Lebanon , Pa . , 
 United Brethren Church 
 
 History of the 
 Controversy between 
 East Pennsylvania 
 Conference 
 and 
 Trinity U. B. Church 
 
■r:>^ 
 
 '-it-m 
 
 tihraxy of €he Cheolo^icd ^^mimvy 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 'd^t- 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 RufuE ii. Leit'evre 
 
Ffc.^ A J. iabJ 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 -OF- 
 
 The Controversy 
 
 ■BETWEEN- 
 
 £ast ipennsjilvania Conference 
 
 -AND- 
 
 Crlnltj? ^» IB. Cburcb, 
 
 LEBANON, PA., 
 
 WITH 
 
 An Appeal 
 
 o the Clergy and Laity on the Rights of the Laity In the 
 Church of the United Brethren in Christ. 
 
 Authorized and published by the official board of 
 
 TRINITY U. B. CHURCH, LEBANON, PA 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 After long and patient waiting for the Christian spirit 
 to triumph and end our controversy with East Pennsyl- 
 vania Con'erence, and continuing for almost two yeara, 
 and with little hope, at present, that our misguided 
 brethren will abandon their worse than unseemly course; 
 We, the official board of Trinity U. B. Church, I^ebanon, 
 Pa , now think it proper and necessary to publish to the 
 church at large the facts connected with the controversy 
 so needlessly and unwisely begun, expose the lawlessncM 
 of our oppressors and reply to the more important and 
 deceiving excuses, not reasons, they give out to palliate 
 and justify their unprecedented, inexcusable and destruc- 
 tive procedure with our congregation. 
 
 This pamphlet needs and makes no apology for its ap- 
 pearance, but that of sad necessity. It needs but little ex- 
 planation. It will explain itself to him that reads it. 
 After almost two years of hard dealing with us, of the ifl' 
 tensest heart suffering for our erring brethren and for the 
 church we built and have supported in every way for al- 
 most thirty years, and after many bitter and untrue at- 
 tacks upon us, and after two compromises proposed by 
 ourselves, heartily entered into by all, and kept by our- 
 selves and broken by them, we have not written a line of 
 defense or explanation. 
 
 Often we felt we could endure the outrage no longer 
 but we now think better counsel prevailed. Many have 
 urged us, from the beginning, to tell the story as we 
 know it, but we have resisted this friendly interest until 
 now. We did not remain silent because we were guilty of 
 a great wrong or had no defense, as the reader will easily 
 see before he finishes reading these pages. We bore all 
 without response because we determined not to be re- 
 
sponsible for the continuance of the trouble and also in 
 the hope that after our clerical brethren had time to con- 
 sider th -ir great blunder and cool off they would relent 
 and the controversy would speedily come to a peaceful 
 end. Moreover we knew the cause of our Master would 
 suffer less and we would show the Christian spirit more if 
 we "answered not a word." Nor do we intend now to go 
 into the secular papers with our cause or make more than 
 a single reference to anything of the much the presiding 
 elder has published and sent out through the columns of 
 the Conference Herald and the little published by Bishop 
 Hott in the daily papers of our city. 
 
 Our first reason for breaking our long and patient si- 
 lence is that the attitude and conduct of the presiding 
 elder and the conference toward us waxes worse and 
 worse. Their course has gone from disregard of tacit and 
 and positive promises to us, from utterly ignoring every 
 courteous, reasonable and fairly expressed request and 
 petition we made to them, and from their arbitrary rule, 
 to high handed lawlessness and relentless oppression that 
 not only menaces the very existence of our congregation 
 but disgraces the whole church and threatens it wdth an- 
 archical confusion, present inefficiency and future decay. 
 Along with this there are an increasingly large number of 
 valuable, influential and sympathizing friends from many 
 sections in the church, and out of it, who say we have borne 
 the assaults and disregard of our rights long enough, and, 
 with earnest solicitation, urge us to tell our side of the story, 
 call attention to their own various lawless acts, and let 
 the people, acting as a jurj^ determine where the respon- 
 sibility for the disgraceful controversy should rest. 
 Another reason for publishing this pamphlet is that we 
 have been refused a hearing through the columns of the 
 Conference Herald and the Telescope. 
 
 Dr. Rock wrote to D. D. Lowery, the presiding elder, 
 January 21st, 1895, and said: 
 
 "My Brother:— Through the columns of the Conference 
 Herald you have made two attacks upon Trinity and 
 
myself. Will you, in fairness, allow me a reply through 
 the same medium." 
 
 To this he made no reply whatever. 
 
 On July 7th, 1896, Dr Rock wrote the editor of the 
 Telescope the following letter: — 
 
 Lebanon, Pa., July 7, 1896. 
 Editor Telescope, Dayton, O. 
 
 Dear Bro: — It appears that 
 the Lebanon Trinity Church controversy has become 
 known throughout the church and in a way that, to the 
 incor ectly informed, leads them to place all the respon- 
 sibility for the unfortunate trouble on the congregation 
 and myself We feel so assured that a true, clear and 
 unimpassioned statement of the facts in the columns of 
 the Telescope, with a clean and manly discussion of the 
 questions involved, would remove censure from us and 
 place it where it belongs, and do so great good for our 
 Zion that on behalf of the congregation and myself I 
 write to kindly ask you for the privilege of such state- 
 ment and discussion. We are futhermore led to such rea- 
 sonable and courteous request because the Telescope, in 
 publishing its own opinions and the movements of our 
 oppressors and the counsels and decisions of the board of 
 bishops, relative to the matter, has been the chief medi- 
 um of information to the whole church concerning the 
 controversy. It is the only existing medium through 
 which the entire church can be informed of the truth and 
 the facts and by which all fair minds will relieve us from 
 more than a fraction of censure for all the unpleasant 
 things that have occurred and for the gross and outrage- 
 ous wrongs that have been perpetrated. With the hope 
 that you will prove the friend of fair play and of the 
 wronged and oppressed, and with the one desire of secur- 
 ing justice to ourselves and greater justice to our Mas- 
 ter's cause, I am 
 
 ■Vours Faithfully, 
 
 R. ROCK. 
 
 To this letter the editor of the Telescope made the fol- 
 lowing reply: 
 
 Daytox, O., July 9th, 1896. 
 Rev. R. Rock, D. D. 
 
 Dear Brother: — Replying to yours 
 of the 7th inst., I would say that the columns of the 
 Telescope cannot be thiowa upcii to a ui.^cusaiou of the 
 merits and demerits of the case to which you refer. To do 
 
so. -would be to inflict great injury upon the whole church, 
 •nd could result in no good whatever. Of cours:^ official 
 statements in regard to the matter, coming from the quar- 
 terly and the annual conference, or from the presiding 
 elder or the board of bishops, will be published when ac- 
 companied by a request to that effect, but nothing more." 
 
 Just what is meant by "official statements" we cannot 
 tell but it will be observed that ha shuts out "the merits 
 and demerits of the case." We made the request think- 
 ing the Telescope belongs to the laity of the church 
 just as much as to the clerical officials, and with the un- 
 derstanding that when an exposure or attack is made on 
 any person or persons they have the right of defense 
 through the same medium. 
 
 But it will appear evident to all that either we must re- 
 main under the censure of having no justification for our 
 course, and the non-informed and misinformed must re- 
 main ignorant of the facts, and the guilty go free of the 
 censure and condemnation they deserve, or we must pub- 
 lish the facts through the most respectable medium open 
 to us. 
 
 In telling the story we will indulge in no coloring nor 
 use any of the arts of rhetoric. Nor will we aim to use 
 Ihe "rubbing in" process on our enemies and oppressors, 
 although they have often made themselves vulaerable. 
 A clear, unimpassioned statement and the unvarnished 
 truth will be severer than we could wish, but this we can 
 not avoid. The best we can do is to state the truth in 
 kind, soft words. While we will not pose as perfect, 
 their mistakes will be set down as well as our own and 
 this to show that there are abundant mitigating circum- 
 atances to justify our course. Nor do we publish the facts 
 because of any ill will to our brethren who have so cruelly 
 and unfeelingly wronged us or with any desire to do them 
 harm. We love them, but do not love their conduct, and 
 atand ready any time to meet them and end the contro- 
 versy with a love feast when they do works meet for re- 
 pehtance, and are willing to respect our tastes, our choices 
 and our rights. ^ 
 
We will first invite the attention of our readers to the 
 
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 In many controversies, even where there is no authority 
 for the course pursued by either or both parties involved, 
 there are one or more mitigating or palliating circum- 
 st inces, that is facts which either explain the conduct or 
 lessen or remove the guilt of the offender or do both. 
 Leaving out of the question at this place any discussion 
 as to the loyalty or lawlessness of Trinity church in re- 
 jecting Rev. /. A. Weidlerand employing Rev Dr. Rock 
 we invite the unprejudiced and impartial attention of the 
 church to a number of facts, put down in the order of 
 their occurrence, which explain our course and we believe 
 will be sufficient to justify us and to place the responsi- 
 bility for all our trouble upon the conference or those 
 who acted for it. We do not say we acted infallibly in all 
 we did, but we ask our brethren who believe in fairness 
 and the practice of good faith among men, and also in 
 the right of the laity to a vo'ce in the selection of a suit- 
 able pastor, and the rejection of one disqualified, for any 
 reason, to serve them with efficiency, to determine, from the 
 following facts. whether we were not tempted by an extra- 
 ordinary provocation. 
 
 r. In the latter part of the conference year of 189^, it 
 became known to us and our pastor, Rev. C J Kephart, 
 that he would retire, two months later, from the pastorate 
 of our congregation. There was some talk about a suit- 
 able preacher to be his successor and he kindly suggested 
 the name of Dr Rock, as probibly an available man. 
 This was the first and only suggestion of the name of Dr. 
 Rock, from any source, and to this we gave but little 
 thought until after hearing him at Mt. Gretna camp- 
 meeting, and still more at the last quarterly conference 
 for that year 
 
 2, Not a few times, in our homes, on the street cars 
 and elsewhere, our presiding elder, Rev. D. D. Lowery, 
 iindly, ^.^d. yfc thought with sincerity, asked us who we 
 
wanted for our next pastor. To his inquiry we never ir?- 
 dicated a name. Then in our last quarterly conference 
 for that year, and held on the evening of September 4th, 
 1894, and after the regular business was finished, and in, 
 accordance with our custom and a very common practice 
 throughout the church, Rev. I/Owery asked us whether we 
 desired to take any action as to who should be our next 
 pastor. The reader will observe that the presiding elder 
 brought the matter up himself and virtually invited us to 
 make a selection and shoulder the responsibility. Our 
 reply was that we thought of making no selection. As 
 times were close and we were in debt we wauld accept an 
 appointment from the conference and very much reduce 
 the salary. Against this idea of reducing the salary the 
 presiding elder and our pastor protested earnestly, with 
 good reasons. Then one of our oflBcials said, "If we must 
 pay the old salary we intend to have good preaching and 
 want some say about who shall do it." No one raised any 
 objection to that and, acting on the earlier suggestion of 
 our pastor, he proceeded to move that we call Dr. Rock. 
 The presiding elder refused to entertain thio motion, say- 
 ing, calls were not legal in our church. This is doubtful 
 according to discipline, page 80, section 5. 
 
 Then the question was asked, "What will you enter- 
 tain?" He replied, "I will entertain a motion requesting 
 the conference to send you Dr. Rock." A motion request- 
 ing the conference to send us Dr, Rock was immediately 
 made and carried without a dissenting vote. Besides all 
 this, we call attention to the fact that we did not ignore 
 and treat discourteously, either the presiding elder or the 
 conference, but courteously requested them to send us 
 Dr. Rock. It has been our custom to make our own se- 
 lection of a pastor and we were never denied our choice 
 before, and would not have been at that time with a pre- 
 siding elder and bishop of less egotism and more judg- 
 ment. 
 
 3. After adjournment of the qusulerly conference and 
 on the way home that night, one of our officials asked 
 
Rev. Lowery if he would notify Dr. Rock of our action. 
 He kindly replied, "You notify him." In that same 
 quarterly conference he said, "You have asked for Dr. 
 Rock and you shall have him," and in a letter to one of 
 our brethren, and which we have, he said, "I do not sup 
 pose that there is, in our conference, any man weak- 
 minded enough to want to go where he is not wanted. So 
 that difficulty, I should think, would be settled." Bit 
 two such men have been found in the conference, men 
 who not only wanted to come but appealed to force to be 
 our pastor. 
 
 4, Dr. Rock was then notified of the action of our 
 quarterly conference and the desire of our people, and 
 upon receiving the notice he asked for a transfer from his 
 conference, expecting to place it with East Pennsylvania 
 Conference, and also declined work from his conference. 
 As East Pennsylvania Conference did not convene until a 
 month later, he was idle dining that time awaiting ap- 
 pointment here and also lost |roo salary, that being the 
 amount per month he was receiving at Summit street 
 church, Dayton, O. By the time too, that the East Penn- 
 sylvania Conference convened, the fall conferences were 
 all over and he would have been obliged to go out of the 
 church to get pastoral employment. 
 
 5. During this month of waiting Dr. Rock wrote to 
 D. D Lowery concerning the matter. Not dreaming of 
 any trouble, or a misuse of his letter, he kept no copy. 
 After Rev. Lowery garbled portions of it and published 
 them in the Conference Herald, Dr. Rock wrote him, 
 kindly asking for a copy of the letter, and he did not 
 even reply . Dr. Rock authorizes us to challenge him to 
 publish the letter in full in the Conference Herald or in 
 the Telescope, or both. As nearly as Dr. Rock can re- 
 member, the substance of the letter was as follows: 
 
 Dayton, O , Sept. 15, (about) 1894. 
 Rev. D. D. Lowry, Harrisburg, Pa. 
 
 Dear Bro: — I have an in- 
 vitation to become the pastor of Tnnity, Lebanon, and 
 
8 
 
 am glad you have given your approval. ' In lieu] of this 
 I have taken a transfer from my conference and if you 
 think the wa}^ is clear I will send you my transfer and 
 become one of your number and go to work to build up 
 the kingdom of the Master as represented by your con- 
 ference. It would be a calamity to myself and family if 
 the appointment should not be made. What shall I do?" 
 
 This is not all of the letter but such portion as bears 
 more directly on the matter before us. The whole letter 
 is an open, frank expression to the presiding elder and 
 as absolutely free from any scheming or deceit as can be. 
 We desire the reader to mark the statement, "If you 
 think the way is clear," and the question, "What shall 
 I do?" 
 
 In a little more than two weeks from the date of Dr. 
 Rock's letter and on Monday of the week in which East 
 Penna. Conference convened on Wednesday, he received 
 from Rev. Lowery the following postal card : 
 
 "My Dear Bro. Rock: Just received your letter this mo- 
 ment. Sorry it was not forwarded to me. It will be "all 
 right" so far as I am concerned. But, you know, my 
 opinion cannot be final. Conference may instrnct other- 
 wise. The Miami conference affair last year has encour- 
 aged that kind of disposition on the part of some of our- 
 brethren. I am anticipating no difficulty, however. 
 Yours Fraternally, 
 
 D. D. LOWERY, 
 10-1-94. Harrisburg, Pa." 
 
 In the Conference Herald for December, 1894, Rev. 
 Lowery undertakes to explain away the evident meaning 
 of tne word "anticipate" as used in his card saying: 
 
 "I was particularly concerned about the wording of 
 this sentence, and did not mean to say that I expect no 
 difficult}', for I was very uncertain as to the issue of this 
 question at conference, and so I used the word "antici- 
 pate" in the sense of "to take up beforehand or before 
 the proper time," to "pre-occupy," "forestall." 
 
 Bro. Lowerv scarcely has the reputation of having such 
 
superfine taste for words or of being such a linguistic 
 metaphysician as to use a word with such very fine dis- 
 crimination. He gave as his reason for not writing a 
 letter instead of a card that he had no stamp, and yet he 
 has all that free delivery signifies. But Dr. Rock took 
 the card to be a frank and altogether friendly reply and 
 to mean just what it says, and acted accordingly. Had he 
 dreamed trouble was brewing he would have attended 
 the East Pennsylvania Conference session in person and 
 have placed his transfer with the conference. But think- 
 ing, from Bro. Lowery's card, that all would be well, he 
 concluded to commit all to him and save the heavy ex- 
 pense of the trip, since Bro. Lowery "anticipated no diffi 
 culty." If he knew trouble was brewing why did he not, 
 with honesty and brotherly frankness, say so to Dr. Rock 
 and suggest to him that he come and look after his own 
 interests. This would have made an honest impression. 
 Instead of this he declares that he used the word "antici- 
 pate" in the sense in which it is only seldom used and in 
 a sense differing from what Dr. Rock was likely to un- 
 derstand. If he had been as brave and honest as he is 
 stubborn and bigoted he would have been frank with Dr. 
 Rock. He evidently meant what any man would think 
 he meant after reading the card, although we have a letter 
 from him, written to one of our brethren before this, in 
 which, it plainly appears, that himself and others were 
 planning to defeat Dr. Rock's appointment to Trinity. 
 Although Rev. Ivowery said to Dr. Rock that a certain 
 bishop had said the card was against Dr. Rock, that same 
 bishop said to Dr. Rock that he had a right to think every- 
 thing all right from what was in the card, and not a person 
 to whom the card has been shpwn, and it has been shown 
 to many, places any other interpretation upon it. All say 
 he had a right to think everything all right with the pre- 
 siding elder and to expect the appointment. 
 
 6. Notwithstanding Bishop Hott told us we were un- 
 der no legal obligations to pay Dr. Rock, we did not be- 
 lieve it, but felt ourselves under both moral and legal 
 
lO 
 
 obligations to him for his full salary, since through onr 
 giving him notice of ovir action and requesting him to be- 
 come our pastor, he was without remunerative employ- 
 ment with which to support his family. And we we;it so 
 far as to invite Dr. Rock to become our pastor because it 
 had been our custom, from the beginning, to select our 
 pastor, excepting an instance or two, and the conference 
 had always kindly granted us our choice. We secured 
 our former pastor without the assistance of the confer- 
 ence or presiding elder and we never knew any one to 
 make any ado about it. 
 
 7. During this same month of waiting and only one 
 week before the convening of East Penna. Conference, 
 and while Bishop Hott was in our city holding Bast Ger- 
 man Conference, two of our officials called on him at 
 Rev. H. S. Gabel's, where he had his home, to have a 
 talk with him concerning our action and to urge the ap- 
 pointment of Dr. Rock. He then knew of nothing in the 
 way and spoke in complimentary terms of Dr. Rock as a 
 preacher but then, and later, in a letter, spoke disparag- 
 ingly of him as a pastor. When they said, "If you think 
 anything more is necessary to secure the appointment we 
 can send a petition to conference signed by at least five 
 sixths of our congregation," he replied, "It is not neces- 
 sary . All you need do is to send a certified copy of your 
 quarterly conference action." To the question, "To whom 
 shall we send it?" he replied, "To me." Dr. Rock was 
 put in possession of these kindly dispositions of the bishop 
 and these, with what we have set down before, led him 
 to confide in the authorities and commit all to them. 
 
 8. On the floor of that memorable conference where 
 those tacit and positive promises were broken, our lay 
 delegate, duly authorized to do so, warned the conference 
 that if Dr. Rock was not appointed there would be 
 trouble. What has followed is more than a sufficient re- 
 ply to the question, "Was he right ?" 
 
 9 . In the face of these facts and to say the least, taci t 
 promises of the bishop and presiding elder, they sent us 
 
11 
 
 Rev. Z. A. Weidler, a man that could not, under any «i-r- 
 cumstances, and especially under the sensitive and pe- 
 culiar conditions that had been created by their arbitrary 
 procedure, have served us advantageously in any particu- 
 lar. We had heard of failures at Baltimore and Phila- 
 delphia and did not know of signal success anywhere, al- 
 though Bishop Hott, in an effort to persuade us to drop 
 Dr. Rock and accept Rev. Weidler, wrote to A. S. Light, 
 editor of the Courier, and postmaster of this city, 
 saying, " There were elements in the case deeper 
 really than you apprehended, in the minds of the breth- 
 ren of the confei^nce. You heard the speeches on the 
 conference floor and saw the vote, and of course you will 
 know that with the case as it rested, in the minds of the 
 conference, to have appointed Dr. Rock to Trinity church 
 would have been to create a breach in the conference 
 which I am sure, from what I saw of your spirit, you and 
 your church would not wish to have created. Better to 
 endure something else. It gives me great pain of heart 
 that I could not see my way clear under these circum- 
 stances, to comply with your request. Of course I do not 
 think you or 3'our people could, under these conditions, 
 have expected any other course from the committee.* My 
 only interest is to serve the cause of the Master and the 
 churches and though you have not asked a word of 
 counsel from myself, I have known the parties 
 in this matter for many years. I venture to say to 
 you that your church is well supplied. Bro. Weidler is 
 an able man, a fine scholar, a tireless studeat and worker, 
 and a man of unblemished life and devotion to the cause 
 of the Master, and has a good record. He is such a man 
 as you may well be proud of, and he will keep you in 
 good shape and do you good service, and honor the 
 cause we all love. I do not wish to reflect on the one you 
 have thought of, for I have no occasion ^to do so, but in 
 all candor I must say to you that if you knew all in this 
 matter you would feel that you are fortunate personally 
 and as a church. Now I know what I sav, vou are be#ter 
 
supplied as you are — very much better.'" We call especial 
 attention to the mystery he indicates in the "deeper ele- 
 ments in the case," and to the insinuating and cowardly 
 way in which he reflects upon Dr. Rock, as if something 
 awful might be wrong with his record as a man and as a 
 pastor. Of course everybod}' who knows the facts will 
 smile at his pettifogging when he speaks so superlatively 
 of Rev. Weidler's scholarship, ability and success, and 
 they will laugh more at the saying that we would be 
 "very much better" served by Rev. Weidler than by Dr. 
 Rock. One word, right here, as to Dr. Rock's efficiency. 
 We have never been served better in the pulpit and rarely 
 so well in our homes. He is equally strong as a preach- 
 er and a pastor. We had heard well of him, but he has 
 far superseded our expectations. We are so delighted 
 with him, that we could have no greater pleasure, than 
 to have him appointed our pastor at once. 
 
 During the first half of this year Mr. Rigor, who poses 
 now as our pastor, after he voted, with the conference, at 
 the special session, to end his pastorate, to annul our con- 
 tract with him, and accepted an appointment to "a new 
 society" which he should organize, but never will, be- 
 cause he can't, was in the habit of saying that "Weidler 
 should have resigned at once, that the conference should 
 never have sent him," and gave as a reason that "he has 
 destroyed several churches." Moreover our former 
 pastor must have thought the conditions here suggested 
 our going abroad for a pastor, or he would not have men- 
 tioned the name of Dr. Rock as a man that would pro- 
 bably suit us. 
 
 lo. Upon our giving Rev. Z. A. Weidler information 
 that we would not receive him, he requested a special ses- 
 sion of quarterly conference, to counsel on the situation. 
 The presiding elder called the conference and in it the 
 plea was made to receive him but we told him we were 
 under obligations to Dr. Rock, that the stationing com- 
 mittee had broken faith with us, that we had been dealt 
 with arbitrarily and that therefore, if he even suited us, 
 
^-3 
 
 nve could not and would not receive and support him. 
 Nor did we think ourselves lawless in doing this, for we 
 believed then and believe now that, when our law is 
 ^properly , interpreted, it guarantees to the laity an imme- 
 diate voice in the selection of a pastor and the right of 
 redress from plainly unwise and arbitrary appointments. 
 If it does not, then all this talk about the freedom o'f our 
 polity from episcopacy-, about tbe right of appeal being 
 inviolate, and about Congregationalism in our polity, is 
 so much twaddle". The ditference between Congrega- 
 tionalism, as those who have the itinerant system use the 
 term, and an absolute itineracy, is the difference between 
 the calling of a pastor by the congregation and the ap- 
 pointing of one by a constituted authority in which the 
 •congregation has no immediate voice at all. 
 
 All can see, too, that the appointment of Rev. Weidler 
 ■was a challenge. Officially, we had given notice that it 
 Dr. Rock was not appointed there would be trouble. 
 They did not believe us and so challenged us to make 
 good our warning. 
 
 II. Notwithstanding Rev. Z. A. Weidler refused to re- 
 sign, we renewed our call to Dr. Rock and employed him 
 for the year, every member of our official board signing 
 the contract. Having in regular quarterly conference>, 
 rejected Rev. Weidler, we verily believed that we had a 
 disciplinary right to employ the man we desired to serve 
 us. We knew of nothing in the way bat the arbitrary 
 refusal of the presiding elder to appoint Dr. Rock, and 
 that was an obstruction easily overcome. The only thing 
 that cast any doubt on our belief, but did not change our 
 opinion, was the decision of the Board of Bishops making 
 a preacher a pastor and giving him control of a church 
 as soon as appointed to it by the stationing committee 
 and leaving the congregation without any appeal or re^ 
 dress. In lieu of their decision, however, we heartily 
 fell in line with their recommendation to arbitrate the 
 case, but Rev. Weidler refused to consider it. 
 
 Some persons have thought that had we postponed the 
 
H 
 
 employment of Dr. Rock a little longer, Rev. Weidler 
 would have resigned. That may be. But in the light of 
 his obstinate persistence in doing the very unseemly thing 
 of wanting to stay where he was not wanted and could 
 not be useful we do not now thiak so. The employment 
 of Dr. Rock seems to have led to the determination with 
 Revs. Lowery and Weidler that they would fif?ht. 
 
 12. About this time Rev. D. D. Lowery announced in 
 our city payers that Bishop Hott would preach in Trinity 
 church the first Sabbath, morning and evening, in Novem- 
 ber. This he did without consulting us. The bishop, presid- 
 ing elder and Rev. Weidler came to the city on Saturday 
 and went straight to a hotel. One of our brethren, Ma- 
 jor H. P. Moyer, cashier of the Farmer's National Bank, 
 this city, went to them and entreated them not to stay at 
 the hotel but to accept the hospitality of our homes. 
 Bishop Hott said: "No. We are not wanted here and I 
 have the money in my pocket to pay my way." Any 
 one can see that for the good of the church we did not 
 want our bishop, in a city in which there are 1,200 or 
 1,300 United Brethren, to stay at a hotel while here 
 preaching in our church. Our entreaties failing, we ar- 
 ranged for a meeting on Saturday evening at the home of 
 J. B. Ranch, then President of the Farmers' National 
 Bank, this city, of precious memory and now in lieav- 
 en. Our entire board and some others met them in this 
 meeting and, altera long and warm conference,, in which 
 arbitration was talked of, we adjourned to meet again on 
 the following Monday evening and to open the church 
 and to hear the bishop preach twice the next day. He 
 tried to preach the next morning and made one of his fa- 
 mous jj failures, although he had a magnificent audience 
 and then said, that "feeling quite nervous and unwell, 
 he would not preach in the evening." They returned to 
 their hotel, ate their dinner, we suppose, and after dinner 
 sent us a proposed plan for arbitration and left, by rail, 
 for Mountville, where he preached that evening, notwith- 
 standing he was "too nervous and unwell" to preach for usc 
 
15 
 
 "SVhi'le 'he spent Saturday evening in urging upon our con- 
 sciences obedience to man made law he unnecessarily 
 'broke God's Sabbath law in the using of a Sunday train. 
 We will say more of the Saturday night meeting and of 
 "his failure to return from Mount\nlle and met't us in offi- 
 <cial meeting on Monday evening, under the general head 
 of "False and Damaging Reports." 
 
 13. Soon after Dr. Rock moved among us we called a 
 •congregational meeting for the purpose of submitting to 
 it the action of the official board in employing Dr. Rock. 
 This meeting was very largely attended and unanimously 
 •confirmed our action. Rev. Weidler, seeking to enter 
 the church to preach, we forcibly prohibited him from 
 entering for any other purpose than as a worshipper. 
 
 14. He then appealed to the courts, rather than to 
 fair arbitration and the law of the church, for possession 
 of the pulpit. Couldn't he have done us a great deal of 
 good and would he not have had a deal of joy(?) if he 
 had gotten it ! 
 
 15. The case hung in the courts without trial, on its 
 merits, when, early in the following August a compro- 
 mise was effected. Dr. Rock and J. B. Raueh having 
 persuaded Bishop E. B. Kephart, D. D., to act as arbiter, 
 the case was settled by Dr. Rock withdrawing, Rev. 
 Z. A. Weidler resigning and taking the case out of court. 
 We also agreed to forget what of the past would be un- 
 pleasant and unprofitable to remember and be brethren , 
 dwelling together "in the unity of the spirit and in the 
 bonds of peace." More will be said of the terms of this 
 compromise later on. 
 
 17. Almost two months later we sent a petition to the 
 conference convened at Penbrook, asking it to appoint 
 Dr. Rock pastor of our congregation. This petition was 
 signed by 190 of our membership, and more would have 
 signed it had we taken more time and it was presented 
 to the stationing committee by Major H. P. Moyer, cash- 
 ier of the Farmers' National Bank ; J. Hunsicker, man- 
 ager of the Lebanon Manufacturing company; J. H. 
 
i6 
 
 Seltzer, President of the Ivcbanon Stove Works; C. E.. 
 Rauch, one of the leading merchants of the city, and E.- 
 E. McCurdy, attorney-at-law, the first two being mem- 
 bers of the city council, and all of them among the very 
 best citizens of our city. After we cleared away some 
 debris that some one, who had small regard for the truth 
 when a lie would suit him better, had placed' in the way, 
 and after urging, with many reasons, the appointment of 
 Dr. Rock, and, after promising the stationing committee, 
 composed of Bishop Mills, D. D., Rev^. H. B. Dohner 
 and D. D. Lowery, "the best year financially, numeri- 
 cally and spiritually, in the history of Trinity church,'" 
 the bishop was very much in favor of appointing Dr. 
 Rock, but the other members of the committee opposed 
 it to the last. Besides our promise to the committee, 'we 
 urged that Dr. Rock not only suited us entirely but that 
 he was, as we thought then and thini? now, the only man 
 that could rally our people and save the church. And 
 this not because no other could serve us just as well, un- 
 der different conditions, btrt because the heart of our 
 people was set upon him and many would not forgive 
 the cruelty of shutting him out of the pastorate of our 
 church, when he, with his family, were on the ground 
 and so thoroughly competent to do us good work. It is 
 worthy of note, too, that Dr. Rock had, up to this time^. 
 held the respect and good will of our people, but four or 
 five persons at most, and had not had an unkind word 
 with any of them. At that time he could have rallied all 
 but three or four, and could save all but a very few yet if 
 he were made pastor in the regular way. Not very long 
 ago, and just before the parsonage was sold for debt, Mr, 
 Rigor admitted that Dr. Rock could save everything if 
 he had it to himself. 
 
 But the presiding elder gave as his great and manly 
 reason for refusing the appointment "It would be a vic- 
 tory for Rock." And Mr. Dohner opposed the appoint- 
 ment of Dr. Rock "because he was guilty of trespass," 
 although a compromise had been effected, (we might say 
 
17 
 
 affected on their part ) in which the unpleasant past was 
 ^o be forgiven and forgotten, and we were to be 
 "brethren" dwelling together '4n the unity of the spirit 
 and in the bonds of peace." 
 
 The conference adjourned without making any ap- 
 pointment to Trinity. Having sent us word of their pur- 
 pose, the stationing committee came here on Monday af- 
 ter conference and held a three hours' meeting with our 
 official board. Here again the entire board urged our 
 reasons for the appointment of Dr. Rock and again we 
 promised "the best year financially, numerically and 
 spiritually in the history of the church," and plead, some 
 of us with tears, for the appointment of Dr. Rock. Bish- 
 op Mills heartily favored the appointment but Lowery 
 and Dohner were obstinate to the last, and that too, after 
 J. B. Ranch, perhaps the best man among us, plead with 
 tears, and said, "we have had some good preachers and 
 some good pastors, but Dr. Rock is the best all around 
 pastor we ever had." That day our dear brother took 
 a cold which carried him to his grave inside three weeks 
 and we think that but for the meeting made necessary by 
 the stubbornness of two members of the c ommittee he 
 would be here to-day. Whatevtr the reader may hear to 
 the contrary, Bro. Ranch was as indignant as any of us 
 with both appointments, was ready to invest much money 
 in defending our rights, and would not, had he lived, as- 
 sisted Mr. Rigor in fixing things up. 
 
 1 8. The presiding elder soon left the city for Harris- 
 burg and that evening appointed to the pastorate of our 
 church G. W. M. Rigor, a man to whom the conference 
 had given no employment for six preceding years and 
 this for the alleged reason of his inefficiency. We used 
 to pity him and thought, with him, that he was refused an 
 appointment during all those years because of the ani- 
 mosities engendered by the Stoverdale campmeeting 
 fight . We thought the old man should have been given 
 some small and less important charge, but we beg pardon 
 of the conference and acknowledge that we now see how, 
 
i8 
 
 on the gronnds of inefi5ciency, they were justified in 
 not giving him charge of any field of labor. The 
 presiding elder is reported as saying on Friday night 
 before appointing him on Monday, "The poorest charge 
 in the conference is too good for Rigor," or words 
 £o that effect. Think of saying this of a man and then in 
 three days giving him the best appointment east of Ohio. 
 He said this in answer to a plea that was made to give 
 Mr. Rigor some light work at least. 
 
 19. We resolved immediately to refuse him moral or 
 financial support, but seeing our congregation going to 
 pieces and, aware that our people, being so insulted with 
 the refusal to appoint Dr. Rock and with the appoint- 
 ment of Mr. Rigor, that they could not be rallied and the 
 church saved, upon the suggestion of Dr. Rock, we con- 
 sented to a compromise for which we have all been pain- 
 fully sorry a thousand times. Dr. Rock made the sug- 
 gestion in good faith and with the hope that it would se- 
 cure peace and opon the way for doing good. The com- 
 promise provided that we should accept and support Mr. 
 Rigor as pastor and Dr. Rock was to be made assistant 
 pastor. It was a humiliating position for Dr. Rock but he 
 saw and we knew that if he moved out of the city our con- 
 gregation would immediately scatter under such a minis- 
 try. Mr. Rigor declared he would stay if he did not 
 get a dollar. During the time we tried to persuade 
 him to resign, and in one of our official meetings, 
 he was asked what Weidler should have done 
 when sent here and rejected. His reply was, "He 
 should have resigned." When told that the conditions 
 were more vexing and sensitive than a year before 
 and asked, "Why don't you resign then?" he replied, "I 
 have never resigned from anything and do not intend to 
 break my record." If he had been more careful about 
 his record in some other things and less careful in this 
 that involved no honesty or veracity, it would have been 
 much to his advantage and ours. Immediately after the 
 compromise he proceeded to encourage rivalry between 
 
19 
 
 the factions, made a disturbing noise here and elsewhere 
 about the exercise of our rights in elections, and contin- 
 ued daily to ignore and violate the articles of the com- 
 promise into which he not only entered heartily, but 
 made an unsuccessful effort to have the matter compro- 
 mised in the same way, substantially, before Dr. Rock 
 took hold of it. Rev. I/Owery says he was pressed into it 
 and we suppose Mr. Rigor told him so, but Mr. Rigor 
 heartily agreed to it and then tried hard to wriggle out 
 of signing what he had agreed to when it was reduced to 
 writing. It may be interesting to some to know that 
 Rev Lowery was pressed into consenting to it, and only 
 because he was determined we should not have Dr. 
 Rock in any official capacity whatever. To add to all 
 Mr. Rigor lent his influence to the calling of a special 
 session of the conference, reporting that we were insub- 
 ordinate, when so far from being true, he was the only 
 one of our number not keeping the articles of compro- 
 mise which he signed as well as we. We gave him 
 moral and financial support. The members of the offi- 
 cial board that entered into a compromise with him 
 heard him regularly, and with all this, his audiences 
 numbet-ed regularly from 44 to b5 before the special ses- 
 sion of the conference and from 19 to 44 since that, while 
 in the season for congregations. Dr. Rock preaches to a 
 full house. And ]\Ir. Rigor went to that conference and 
 voted to depose all our officials from office and turn every 
 member, his friends and all, out of the church without 
 notice much less trial; and this he did when he was paid 
 his salary for 18 days beyond the date of the conference. 
 Reader, would you receive and support such a man to 
 teach you and your children righteousness ? And if our 
 law really gives unbridled authority to some jealous, en- 
 vious, self-willed, self-interested, egotistic, bigoted, stub- 
 born and unstatesman-like presiding elder to make such 
 appointments, and puts him under no compulsion to as- 
 sist in dismissing the most consummate inefficiency im- 
 aginable, and if it upholds such an appointee in forcing 
 
himself upon a people to whom he is already odious and 
 for whom he can do no good whatever, and leaves them 
 without appeal or redress of any kind but the disgraceful 
 one of starving him out, does it not sadly need radical 
 change and improvement? Is there not something here 
 for the next General Conference to do to harmonize the 
 law with rights and with the American and Christian 
 spirit ? 
 
 20. Last of all came, on June 12th, 1896, the special 
 session (blunder) of East Penna, Conference, called for 
 the alleged purpose of saving the church from sale and to 
 restore peace to the much disturbed congregation; but it 
 succeeded in committing the greatest blunder and the 
 most daring piece of high-handed lawlessness known in 
 the history of the church. It cost I31 to bring Bishop 
 Weaver from Dayton and $35 to bring Bishop Kephart 
 from Fort Scott, Kansas. In all it cost the conference 
 not much short of $400 and who will pay "the fiddler." 
 Why the dear laity of course, the people that have no 
 voice in the selection of a pastor and who must submit 
 to the rule of clericallords over God's heritage when they 
 see fit to arbitrarily override their most courteous and 
 reasonable petitions. 
 
 But from a political standpoint we might rejoice over 
 the action of the special conference, for it not only shows 
 how very wise and great men can lose their heads and 
 commit great blunders and how little regard some men, 
 who appoint themselves guardians of the law and keep- 
 ers' of the church's purity, have for the law, when they 
 wish to carry a po int, but it also showed the bigoted and 
 persecuting spirit of our oppressors, and brought almost 
 everybody who knows of the action to our side. 
 
 This is all we will write of the special conference un- 
 der the general subject of mitigating circumstances since 
 we wish to call it up again under 
 
2T 
 
 THINGS UNLAWFUL. 
 
 There has been so much said by members of the con- 
 ference and a few others about the disobedience of Dr. 
 Rock and ourselves "to the order and discipline of the 
 church" that we think something should be said here to 
 show who the great law breakers are. If we did any- 
 thing unlawful, they more. And on their side, not only 
 did the members of the conference transgress, but, sad 
 to write it, bishops and ex-bishops were among the 
 transgressors. If we have done things not commenda- 
 ble, we have some royal company'. 
 
 First of all, the conference used $495 of Church exten- 
 sion money, which the people gave to build churches, to 
 pay Rev. Z. A. Weidler, their law3'ers and court costs. 
 Rev. Weidler receiving ^100 of it, and the balance was 
 used to pay their lawyer and their court costs — money not 
 given for any such purpose. 
 
 Secondly, certain of them drew $300 out of the Mis- 
 sionary treasury and gave it to Rev. Weidler, and this 
 without the conference taking action upon it before or 
 since and when Trinity was not a mission nor was Rev. 
 Weidler a missionary. That was a perversion and mis- 
 use of sacred funds given by the people for a special pur- 
 pose and could not be used legally, for any other purpose. 
 And yet after receiving these |4oo,illigitemately bestowed, 
 and some other money and donations given by the peo- 
 ple hare. Rev. Weidler stood upon the conference floor 
 last fall and said that during the year his children had 
 gone to bed hungry and crying for food and at times they 
 did not have shoes fit to go to school. At the same time 
 he occupied a house, the rent of which was I15 per month, 
 and seemed to have money to go to Harrisburg and else- 
 where every now and then. 
 
 Thirdly, during all last year, excepting the special 
 session to which reference has been made, the presiding 
 elder refused to recognize our quarterly conference and 
 held a bogus quarter!}- conference, each quarter, in the 
 
home of Rev. Z. A. Weidler and within the bounds of 
 the East German Conference,- and with not more than 
 two of our officials present at any meeting This he did 
 although we were not disorganized, nor could we be 
 by his ipn dijclt. Nor did we even think of denying him 
 the privilege of holding the quarterly conference in our 
 church. In that "rump" quarterly conference they elected 
 a third member of the committee to try Dr. Rock for tres- 
 pass,although Dr. Rock's committeeman was doing his best 
 to secure a satisfactory third man, and when he f died our 
 quarterly conference alone had authority to elect one They 
 elected Rev. J. Dickson, D. D., who heartily consented 
 fo act upon such an election and met, at Harrisburg.with 
 the presiding elder and other members of the committee 
 and with Revs. Meredith and Ludwig, the prosecutors in 
 the case, and proceeded to try Dr. Rock with a commit- 
 tee of two, when the discipline requires three, without 
 Dr. Rock or his counsel being present, and without any 
 witnesses for the defense, and without hearing anything 
 on his behalf. The farcical trial ended, star chamber 
 fashion, they rendered the predetermined verdict of 
 guilty and later Dickson and Lyter, the two members of 
 the committee, suspended him. It reminds us of some 
 of the farcical trials of the days of the Inquisition and of 
 a recent trial and execution of a Cuban patriot by the 
 Spaniards. 
 
 Does any one ask, why Dr. Rock did not attend the far- 
 cical trial at Harrisburg ? He knew a third man had not 
 been properly elected, that the trial could not legally 
 proceed, as has been decided by the bishops, and he 
 would not recognize the illegal court. He was always 
 ready for trial and even wished, with us, for a chance to 
 be heard before a legal and unbiased court. Neither Dr. 
 Rock nor ourselves are worried about the sham, for it is 
 destined to hurt those who did the unlawful thing, more 
 than it will hurt him. We only want the people to see 
 that neither their knowledge of nor their respect for the 
 law is so great as they pretend. 
 
23 
 
 And thanks to the Board of Bishops, who by decision 
 No. 15 declared Lowery's quarterly conference, Dickson 
 as a committeeman, and Dr. Rock's trial and suspension, 
 all bogus. 
 
 And now Dickson and the rest, who were disobedient 
 •*'to the order and discipline of the church " should make 
 their confession and also have somebody prosecute and 
 suspend them. How would they like charges preferred 
 against them, and to be tried and suspended by an un- 
 lawful committeeman ? We await their confession and 
 so do those who know the facts. They are just as guilty 
 of "disobedience to the order and discipline of the 
 •church" as Dr. Rock was. Not only in one thing, but 
 :some of them in several, as this chapter will show. 
 
 We want all to notice that a man, a former bishop, who 
 has taken so much pains to help the conference make 
 war on us, has not been innocent himself. 
 
 Again, in October, 1894, the Conference laid the penal- 
 ty' of no employment for a year upon two preachers whose 
 characters they had passsed a day or two before. And 
 this they did while Bishop Hott was presiding, and he 
 permitted it without protest. Again, that same confer- 
 ence appropriated $300 to Boehm church, Reading, a 
 very prominent mission, and a regularly registered 
 church, and at the suggestion of the presiding elder, have 
 not paid it to this day. Our presiding elder also refused 
 to appoint that church any pastor, because it wa nted one 
 of these men the Conference resolved not to employ. 
 Having no pastor they afterward employed the man they 
 wanted, and, for this reason, the I300 were withheld. 
 They gave exactly that amount of missionery money to 
 Rev. Weidler that year. It is still due the congregation, 
 and, of course, they will get it. They have recourse to 
 the civil law to compel these lawbreakers to perform 
 their legal and moral duties and keep their promises. 
 
 In the bogus quarterly conference, to which reference 
 has been made, the presiding elder and his supporters 
 elected a lay delegate to the annual conference and the 
 
conference admitted him to a seat in the body at both' 
 the regular and special sessions, and this last they did af- 
 ter the Board of Bishops had decided that the annual 
 conference is alone competent to deal with an insubordi- 
 nate congregation. 
 
 Last and most presumptious and lawless of all, if that 
 is possible, a majority asked the bishop to call a special 
 session of conference on June i:?, 1896 It was set going 
 that we intended to sell the church, and the conference 
 was called to save the church from sale. False as the 
 report was, whoever was the father of the lie, the confer- 
 ence convened and Bishop Kephart presided, assisted by 
 Bishop Weaver. Bishop Hott was also present. With- 
 out giving us any notice or warning of their intended ac- 
 tion and after, in conference assembled, making the com- 
 plaint of insubordination and inefficiency against us, they 
 proceeded, against several dissenting votes, to adopt the 
 following resolutions : 
 
 First — That in order to exercise a proper and legitimate 
 control and jurisdiction over the property of the afore- 
 said Trinit}- United Brethren church, so as to preserve 
 and maintain it as a place of worship for all who are in 
 harmony and in full sympathy with the doctrines and 
 discipline of the church of the United Brethren in 
 Christ, and choose to unite themselves in membership 
 under these conditions with the said Trinity church, and 
 for inefficienc}', the trustees, leaders, stewards, Sunday- 
 school superintendent, president of the Y. P. S. C. E. 
 and all other officers whatsoever are hereby deposed from 
 office, and the arrangement entered into between the offi- 
 cial members and Rev. R. Rock is hereby disannulled 
 and set aside, and the said Trinity church is hereby de- 
 clared disorganized and the church vacant. 
 
 Second — That a board of trustees be elected by this 
 conference, as per discipline, page 103, chapter 11, para- 
 graph 10, relative to abandoned church houses; and that 
 the said board of trustees, to be appointed by this con- 
 ference, take immediate possession of the said Trinity 
 
25 
 
 church property, and make such provision as may be ab- 
 solutely necessary for its absolute security against loss 
 to the conference and the church of the United Br-ethren 
 in Christ, and that said board of trustees continue in of- 
 fice until a regularly constituted quarterly conference of 
 said church may elect a board of trustees of its own. 
 
 Third — That the said Trinity church be constituted a 
 charge and be supplied, as per discipline, with a pastor, 
 whose duty it shall be to proceed at once to organize a, 
 society with such members of the church of the United 
 Brethren in Christ as are known to be in strict accord 
 with the doctrines and government of said church ; and 
 also that provision be made by this conference for tjie 
 support, if necessary, of said pastor. 
 
 It should be said here that we have very good reasons 
 to believe that many voted for these resolutions and the 
 preamble to them in violation of their own couvictiocs 
 and better judgment, because they feared punishment 
 at conference time, from the leaders in this persecution 
 against us. 
 
 With no specific charges against any one in particular 
 they proceeded to put an end to the pastorates of both 
 Dr. Rock and Mr. Rigor,to annul our contract with both, 
 to depose all members of our quarterly conference, to dis- 
 organize the society, turn every member out of church, 
 declare the house abandoned and vacant, to elect a new 
 board of trustees, constituted Trinity a charge, and to 
 provide for the appointment of some new pastor to organ- 
 ize "a new society" in the old and vacanti ?) church apd 
 by a legislative act, authorized him to receive into this 
 "new society" such United Brethren as are known to be 
 in strict accord with the doctrines and government of the 
 United Brethren ckurch. Think of receiving into the 
 United Brethren church those who are already United 
 Brethren ! 
 
 Rev. D. D. Lowery, the presiding elder, immediately 
 appointed Mr. Rigor pastor of the "new society," he ac- 
 cepted the appointment aad now com^s here and imposes 
 
26 
 
 hiinself upon us as our pastor. This he does, although 
 Rev. Lowery said he did not suppose there was a man in 
 the conference weak-minded enough to want to go where 
 he is not wanted. 
 
 Some who took part in the infamy are now saying, we 
 were not turned out of church, and this because they 
 would shake off the odium of the monstrous thing. But 
 it is apparent that this extraordinary action was taken to 
 prevent the members of the church, should they not 
 dismiss all, from reelecting the old officers to fill the va- 
 rious offices of the church. In the discussion of the res- 
 olutions on the floor of the special conference the im- 
 pression was made upon the conference and others, by 
 Bishop Kephart, that the pastor of the "new society" 
 could exercise discretionary judgment in receiving mem- 
 bers into it who are known to be " 1 oyal to the conference. ' ' 
 Mark you, "loyal to the conference," as if the confer- 
 ence were greater than the church, instead of being a 
 small fraction of it. Then think of giving G. W. M. 
 Rigor authority to determine whether we were fit to 
 join the Untied Brethren church ! And although 
 the Court of our county restrained C. B. Rettew, Rev. H. 
 B. Dohner and Rev. Daugherty, their new board of trus- 
 tees for Trinity, who came here and sat about in our 
 church from Friday until Monday, and by unlawful en- 
 trance and use of our church, menaced the peace and 
 good order of our people, from carrying out their instruc- 
 tions and ordered matters to remain in the same state as 
 they were before the special session, yet Rev. Rigor re- 
 fused one of our most excellent young men, of noted pi- 
 ety and scholarship, a certificate of membership, that he 
 might take it with him when he goes to college, because 
 he had not joined this "new society." This young man 
 has been for a number of years and is now a member of 
 high standing in the Trinity U- B. church and has never 
 taken an active part in this contest. This is the way 
 these resolutions were to work. Now if that is not high- 
 handed lawlessness and ecclesiastical lynch law, we 
 
27 
 
 should like some reader of this pamphlet to write and 
 tell us what it is. 
 
 The saddest of all, for our dear Zion and the cause of 
 Jesus, is that three bishops were present and encouraged 
 this lawlessness. Bishop Kephart presided and indulged 
 it as legal. Bishop Weaver saii it could be done on the 
 ground of inefficiency, and Hott said what is not true 
 and what he had no evidence for saying, that, "the first 
 time I was there (November, 1894,) I saw plainly that 
 these men were planning to sell the church and get con- 
 trol of it." If we cared as much for ourselves and as little 
 for the cause of Christ as he seems to care, we would add 
 to this controversy by prosecuting him in the church for 
 falsehood and slander, and bring an action for damages 
 against him in the civil courts. And we would also prose- 
 cute several men for egregious acts of disobedience 
 "to the order and discipline of the church," and the 
 immoralities of falsehood and slander. We have also 
 excellent grounds upon which to base civil actions and 
 recover heavy damages from conference for its high- 
 handed slander and interference with our rights. If this 
 thing is not soon stopped we shall be obliged to secure 
 redress in the civil courts where cases are tried on the law 
 and evidence and not on prejudice, bigotry and hearsa3^ 
 With so much light on their lawlessness, we appeal to the 
 church and ask, is their course with us consistent and 
 christian? Had they not better say, " We will concede 
 your rights and henceforth behave ourselves better and 
 be brethren ?" 
 
 Here will be a proper place to speak of the iusencerity 
 of the friendship Lowery, et al , pretend for Mr. Rigor. 
 For six years they held him at arms length, had no cor- 
 dial fellowship with him, gave him no employment and, 
 htt said, all because he did not agree with them touching 
 Stoverdale campmeeting matters. And now they pre- 
 tend to love each other ! It is the friendship of Herod and 
 Aggrippa when they combined to crucify our Lord. We 
 hold a letter, written from the last annual session of Bast 
 
28 
 
 Pelinsylvania Conference, to a member of Triaity cBurch, 
 in which Mr. Rigor gives to the actions of the coafer- 
 ejtjce toward himself and us, the euphonious appellation 
 of "hell deviltry." He says, "Such bungling in an an- 
 nual conference I never saw, much less heard of." He 
 characterized it as "the storm of Ring-rule" and as "hell 
 deviltry. ' ' ' And now they are friends and they send him 
 here to serve us. They would not be friends now il they 
 could not use him to serve their unholy purposes, for we 
 h§ive no idea they are any more religious than they were 
 a year ago. 
 
 This will also be a logical and proper place to speak of 
 the inconsistency and insincerity of the Conference con- 
 vened to save (?) Trinity church. At the same time they 
 Were planning to save (?) a church which is in no peril 
 but from their own intolerance and arbitrary rule, Pleas- 
 ant Hill church, of this city, was under the sheriff's ham- 
 mer, and Royalton church was already sold and to-day 
 awaits redemption, while last fall, BOehm church, Read- 
 ing, which they supplied with a pastor for three prece- 
 ding years, and one of the best new churches in the 
 east, and one of the very best locations to be found in 
 any city for building up a strong congregation, they re- 
 fused to mother any longer, and turned it over to the 
 East German Conference, and all because our great pre- 
 siding elder could not just exactly have his own way with 
 the plucky little congregation that had furnished the 
 money and had done the work. It is growing and will 
 live to be, ere long, a bright star in the crown of the 
 :©ast German Conference. Why were not the officers and 
 members of Pleasant Hill and Royalton churches expelled 
 and turned out for inefficiency by this same conference ? 
 The answer is, they had no quarrel with them. Is it not 
 about time that they stop their chatter and accusations 
 about lawlessness in othess and look to their own doings ? 
 Are they not a little deeper in the mud than we are in 
 the mire ? Is it not about time for the pot to cease its 
 charge of blackness against the kettle ? It should be re- 
 
29 
 
 -membered too tTiat they carrtiot apologize for tbeir law- 
 lessness by saying, "We provoked them." They have 
 been, as all can see, lawless in several things entirely dis- 
 tinct from the Trinity controversy. 
 
 FALSE AND DAMAGING 
 REPORTS. 
 
 In order to gain and hold favor with the ministers and 
 people throughout the Conferemre and elsewhere, certain 
 men have manufactured and circulated several accusa- 
 tions against us. A few of these we wish to mention, and 
 to them append our positive denial. 
 
 First among these they say that if A. S. Light, our del- 
 egate to the conference in 1894, had not made such a 
 caustic speech on the conference floor, Dr. Rock would 
 have been appointed. In reply to this and in addi- 
 tion to many commendations from others, Mr. Light has 
 a letter from Bishop Hott, and written a short time after 
 the conference, in which he commends Mr. Light's re- 
 marks on the conference floor in the following lan- 
 guage : "I ought say to you in all candor that your 
 address or speeches before the conference were, by my- 
 self, and by all who I heard speak of them— and there 
 were not a few of them,— regarded as able and manly and 
 pervaded by a noble and kindly spirit. For yourself 
 and your church you made many friends. I am not 
 capable of flattery ; this is the plain truth." This is 
 certainly a sufiicient reply to that puny excuse for not 
 appointing Dr. Rock. 
 
 Besides this Rev. Weidler expected, before Conference 
 convened, that he would be sent to Trinity. He must 
 have had assurances, and Rev. C. J. Kephart, also shortly 
 before Conference, when Dr. Rock's appointment was 
 talked of, said, "There is another wind blowing." 
 
 There has also been a good deal of chatter about the 
 trouble, this year, never happening if it had not been 
 for A. S. Light and E. E. MaCurdy. Our reply to this 
 is that the presiding elder not only showed perfect ab- 
 
5?7 
 
 absence of statesmanship and the christian spirit, in the- 
 appointment of Mr. Rigor, but we were all astonished 
 and insulted. And the very few who gathei about hini 
 and pretend to- be pleased with him would have been the 
 first ta have criticised the appointment in a time cf 
 peace in the church. The insulting appointment and 
 the assertivenesSr dictum and officiousness of Mr. Rigor 
 and his gossiping and encouragement of rivalries both be- 
 fore and after the compromise, with his leanness and 
 slang in the pulpit,, and his impracticable bungling^ 
 led some of our brethren,, who are more capable 
 of abhoring that which is evil and of holy and fervid in- 
 dignation against a great outrage, to use warm and strong 
 words to express their feelings and rebuke the out- 
 rage and the daring and offensive of&ciousness. And 
 the men who have so much ta say about it would not 
 bear it any better than we do,, most likely not so well, 
 and they can and have used warmer, and senseless, 
 wards in denauncing things not nearly or necessarily so 
 menacing or offensive. 
 
 In addition to this, three of their number have recently 
 indicattd that Dr Rock was sent aver here to destroy 
 "Shueyism" in the East. Not long ago Rev. C. J Kep- 
 hart, D. D., said to Brother J H. Hunsieker that *'Rock 
 was sent over here to destroy Shueyism in the East, but 
 Shuey ism is stronger in the church than ever before." 
 Rev. Grant Shaffer also said to Brother Boaz Light;, 
 "this is not a fight between the Conference and Trinity 
 only, but between Shueyism and Anti- Shueyism." And 
 the presiding elder lately said to one of our preachers , 
 *'If Rock had not been sent over here to destroy 
 Shueyism in the east, he would have been appointed by 
 the Conference." This is already a jargon of voices. 
 Probably this is one of Bishop Hott's "deeper elements in 
 the case." 
 
 At the first we heard it suggested that Bro. W. J. Shuey, 
 onr publishing agent at Dayton, Ohio, had something to 
 do with our disappointment, but we did not see how, and 
 
3T 
 
 •so tliought no more about it. If what these brethren say 
 is true, it has that appearance. We knew that Bro. Shuey 
 did not feel so well toward Dr Rock, but -we could not 
 and cannot see why he, or any other, should join in the 
 destruction of one of the strongest U. B. churches in th« 
 East to gratify the savage joy of revenge on Dr. Rock. 
 We cannot, we do not, think a man in his position, and 
 as one of the chief officers of the church, who must, for 
 business reasons, avoid offending any one, and keep 
 friendship with all our people, is, in the least responsible 
 for our trouble, and that he would demand that one of 
 the best congregations in the church must be sacrificed 
 to save "Shueyism." 
 
 Is this a political tnck conjured up to win Bro. 
 Shuey 's sympathy and support for themselves in their 
 •extraordinary and unpardonable course ? Is this an ac- 
 knowledgement that they are losing support in the East 
 and must go West for help ? We know they need sym- 
 pathy and will need more before this is over. If Dr. 
 Rock was sent here to destroy "Shueyism" in the east, 
 he never told us so. But he authorizes us to say that he 
 never knew that he was sent by any one, or that he was 
 on such an errand. Besides this, and so far from being 
 sent on such an errand, we heard him defend Bro. 
 Shuey against any part in it early in the controversy-. 
 None of us ever heard or thought Dr. Rock on such a 
 mission. Dr. Rock was not sent here but came at our 
 request so unexpected to him. We feel assured that he 
 did not come on the small errand of fighting "Shuey ism" 
 but to build up the kingdown of Jesus Christ, and, the 
 longer he is among us, the more do we believe he could 
 do finely, with a fair chance. But if these brethren cor- 
 rectly represent this matter, we appeal to the ministers 
 and laity whether we are to be persecuted to death to 
 preserve "Shueyism" or any other personal "ism". 
 Moreover Bro. Shuey said himself, last fall, on hearing 
 that Mr. Rigor was sent here, that "the conference 
 should have appointed Dr. Rock to Trinity". He knew, 
 
3^ 
 
 as all know, that the conference has carried this matter 
 too far. No, this is more like a contest carried on to- 
 save Loweryism, Hottism, Kephartism, (C. J.) and 
 Dohnerism in the East Pennsylvania Conference, and 
 this one oi the most egotistic, bigoted, shortsighted, self- 
 willed, persistent, undiplomatic, and pusillanimous 
 -'^'isms" ever hatched. 
 
 It has been put out that we were planning to sell the 
 church and go to the Presbyterians. We were not then, 
 nor are we now, planning to sell the church, nor have we 
 any notion to go to the Presbyterians, good place as that 
 would be tago to. "We are brethren," and better ones- 
 than our unbrotherly and tyrannical oppressors. We 
 were in the church before some of the "bosses" 
 that persecute us and we intend to stay. We do not like 
 everything but do not intend to accept Bishop Weaver's 
 advice and "go out." In 1&56 Abraham Lincoln said^ 
 before the Illinois convention where the Republican 
 party was organized, "We will not go out of the 
 Union and you shall not' ' . So we will not go out of the 
 church. We will do just what Bishop Weaver wisely 
 did when things did not suit him ; we will stay and 
 make things better. This is our privilege and duty so 
 long as improvement is possible. We will stay and 
 labor for equality of rights and against arbitrary rule 
 an unchristian management of christian affairs. We will 
 contend for our rights until the law is so interpreted 
 or made as to secure them and our church and polity 
 are more nearly perfect. 
 
 Again they say, we planned to sell the parsonage* 
 Bishop Kephart said, in the special session of con- 
 ference, that we placed the mortgages on the par- 
 sonage and church in order to sell them, and 
 Bishop Hott said that "he saw plainly, the first time he 
 was here, that we were planning to sell the church and 
 get control of it." He saw no sfuch thing, for no such 
 thiltag was dreamed of, much less planned for. Preachers 
 aii©uld tell the truth afid bishops $iiouId gueas at 
 
33 
 
 nothing. Guessing is not evidence in the courts. 
 The mortgage was placed upon the parsonage more than 
 twenty years ago, and half of the principal was paid 
 seven or eight years ago, and the interest was paid, when 
 due, ever since. The man who lent the money on this 
 mortgage has been dead more than nine years. We did 
 not plan to sell the parsonage. The interest and mort- 
 gage were due, and the mortgage was foreclosed because 
 we did not pay the interest when due. We did not pay 
 because we do not intend to foot the bills and permit the 
 presiding elder and his henchmen to lord it over us and 
 do all the commanding. We do not believe in taxation 
 without representation When our rights are respected 
 we will pay as heretofore, and we are not ashamed to 
 have the whole church examine our annual reports to the 
 conference for the twenty-five years preceding this con- 
 troversy. The mortgage on the church house was placed 
 to cover a debt mainly incurred during the pastorate of 
 Rev C. J. Kephart. Said mortgage was placed by the 
 approval and aid of Revs. Lowery and Rigor, as the re- 
 cords of our court show . 
 
 Another thing that they have freely circulated to jus- 
 tify their conduct at the last conference, the appointment 
 of Mr. Rigor, and to injure us with the people, is, that 
 we agreed in the compromise at Mt. Gretna, early in 
 August, 1895, not to ask again for Dr. Rock for pastor, 
 and to accept an appointment from the conference. On 
 page 12 of the last conference minutes, and in the report 
 of Rev D. D. Lowery, he says: "I am sorry, brethren, to 
 tell you that I have been grievously disappointed These 
 men of Lebanon Trinity were here yesterday to express 
 it as their purpose not to abide by the terms of settlement 
 commonly understood and accepted by us." Each 
 and all of us who were at that meeting, and Dr. Rock 
 besides, are ready to make affirmation before a justice, 
 that this is not only not true, by whomsoever reported, but 
 that the thing was not mentioned in the meeting in 
 which the compromise was effected . At the suggestion of 
 
34 
 
 one, not of our number, who was much interested in 
 bringing about a compromise. Dr. Rock wrote the fol- 
 lowing paper which was before the meeting for compro- 
 mise and, although not formall)^ adopted, formed the 
 basis and included all the terms of the compromise : — 
 
 Having a Christian desire to bring to a peaceful and 
 happy end the very unfortunate and unpleasant contro- 
 versy in Trinity United Brethren church, Ivcbanon, Pa. 
 
 "We, the undersigned officials of the said church, do 
 for ourselves and the congregation which we represent, 
 suggest that, according to the advice of Bishop E. B. 
 Kephart, and for the saving of the church and the glory 
 of God, the case be withdrawn from the courts and that 
 the entire matter be adjusted by the withdrawal of Rev. 
 Dr. Rock from the pastorate of said church, and also that 
 of Rev. Z. A. Weidler from the contest for the pupit,and, 
 forgetting what of the past is unpleasant and unprofita- 
 ble to remember, be henceforth brethren, dwelling to- 
 gether "in the unity of Spirit and in the bonds of peace." 
 
 A. S. Light, 
 Jno. B. Rauch, 
 John Hunsicker, 
 H. P. Mover, 
 J. H. Sei<tzer, 
 
 U. D. SEI.TZER, 
 
 C. E. Rauch. 
 
 The only change that was made in the paper was this. 
 It was agreed that it should he said that Rev. Z. A. 
 Weidler "resigned" instead of "withdrew." At Bishop 
 Kephart's suggestion the paper was not formally adopted, 
 he prefering that the terms of the compromise should be 
 oral and all agreed that nothing should be published 
 but the fact that a settlement had been effected. We 
 readily acceded to this suggestion of the bishop never 
 dreaming that the terms of compromise would ever be 
 misrepresented. 
 
 Afte r this plan was agreed upon Dr. Rock and Rev. 
 Weidler were called in, and these very things were named 
 
35 
 
 to them as a plan of compromise and each was asked if 
 he would agree to it. Both agreeing, the compromise 
 was effected and we thought the past gone and everything 
 lovely. We did not in that compromise, nor do we now, 
 intend to give up any rights we hold as sacred, and under 
 our laws and customs, belong to the laity of the United 
 Brethren church. 
 
 When v/e bore our largely signed petition to conference 
 last fall and presented it to the stationing committee, 
 Bishop Mills asked us if we had not agreed not to ask 
 again for Dr. Rock. We told him we never talked of 
 such a thing. He asked Lowery, in our presence, whether 
 we had agreed to such a thing, and he said not in the 
 compromise, but that two of our brethren, the next dav, 
 had said they would never ask for Dr. Rock again. If 
 they had said it, it was not official, but each of them told 
 Bishop Mi Is, in Lowery's presence, and in the presence 
 of the rest of us, that they had said no such thing to 
 him. 
 
 Bishop Hott said in the special conference that he 
 plead with us "again and again" to arbitrate. He did 
 not plead with us "again and again." The proposition 
 was made to arbitrate and we agreed on Saturday evening 
 to meet him the following Monday evening in the church 
 and talk arbitration. But on Sabbath he sent us a note 
 from his hotel, signed by himself and Lowery, naming a 
 plan of arbitration. Then he took a train, Sunday af- 
 ternoon, and left the city, and has not returned to 
 this day, and of course did not meet with us on Monday 
 evenin.i,^ to agree on a plan of arbitration. We followed 
 him with two telegrams, but of no avail. The following 
 •is their proposition and plan of arbitration, made only 
 after they came and examined the deed at the 
 Court House, and after consulting their lawyer. 
 They came armed for war, and, forgetting the Prince of 
 Peace whom they pretend to serve, they have been wag- 
 ing a relentless war upon us ever since. The following 
 is their proposed plan of arbitration : 
 
36 
 
 I "The arbitrators to be chosen from Bishops, ex-Bis- 
 hops, Presiding Elders and ex-Presiding Elders within 
 convenient distance. 2, The trustees of Trinity church 
 to select one, we to select a second and the two, the 
 third. 3, That the testimony be submitted in writing or 
 as arbitrators may agree. 4, That we agree to abide by 
 their decision according to our disciplinary regulations 
 for arbitrations .' ' 
 
 It will be noticed that, in harmony with their practice 
 of dictating everything and allowing us no voice at all, 
 they say, the arbitrators must be bishops, ex-bishops, 
 presiding elders, and ex-presiding elders of convenient 
 distance. This was packing the committee and evidently 
 intended to secure the verdict before the hearing, accord- 
 ing to their favorite star chamber fashion. 
 
 We regarded this a controversy between the clergy 
 and the laity and would have readily submitted to arbi- 
 tration had they given us a chance to choose a layman 
 or any other and wherever we saw fit. It must have been 
 the unfairness of their plan that made them run away 
 and refuse to meet us in official meeting on that Monday 
 evening . Does this show that they came with the spirit 
 of men bent on christian arbitration ? when the first 
 thing they did was to go to the court house, examine 
 the deed, then consult a lawyer, before seeing one of us, 
 and afterward refused the hospitality of our homes be- 
 cause they had plenty of money to pay their way. We 
 do not know whether the church extension funds had 
 then been drawn upon or not. Bishop Hott says he 
 plead with us "again and again" to arbitrate. Oh yes, 
 he cared so little for Rev. Weidler and was so determined 
 not to permit Dr. Rock to be our pastor, that he wanted 
 to settle it by giving us another man, and said he had a 
 letter in his pocket from a man who would take Trinity, 
 and this was, presumably, his son-in-law, preaching then 
 and now for the Presbyterians. No, he is not the kind 
 of man from whom we would buy a "cat in the bag." 
 In that same Saturday night meeting he asked about 20 of 
 
37 
 
 \is, "What will 3-011 do if we send Weidler here to worry 
 you this whole year ?" Whether or not Hott had any- 
 thing to do with sending him, Rev. Weidler moved here, 
 did not "worry" us very badly and did not preach once 
 in our church 
 
 Soon after Bishop Hott's failure to fulfill his promise 
 and return and meet us in official meeting, to consider 
 and agree upon some plan of arbitration, we sent two of 
 our brethren, Major H. P. Moyer and U. D. Seltzer, to 
 Harrisburg,to beg Bishop Kephart to come on the ground 
 and get th*^ con tending parties together and secure an ad- 
 justment of the trouble. He declined, "because it was on 
 Bishop Hott's district." This, with what follows, will 
 show how anxious and willing we were to have it ad- 
 justed in any Christian way, And it could have been 
 settled, easily, if any bishop had come here in the father- 
 ly, shepherdly and unpartisan spirit of a true bishop and 
 gone heartily and kindly and pleasantly about the work. 
 No man could settle it, then or now, coming with the au- 
 tocratic, bigoted or hierarchal spirit. This can be settled 
 as the itinerant plan must be administered to stand and 
 be in favor with our people, not arbitrarily, but with 
 Christian kindness and regard for the tastes, wishes and 
 rights of preachers and people. 
 
 Then in May, 1895, when the Board of Bishops recom- 
 mended arbitration without geographical or personal lim- 
 itation in the choice of the arbiters, at the suggestion of 
 Dr. Rock, we immediately met and agreed to act upon 
 their recommendation, which we did by passing the fol- 
 lowing resolution and forwarded it to the secretary of 
 the Board of Bishops : — 
 
 "Resolved, That we cheerfully and obediently accept 
 and heartily approve the advice and recommendation of 
 our very competent Board of Bishops, and that we hold 
 ourselvts in immediate readiness to choose our arbiters 
 and submit our case to the said Court of Arbitration, the 
 day that our brethren, the plaintiffs, will withdraw their 
 suit from the Court of Common Pleas, and give us notice 
 
that they are ready to accept and follow the advice of the- 
 Board of Bishops." 
 
 Revs l/owery, Weidler, et al. , declined to arbitrate be- 
 cause we had before refused a hidebound arbitration and 
 they continued their case in the courts. This they did at 
 great cost to the laity of the conference and with heavy 
 loss to the connectional interests of the church. Besides 
 losing the $400 we were in the habit of gtvir:g each year^ 
 to the conference collections, they gave to Rev. Weidler 
 ^4fxD of church extension and missionary money and to 
 their attorney and court expenses ^420, making in all 
 I820 for the first year, while the special session of con- 
 ference cost them and us not less than |6oo. And be- 
 cause of their cruel treatment of us and expanses they 
 have forced upon us, we cannot respond this year to the 
 calls for the general work and the conference will be 
 short at least $400 that we could and would have given 
 if they bad given us Dr. Rock and permitted us to live in 
 peace. This is, for the two years, worse than the loss of 
 |2,22o, in round numbers, and this would have made 
 Boehm church, Reading, a splendid success or it would 
 have much more than paid the debt on Pleasant Hill 
 church. And this waste and destruction of one of our 
 best churches goes on, while the church erection secre- 
 tary goes up and down the land telling our people that 
 we have 1,200 societies without churches and begging 
 our people to give to the church extension fund, to build 
 churches for these homeless congregations. 
 
 Bishop Hott and D. D. Lowery will doubtless apologize, 
 as heretofore, for breaking positive and tacit promises 
 and refusing to appoint Dr. Rock to Trinity church, by 
 referring the people to the resolution adopted by that 
 conference. That resolution was not in the way. It was 
 only a request to employ members of the conference "as 
 far as practicable." There was no command in it. Be- 
 sides that two fields were left open, and to one of these 
 the presiding elder appointed, almost immediately, a mem- 
 ber of another conference. Had the presiding elder 
 
39 
 
 promised that good brother employment before the con- 
 ference convened, and was that charge left unsupplied by 
 the stationing committee so that it would not appear that 
 they had done for him, in spite of the conference reso- 
 lution, what they refused to do for Dr Rock ? 
 
 Moreover certain members of the conference have 
 made a great deal of noise about preachers coming in 
 from other conferences and about Dr Rock coming 
 east. Is this a new thing under the sun ? Are not calls, 
 transfers and change of conference relations a very old 
 and a very common thing ? The most of the men who 
 have made all this ado came into this from other confer- 
 ences. And on how many churches, parionages and 
 congregations can these noisy fellows lay their hand and 
 truthfully say, "I built and gathered these ?" Only one 
 year before the conference refused us our choice. Memo- 
 rial church, Harrisburg, had asked for Dr. J. P. Miller, 
 whom they had already called, from Toledo, Iowa, and 
 he was sent, although he did not present his transfer un- 
 til a year later. And from that very conference Rev. H. 
 B. Spayd went out and became pastor of First church, 
 York. He was called more than seven months before and 
 Bishop Kephart and the rest of the stationing committee 
 of Pennsylvania Conference, appointed him to said 
 church seven months before his year had expired, without 
 securing his consent to resign and go there. He did not 
 resign his charge at Annville, but stayed the entire year. 
 The congregation at York waited for him from March 
 until October, and when he went, East Pennsylvania 
 Conference uttered no word against calls or his going. 
 They said nothing then about the itinerant system being 
 imperilled. But going out is a very different thing from 
 coming in. See ? It has been more than insinuated 
 that Dr. Rock was a place seeker, seeking the best places. 
 So far from this, the best places have sought him, and he 
 authorizes us to challenge any man to stand up and name 
 the church he ever connived to secure. Only last fall he 
 was offered the best station and the best circuit in a c m- 
 
40 
 
 fereuce not far west of Pittsburg and the best-paying sta- 
 tion in another conference on this side the Mississippi^ 
 Is this his crime or is it one of the good reasons why we 
 wanted him ? 
 
 If one takes the politician's view and is ambitious ta 
 be a delegate to general conference, presiding elder, bish- 
 op, or hold some other general office in the church, the 
 wisdom of changing conferences might be questioned. 
 But if he prefers to be a pastor and regards a good pas- 
 torate preferable to official feathers, what harm can there 
 be to him or the church to change conferences ? What 
 claims has a preacher an conference ground that he does 
 not have on church ground ? And is it not the success 
 of the denomination we seek ? And if we specially seek 
 conference success, will not the coming in of the stronger- 
 men more certainly insure it ? College takes from col- 
 lege, and often with good effect all around, and will not 
 calls and the encouragement of them be a spur to minis- 
 ters and congregations to merit the best ? No, it is jeal- 
 ousy and envy that sees evil in calls and conference 
 changes, and the envious clergyman is a nuisance and a 
 self-confessed weakling. Calls are often wise and they 
 are essential to the continuance of the itinerant system,. 
 to the prosperity of the church and to the raising and 
 preserving of a high standard in the ministry. When 
 conferences and men cannot force mediocrity of mind 
 and dearth of spirituality and piety upon intelligent and 
 religious congregations, then preachers will seek to merit 
 the best appointments. 
 
 AN APPEAL. 
 
 We have finished a condensed history of our contro- 
 ves)'- with East Penna. Conference. Our appeal is to the 
 laity and to the large number of the clergy who believe 
 in fair play and equal rights. 
 
 Dear Brethren, did we violate any custom in asking 
 for a man that would suit us? Were we not encouraged 
 to our course ? Do petitions to an annual conference. 
 
41 
 
 through a delegate or otherwise, mean anything or is tkis 
 only a sop thrown out to vex us when we take it in ear- 
 nest ? Is this the true spirit of our polity? Is ours a 
 reign of clerical "lords over God's heritage," or is it a 
 "government of the people, by the people and for the 
 people?" Is not ours a case of taxation without repre- 
 sentation ? Would you furnish all the money and per- 
 mit the presiding elder and a pastor to do all the "boss- 
 ing?" Has it not been the custom of our conferences to 
 get preachers and congregations together that will be 
 pleased with each other ? Is not this wise diplomacy ? 
 Is it not the most unwise and unseemly thing in the 
 world to send a preacher where almost an entire congre- 
 gation do not want him and w'!ll not support him ? Is 
 there sense or statesmanship in it ? Is it not success the 
 conference seeks and is not failure inevitable when the 
 lelations are unpleasant ? If a congregation asks for a 
 competent man and he is willing to serve them, would it 
 not be wise to solemnize the nuptials and let them work 
 together ? Is not love the best reason for matrimony ? 
 Would it have done the conference or its members any 
 harm to have given us our choice ? Would not the harm 
 that has been done been avoided ? Would not more than 
 $2,200 of money have been saved to the church besides 
 much good feeling ? The most efficient men will always 
 be wanted at the churches paying commanding salaries, 
 and will not salaries depreciate if their wishes are denied? 
 Do not preachers only close the doors of the best churches 
 open to them by neglecting their own mental and spirit- 
 ual furnishing ? Will not preachers much sooner reach 
 the best places by making themselves w^orthy than by 
 opposing the strongest churches in their choice of the 
 strongest men ? We believe congregations should seek 
 such men through courteous requests to the conference, 
 but the most efficient men will always be sought after by 
 the strongest churches and no amount of persecution and 
 fuss by envious souls and by mediocrity will prevent 
 them from getting together. If it docs, then the doom 
 
42 
 
 erf the church is written. Intelligence and wealth will 
 not seek membership in a church where their choices, 
 tastes and rights are ignored and where the laigest privi- 
 lege they will have, in managing the church, will be in 
 furnishing the money. The commercial idea runs 
 all through the New Testament and the kingdom of Jesus 
 and no amount of envy or self-seeking on the part of 
 small men will prevent the Master from promoting the 
 faithful and successful to more honorable, responsible 
 and remunerative places 
 
 Have our circuits, stations and districts no rights the 
 conference and presiding elders must respect ? Is it ac- 
 tually true that the laity have no knowledge of what the}- 
 need and no immediate voice in securing it ? Since this 
 controversy began bishops and ex-bishops and an editor 
 have put forth the doctrine that, "under our itinerant sys- 
 tem, preachers waive their right to choose their appoint- 
 ment and churches waive their right to choose their pas- 
 tor." This is misleading. Everybody knows that our 
 preachers do not only say, in conference, ''If the confer- 
 ence can give me such and such a field and convenient to 
 my home, I will take work from the conference, other- 
 wise I will not," but preachers have the right of appeal 
 from the report of the stationing committee, the right to 
 refuse to go, and the right to resign and refuse to stay, 
 ^or any reason satisfactory to themselves, and we never 
 knew a preacher to lose his conference standing or to be 
 punished for either. Preachers in the strength of their 
 manhood and, who have something to say now about the 
 "vows" they took, have done this and worse. They have 
 abandoned the ministry for purely secular pursuits and 
 the larger salaries they afford. He can also hold his con- 
 ference appointment and draw his salary while looking 
 about for something more satisfactory in another church 
 and, when he has found it, he can resign and go to work 
 in another church and when his conference convenes he 
 can secure a letter of honorable dismissal from his con- 
 ference and church. So far from being punished for it 
 
43 
 
 we never heard of one, out of the many, that was even 
 censured by his conference. Where does it say in the 
 discipline that the churches waive their rights to choose 
 a pastor? What is the meaning of lay delegation in the 
 annual conference and of the right of petition ? In a very 
 able paper read by Bishop J. S. Mills, D D., before the 
 Parliament of Religions at the World's Fair, and in a 
 good paper from the pen of Bishop E. B. Kephart, D. D., 
 and both published in the United Brethren Quarterly Re- 
 view, they both say, in speaking of the American quality 
 of our polity, "The right of appeal is inviolate," and we 
 believe what they say. The latter says the same thing in 
 his Manual on the Discipline. But some would have us 
 believe that this right, in all things, is for the preachers 
 only. Is that true? If so, is it American or Christian? We 
 do not believe the right of appeal is inviolate for preach- 
 ers only, but for all. If it is for preachers only, then the 
 discipline should say so. But East Pennsylvania Confer- 
 ence and the presiding elder must hold that the laity have 
 no rights they must respect, for they ignored our peti- 
 tions, they treated our pleadings with contempt, they 
 dealt with us with severe arbitrariness, appealed to the 
 arm of the law to compel acquiescence, and, as if gone 
 mad with the spirit of Romanism and the Inquisition and 
 St. Bartholemew's Day,, they annuled our contract with 
 Dr. Rock, without even a complaint against him, deposed 
 all our oflBcials from office and expell^^d every member of 
 our large congregation from the church, without previous 
 notice of charges or complaints and without the hearing 
 guaranteed to us by our book of discipline, and this they 
 did also in violation of the American spirit and practice. 
 We appeal to the reader whether we have not been treated 
 without feeling or statesmanship or any sign of the 
 christian spirit, but with arbitrary rule and cold and un- 
 yielding law, from the beginning to the present status of 
 the controversy; and whether this publication of the facts 
 had not become a necessity to the church and the cause 
 of our Lord. 
 
44 
 
 We are told that the exclusive control of the pulpits 
 must remain vested in the stationing committee to save 
 and perpetuate the itinerant system. So far from this, 
 others have the itinerant S3'stem who have neither pre- 
 siding elders or bishops and whose laity always choose 
 their pastor. He is appointed, but with careful defer- 
 ence to their wishes. Then who does not know that, in 
 our own church, preachers are selected and often practi- 
 tically stationed before the conference convenes. Con- 
 gregations and preachers make choices of men and 
 fields, and presiding elders and bishops make promises 
 to both and fulfill them, because it is wise to do so or be- 
 cause there would be trouble if they did not. The truth 
 is that the rights of the preachers must not he lessened 
 and the rights of the laity must be as many as those of 
 the clergy, the preachers tastes and circumstances must 
 be consulted, and the churches must have a distinct 
 voice and right of choice in the selection of pastors, or 
 the itinerant system will come into utter disrepute and 
 every other interest of the church will suffer for want of 
 accessions and financial support. It is the only thing 
 that will save the itinerant system. There is no place 
 for arbitrary rule in the church of Jesus Christ. It is 
 not the spirit of Christianity. The Methodist church 
 makes a habit of transfering preachers from conference 
 to conference, from New York to San Francisco, and 
 from Boston to Denver to please the laity u|>on whom 
 the great financial burdens of the church rest. This 
 they do because the success of Methodism and Christi- 
 anity require it. This they do, too, with no fear that it 
 will tear down conferences or deteriorate the ministry. 
 
 In less than six months after the conference refused us 
 Dr. Rock, sent us Rev. \Veidler,and, while he, supported 
 by Rev. D. D. L^owery, and others, was seeking pos- 
 session of our pulpit through the courts, a Methodist 
 bishop made eleven changes in Philadelphia confer- 
 ence to accommodate the tastes and necessities of 
 oae congregation. And yet we hear much of our 
 
45 
 
 "most excellent" and "flexible polit}'," of none or 
 almost none of episcopacy in it, and of as much of the 
 Christian and more of the American spirit as in that of 
 the M. E. church. Where are our "flexible polity" and 
 "flexible usages" if the last two appointments of East 
 Pennsylvania Conference to Trinity church are in har- 
 mony with it ? Its flexibility must lie in the liberty of 
 doing such lawless things as we have named in the chap- 
 ter under "Things Unlawful." 
 
 What we have written, we have written, and no reply 
 from any source whatsoever, shall be suSicient to pro- 
 voke us to write another line. From necessity and the 
 solicitations of many lay and clerical friends, and that the 
 church might know the facts in the case, the official 
 board unanimously approves and sends forth this pamph- 
 let. This we resolved to do in official meeting assem- 
 bled and without encouragement from Mr. Rigor or Dr. 
 Rock. Furthermore we are ready, if necessary, to estab- 
 lish the truth of the facts herein contained with such evi- 
 dence as will be accepted by any court in the land. We 
 are not without hope for the future. Although many of 
 our churches have chosen their pastors and sometimes 
 called them from other conferences, the like of our trou-^ 
 ble has probably never occurred in the history of our 
 church. With a bishop and presiding elder with more 
 judgment to discern the situation, and with less rashness, 
 this would not have occurred. Aad thank God, it will 
 not likely occur again in fifty years, if ever. The men 
 are scarcely born and, Heaven grant they never shall be, 
 who will venture to repeat the unseemly and atrocious 
 thing. 
 
 By order of the Official Board of Trinity 
 
 U. B. Church, Lebanon, Pa. 
 
 ^uly 29, 1896. 
 
,%•;(, 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 PAT. NO. 
 877188 
 
 Manufactured by 
 
 GAYLORD BROS. Inc. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y, 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 

 
 BX9878.4.L44 
 
 History of the controversy between East 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00044 7484