) that doctor 
 Jennings was incapable of writing a Biography, he could still, 
 with justice, retain any remuneration made to him; on the same 
 principle that an artist could hold legal claim to money, voluntarily 
 and unconditionally paid him in advance for services, which sub- 
 sequent trial, should prove him unable to perform to entire satis- 
 faction of both parties; — except some specific condition in the 
 contract hindered. But doctor Jennings stoops not to such a re- 
 
245 
 
 fuge. The MS. he offers to the inspection of any one who may wish 
 to examine it; convinced that its character will fully sustain the 
 credit of his competency and the justness of his claim to remu- 
 neration. 
 
 A compensation was, then, due to the Biographer: The next 
 question concerns the amount. We here appeal to the judgment 
 of the impartial; for, as no specific compensation was determined 
 on by the committee, equity alone must decide the question. 
 
 Let it be known, then, that the MS. submitted to the inspection 
 of the committee of examination, &c, contained two hundred and 
 sixty-nine folio pages. This the committee admits. A portion of 
 the Biography, consisting of seventy-nine pages, was written out, 
 but not presented, with the other, to the committee. Subsequently 
 to the rejection of the 269 pages, by the examining committee, 
 and the second meeting of the first committee, when he consented 
 to recommence the Biography, he revised the original MS. and 
 rewrote one hundred and fifty pages. "But whence so much work 
 with so few materials?" "How could so voluminous a MS. be 
 wrought out of so sparse and imperfect information?" It is easily 
 answered. Doctor Jennings, considering on the imperfection of 
 the facts, documents and anecdotes furnished, and the tedious 
 monotony of Mr. Asbury's journal, perceived the necessity of in- 
 troducing appropriate extraneous matter, in order to give any thing 
 like interest or utility to his Biography. Contemplating Mr. As- 
 bury as the great apostle of Methodism in America, he deemed it 
 would neither be irrelative nor uninteresting to discourse some- 
 what on the peculiar system, with which he was identified. In 
 doing this, he was led to bestow some attention on the circum- 
 stances, attending its origin; by which he was still further con- 
 ducted to an investigation of the general causes of reformation, 
 and the method in which it is most frequently effected. Hence, for 
 the sake of illustration, he glances cursorily at the different reli- 
 gious changes of ancient and modern times, in view principally 
 of the fact, that unofficial, individual exertion, is the general agent 
 in operating reformations. 
 
 This is the reason why the MS. was so voluminous. And when 
 we consider the toil and time which must have been expended in 
 so extensive an investigation, together with the labour of penning, 
 correcting and transcribing/owr hundred and ninety-four folio pages, 
 (the sum total of pages written out,) will any one be so iniquitous 
 as to pronounce two hundred and twenty-five dollars a more than 
 equivalent compensation? Certainly not. Justly then does doc- 
 tor Jennings retain the two hundred and twenty-five dollars; which 
 as before stated, is the only remuneration he ever received. 
 
 Here would end the "chapter," if permitted by the Quarterly. 
 But, "we would like to know," says its editor, "how it happens 
 that doctor Jennings comes to be still in possession, as he inti- 
 mates, of 'two volumes of manuscript which he wrote in view of 
 Mr. Asbury's Life?' " Why, thus it happens. Having been dis- 
 missed from his employment by an act of the General Conference, 
 32 
 
246 
 
 and no arrangement having been made respecting the completion 
 of the work, which had the least respect to the feelings or reputa- 
 tion of doctor Jennings, was it reasonable to suppose that he would 
 let go his manuscripts, which could not have been used in a man- 
 ner consistent with his design, unless he had been in some way 
 concerned in completing them; especially as he had every good rea- 
 son to fear they would be disposed of, in a manner unsatisfactory to 
 himself, since so much of his work as had been read by the committee, 
 had been formally condemned; and no attention had been paid to 
 him, by either of the committees, appointed to aid him in procuring 
 materials? He determined, very properly, therefore, that they ought 
 to remain in his possession. It is said, however, the MS. was paid 
 for by the committee and was their property. It was condemned 
 by the committee, whilst the materials were in a crude and an 
 unfinished state, and the money paid to him was an inadequate 
 compensation for the toil and time which he had then devoted to 
 the work. Besides, the dismissal in the manner in which it was 
 done, was arbitrary and insolent; — such as justified resistance; a 
 violation of the agreement made with him; by which he considers 
 all right to the MS. forfeited on their part, even on the supposition 
 that the remuneration for his services had been much more satis- 
 factory.* It is presumed that the subject was so considered by 
 them, since they have made no subsequent call. And it is be- 
 lieved we should have heard no more about it, had not doctor 
 Jennings become active and conspicuous in the work of reform. 
 
 In conclusion we beg leave to submit an hypothesis, concerning 
 the reason why the work of the biographer was unacceptable to his 
 employers, and one which is another good reason, why he ought not 
 to have delivered it, upon such an application. It is this, that the prin- 
 ciples frequently advocated in the MS. biography, and the general 
 spirit of it, were greatly at variance with the now known opinions 
 of the committee. The principles and spirit evinced throughout 
 the work are all liberal: they look frowningly upon priestly aspira- 
 tions for power and the enforced servility of laymen. Is it not easy 
 to understand, then, why the members of the committee, who, at 
 this day are staunch advocates of the powers, that be, looked not 
 with pleasure on the work? This is not altogether hypothesis. 
 Among several other reasons, (not very reasonable,) for the rejec- 
 tion of the MS., they declare this to be one; "it contains a variety 
 of sentiments, on doctrines and ecclesiastical polity , which we deem 
 at least questionable." We do indeed, believe this was their 
 strongest reason. And what wonder? Even at that period "reform" 
 began to be so much talked about, they became very sensitive to 
 whatever bore an ill aspect toward a clerical monopoly of power. 
 
 *Dr. Jennings informs the writer of this appendix, that the call for the 
 manuscript and papers, was altogether out of the way. No interview was 
 asked or demanded for the purpose of fixing upon any preliminaries, re- 
 specting their delivery. After the rising of the conference, a most uncere- 
 monious call was made, and all but the manuscripts were delivered to the 
 messenger of Mr Beauchamp. 
 
247 
 
 In looking over their notes, too, we find them generally taking ex- 
 ceptions to those passages, which we would naturally suppose un« 
 savoury to an Episcopal Methodist. For instance, in remarking 
 on one passage they ask, "does not this indicate too great a desire 
 to have a stroke at the priests?" In another place they query, 
 "whether the private members of the church were made guardians 
 of true orthodoxy, &c. &c. But the MS. and the committee's notes 
 may be seen any time, on application to doctor Jennings, so that 
 any one who is inquisitive may learn for himself, what probably 
 was the true cause of the rejection of his work. 
 
 Thus have we seen the unfair treatment of doctor Jennings by 
 the committee; who first did him injustice by passing their opinion 
 on his work, as if submitted, ready for publication; and then, en- 
 deavouring to vindicate themselves through the medium of the 
 Quarterly, cruelly aspersed both his moral and intellectual charac- 
 ter; subjecting his honesty, as well as competency to foul suspi- 
 cion. We think the impartial reader will acknowledge, that we 
 have fixed the charge of unfair and cruel dealing upon the com- 
 mittee, and have wiped away the aspersions made by them, on the 
 character of a christian minister. 
 
 THE END. 
 
I