±0 
 
 r'\iyi^-']tf^- 
 
 mffm^^, 
 
 
 
 
V 
 
qD 
 
 SLAVERY AND THE EPISCOPACY 
 
 BEING 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF DE. BASCOM'S REVIEW 
 
 or 
 
 THE REPLY OF THE MAJORITY 
 
 |)rotc0t of i\)t illlnorittt 
 
 LATE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE M. E. CHURCH, 
 
 CASE OF BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 BY GEORGE PECK, D. D. 
 
 " It is a good sound constitution of mind not to feel every blast, either of seeming reason 
 to be taken with it, or of cross opinion to be offended at it." — Archbishop Leighton. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY G. LANE & C. B. TIPPETT, 
 
 FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 200 MULBERRY-STREET. 
 JAMES COLLORD, PRINTER. 
 
 1845. 
 

 ^4H 
 
O) 
 
 SLAVERY AND THE EPISCOPACY. 
 
 § I. — Vrdiminary Observations. 
 
 The great controversy which commenced in the General Confer- 
 ence of 1844 has now resulted in the division of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church. The convention of delegates from sixteen Annual 
 Conferences which met in Louisville, Kentucky, in May last, adopted 
 the report of the committee on division, in which they declare " the 
 jurisdiction heretofore exercised over said conferences by the 
 General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely 
 dissolved; and that said Annual Conferences shall be, and they 
 hereby are, constituted a separate ecclesiastical connection — to be 
 known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South." 
 
 The result now is no longer matter of speculation, but of history. 
 The deed is done. " The Methodist Episcopal Church, South," 
 has come into being, and exists entirely independent of the juris- 
 diction of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This very important 
 result having been brought about, it is now incumbent upon us to 
 survey the facts of the past and the prospects of the future with 
 calmness, candor, and charity. If there has ever been a time for 
 heated discussion and declamation, that time has gone by. This 
 is the period for sober thought and reflection — for inquiry as to the 
 best measures to prevent all the evils of schism ; and to adjust the 
 relations of the parties which are henceforward to act under sepa- 
 rate jurisdictions, but still have many interests in common, and 
 many delicate and difficult matters to settle. 
 
 Hitherto I have taken no part in the paper- w^ar which has grown 
 out of the action of the last General Conference in the case of 
 Bishop Andrew. I have no personal feelings, growing out of un- 
 pleasant collisions, to gratify. While I acted conscientiously with 
 the majority in that case, and still think that action perfectly legiti- 
 mate and absolutely necessary, I have a high degree of respect for 
 the intelligence and piety of the minority, and would not for my 
 right hand unnecessarily wound their honorable or Christian feel- 
 
4 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 ings. I am not infallible — those who take a different view of the 
 case from that which I take may be right, though my persuasion, 
 that so far as they vary from me they are in error, is clear and 
 strong. But what is there now to prevent a calm and impartial 
 review of the whole ground ? What objection to a mutual tolera- 
 tion of opinions ? What harm will be done if each party, after a 
 sufficiently explicit statement of the case as it is viewed by them 
 respectively, should leave the new order of things to work out 
 its own results, and posterity to judge of the causes which pro- 
 duced it. 
 
 My object is not to renew the controversy, and thereby aggra- 
 vate an evil that is already matter of just complaint. I would not 
 knowingly put a straw in the way of the earliest possible termina- 
 tion of the heart-burnings, which there is but too much reason to 
 believe still exist between the two divisions ; nor would I utter a 
 word which should protract the pending controversy for one mo- 
 ment beyond the imperative demands of necessity. But neither 
 justice nor charity — a regard for the interests of religion in general, 
 of Methodism, nor oi southei'n Methodism — demands that the con- 
 troversy should terminate until the views of both parties are set 
 in proper juxtaposition, and the argument on both sides is placed 
 in such a light, and made so perfectly tangible, that the future his- 
 torian can without difficulty form a proper estimate of the whole 
 question, or at least present the views of each party in all their 
 strength. 
 
 As yet the north has spoken but sparingly, except through the 
 medium of weekly sheets, whose records are necessarily fugitive 
 and transient. Though pamphlets have been written and published 
 at the south vindicating the cause of the minority, none have, so 
 far as I am advised, been put forth at the north explaining and 
 defending the cause of the majority. An imbodiment of the argu- 
 ment on our side is what is still wanting, and a desideratum which 
 this effort is designed to supply. 
 
 I may say nothing which has not in one shape or another been 
 said before. An extraordinary memory may be able to call up 
 every important thought which I shall offer, cither from the de- 
 bates of the General Conference or from the mass of papers which 
 have appeared in our weekly journals ; yet as but few are now 
 able to collect, arrange, and digest what has appeared in detached 
 portions and at intervals of considerable length, a review of the 
 whole case — a sort of digest of the facts and considerations con- 
 cerned in the issue — is in a manner necessary to a right direction 
 of public sentiment upon the points in controversy. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 5 
 
 Besides, our southern brethren in their books and pamphlets 
 have, as we conceive, done us great injustice by attributing to us 
 designs and principles which present us in an odious light, but 
 which we do not acknowledge. In all this they may be honest, 
 but their honesty does not lessen the amount of the injury. It is 
 our right and duty to explain ourselves as often as may be neces- 
 sary to a full understanding of our true position. We may not, 
 after all, satisfy our southern brethren ; but we should have a suffi- 
 cient amount both of respect for them and ourselves to repeat our 
 efforts to do so, until we find it wholly impossible. Or if we effect 
 no more, it is at least worth our while to let them and the world 
 know, that their publications have not changed our views of the 
 character of the emergency which brought on the collision, or of 
 the results which have grown out of it. 
 
 Dr. Bascom's " Review of the Manifesto of the Majority" is a book 
 of one hundred and sixty-five heavy octavo pages. The character of 
 this work, as well as the high consideration in which the author is 
 deservedly held, entitles it to a formal reply. Entertaining this 
 opinion, I submitted the matter to the two other members of the 
 committee, who reported the Reply to the Protest, Drs. Elliott and 
 Durbin ; requesting them either to reply to Dr. Bascom, or to sig- 
 nify their pleasure in relation to the matter. They imposed the 
 duty upon me. And though I have no predisposition favorable to 
 a part in the controversy, yet I cannot decline a task, however 
 difficult, which seems legitimately to fall upon me. In the execu- 
 tion of my work it will be difficult to do complete justice to what I 
 consider the interests of truth, without wounding the feelings of 
 my respected opponent and his friends. But difficult as this task 
 may seem, I shall make an effort to accomplish it, and proceed 
 with strong hopes of success. My hopes are, however, based upon 
 the confidence I have in the honorable sentiments and Christian 
 feelings of these gentlemen, and not upon the idea that the points 
 of difference are either few or small. I must notify them at the 
 beginning, that I shall join issue with the doctor upon a multitude 
 of points, and shall attempt to convict him of erroneous statements 
 and false reasoning upon all the material points at issue between 
 us. All this I trust will give no just occasion of offense, if it be 
 done respectfully and in good temper. I may even rebuke the 
 spirit of his book, but if I do this with proper courtesy and kind- 
 ness, I shall not be judged an offender nor accounted an enemy. 
 But I must spend no more time in preliminaries ; I now proceed 
 directly to the discussion of the subject. 
 
6 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 1^ II. — The Real Question at Issue. 
 
 The great question upon which the north and south came 
 into colhsion, in the late General Conference, was " slavehold- 
 ing in the episcopacy." Other questions, in the progress of the 
 debate, have arisen, and other grievances, besides the action of the 
 General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew, are alledged by 
 our southern brethren ; but it is presumed that no serious difficulty 
 would have arisen but for the bishop's connection with slavery. 
 Indeed, the general expectation, of both north and south, was that 
 we should have a quiet and harmonious session. It must have been 
 anticipated that petitions and memorials upon the subject of slavery 
 would come up to the conference, and that their presentation and 
 reference would occasion some excitement ; but still, as the 
 policy of the church upon the subject had become fixed, and the 
 conservative party in the conference would be, as it had been for 
 several successive General Conferences, a large majority, no change 
 of policy, and, consequently, no new cause of difficulty, between 
 the north and south, could reasonably have been anticipated. So, 
 until the news of the connection of Bishop Andrew with slavery 
 reached the north, any material difficulty in the General Confer- 
 ence, upon the vexed subject, was not apprehended ; and various 
 communications from the south gave assurances of anticipations, in 
 that quarter, of a peaceful session. 
 
 After the action of the late General Conference in the case of 
 Bishop Andrew, the southern delegates presented to that body a 
 " Declaration," in which they make " the continued agitation on 
 the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the church, the 
 frequent action in the General Conference," as well as the proceed- 
 ings in the case of the bishop, concerned in the production of "a 
 state of things in the south wiiich renders a continuance of the 
 jurisdiction of the General Conference over these conferences 
 inconsistent." And Dr. Bascom takes the position, at the 
 outset, that " the subject of separation, as it regards the north and 
 south, turns mainly upon the question of slavery, not as connected 
 with the case of Bishop Andrew, but in its broader and more gene- 
 ral aspects." Review, p. 4. But, not contented with this broad 
 ground, the convention has added still another grievance, which, it 
 would seem, completes, for the present at least, the catalogue of 
 reasons for separation. It is presented as follows : — 
 
 " Among the many weighty reasons which influence the southern 
 conferences to seek lo be released from the jurisdiction of the Gene- 
 ral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as now constituted. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 7 
 
 are the novel, and, as we think, dangerous doctrines practically avowed 
 and indorsed by that body and the northern portion of the church 
 generally, with regard to the constitution of the church and the con- 
 stitutional rights and powers respectively of the episcoapcy and the 
 General Conference." 
 
 The action of the General Conference in the case of F. A. 
 Harding was, in the debates in the General Conference, and is, 
 by the convention, coupled with that of Bishop Andrew as an 
 instance of "judicial construction and virtual legislation" altogether 
 "subversive" of existing laws, and injurious to the south. 
 
 From all this it will appear that there is a grasping after a broader 
 basis for a separation than that which is constituted by what the 
 minority called the "extra-judicial" proceedings in the case of 
 Bishop Andrew. And, by thus expanding their foundation, they 
 greatly weaken its main point : for if the proceedings of the Gene- 
 ral Conference, in the case of Bishop Andrew, constitute a suffi- 
 cient reason for separation, why cast about for others ? If this 
 reason is obvious and conclusive, why attempt to strengthen it by 
 such as, to say the most of them, are exceedingly doubtful ? Why 
 this effort to create new issues ? Let us examine a little more 
 particularly these additional reasons for the southern movement. 
 " The continued agitation on the subject of slavery and abolition, 
 and the frequent action in the General Conference," can constitute no 
 new reasons for separation, for this subject has been agitated, and 
 the General Conference has acted upon it, from the first. And 
 from the organization of the church in 1784 to 1812, the action 
 of the General Conferences was far more offensive to the south 
 than anything that has been done from 1812 to 1844. If "agita- 
 tions " and " action " are reasons for separation, there have been 
 such reasons for sixty years. And let it not be forgotten that the 
 action of the General Conferences since that of 1816 has uniformly 
 been of a conservative character, in the main designed for the spe- 
 cial benefit of the south, and has not unfrequently been exceed- 
 ingly offensive to northern abolitionists. Surely the " compromise " 
 law, as it is called by our southern brethren, passed in 1816, the 
 resolutions against abolition, and the pastoral address of 1836, and 
 the colored testimony resolution, and the famous resolution passed 
 in relation to the Westmoreland cases in 1840, constituted no 
 grounds of complaint upon the part of the south. 
 
 Upon the question which has been raised touching "the consti- 
 tutional rights and powers of the episcopacy and the General Con- 
 ference," I am not aware that there existed any diversity of opinion 
 between the north and south until the case of Bishop Andrew came 
 
8 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 up. The question of the right of the General Conference to depose 
 or suspend a bishop, or in any way to interfere with the episcopal 
 functions, was raised, as I suppose, for the first time in the history 
 of our church, during the pendency of the preamble and resolution 
 which were finally passed in that case. That there would ever 
 have been any difference of opinion developed upon that question, 
 between the north and south, had not the General Conference 
 undertaken the correction of a bishop, for his connection with 
 slavery, is something I have yet to learn. And certainly the right 
 of the General Conference to take such action as was taken in the 
 case of Bisliop Andrew was, in the debate, sufficiently sustained 
 by reference to the doctrines and maxims of our venerated fathers, 
 to vindicate that action from the charge of novelty or of establishing 
 aprincipleunknown tothem. We of the north were fully impressed 
 with the conviction that the exalted doctrines of episcopal preroga- 
 tive, maintained in the Protest, were novelties utterly inconsistent 
 with the genius of our ecclesiastical organization ; but I know nat 
 that any northern man thought them a sufficient reason for separa- 
 tion from the south. No one will deny that it was a new issue, 
 growing out of the proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew, and 
 this is all that it is necessary for me to assume at present. The 
 subject will be more fully treated in another place, when I hope to 
 make it perfectly plain that we of the north have embraced no novel 
 theory of episcopacy. 
 
 The Harding case constitutes very slight ground of complaint on 
 the part of the south. The case is simply this. The Baltimore 
 Annual Conference suspended Mr. Harding for holding slaves, as 
 they supposed, contrary to the Discipline. That conference, by 
 the Discipline, had the right to " apply the law ;" and, in the ex- 
 ercise of that right, they suspended Mr. Harding. The General 
 Conference affirmed that decision, believing that the Baltimore 
 Conference had applied the rule correctly. Now, saying nothing 
 about the construction of the rule concerned at present, I would, 
 at this point, simply query how this decision can consistently be 
 construed into an offense against the south. I know it has been 
 asserted, in the heat of debate, that this action goes to say that all 
 slaveholders are sinners, and that it establishes a precedent, which, 
 if carried out, would peril the membership of every preacher in the 
 south who holds slaves. But really I cannot seethe legitimacy of 
 this conclusion : for, in the first place, " emancipation, conformably 
 to the laws of the state in which he lives," must be " practicable," 
 or the conference could not touch any slaveholder. And, in the 
 next place, "the application of the law "' being with the Annual Con- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 9 
 
 ference, the malpractice of the Baltimore Conference could not 
 affect the membership of members of the Virginia, or Georgia, or 
 any other southern conference. So long as the application of the 
 law is with the Annual Conferences every Annual Conference can 
 protect its own members. The law of the Discipline says : — 
 
 " When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or 
 slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit liis ministerial character in our 
 church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of 
 such slaves, conformably to the laws of the state in which he lives." 
 
 The Baltimore Conference judged that "emancipation" was 
 "practicable" under the laws of Maryland, and acted upon that 
 conviction in the case of Mr. Harding. And the General Confer- 
 ence of 1844 affirmed the act, fully believing that the rule required 
 Mr. Harding to emancipate his slaves ; or that, upon failure to do 
 so, he should " forfeit his ministerial character in our church." 
 But what has all this to do with those conferences which are 
 located in states where the laws do not admit of emancipation^ 
 And especially how can this precedent affect the character or 
 membership of preachers in other conferences, while they make 
 their own application of the law, without the least reference to that 
 of any other Annual Conference ? I have never been able to see 
 why the Harding case should be lugged in as a southern grievance, 
 or how it can be looked at as a dangerous precedent; much less 
 am I able to see the " ultra abolitionism " of that act of the Gene- 
 ral Conference which affirmed the suspension of Mr. Harding. 
 
 I have taken this hasty survey of the alledged grounds of separa- 
 tion for the purpose of enabling the reader to judge of their cha- 
 racter. And it appears exceedingly strange how any unprejudiced 
 mind can rest for a moment upon any one of the several allegations 
 which I have noticed. In all candor, the whole looks like a forced 
 march to reach a point. The strength of a cause is not in propor- 
 tion to the number of reasons which are alledged in its support, but 
 in proportion to their pertinency and xueight. 
 
 The issue, after all that has been said, must be made up upon 
 the action in the case of Bishop Andrew. Upon the opinion which 
 posterity makes up of that case will it base its decision upon the 
 justice and propriety of the separation. Whether the decision of 
 the General Conference of 1844, in the case of Bishop Andrew, 
 constituted a sufficient ground for a voluntary separation of the 
 southern conferences from the jurisdiction of the General Con- 
 ference is the great question which now agitates many anxious 
 hearts, both at the north and south. 
 
10 Slavei'y and the Episcopacy. 
 
 § III. — History of the Case. 
 
 Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery was brought formally 
 before the General Conference on the 20th of May, by the follow- 
 ing preamble and resolution : — 
 
 " Whereas it is currently reported, and generally understood, that 
 one of the bishops of the M. E. Church has become connected with 
 slavery-; and whereas it is due to this General Conference to have a 
 proper understanding of the matter; therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on the Episcopacy be instructed to 
 ascertain the facts in the case, and report the results of their investi- 
 gation to this body to-morrow morning. 
 
 "John A. Collins, 
 
 "J. B. HOUGHTALING." 
 
 The case was reported on the 21st, and spread upon the Journal 
 the 22d, as follows : — 
 
 " The Committee on Episcopacy, to whom was referred a resolu- 
 tion, submitted yesterday, instructing them to inquire whether any one 
 of the superintendents is connected with slavery, beg leave to present 
 the following as their report on the subject. 
 
 " The committee had ascertained, previous to the reference of the 
 resolution, that Bishop Andrew is connected with slavery, and had 
 obtained an interview with him on the subject; and having requested 
 him to state the whole facts in the premises, hereby present a written 
 communication from him in relation to this matter, and beg leave to 
 ofl'er it as his statement and explanation of the case." 
 
 " To the Committee on Episcopacy . 
 
 " Dear Brethren, — In reply to your inquiry, I submit the following 
 statement of all the facts bearing on my connection with slavery. 
 Several years since an old lady, of Augusta, Georgia, bequeathed to me 
 a mulatto girl, in trust, that I should take care of her until she should be 
 nineteen years of age ; that with her consent I should then send her to 
 Liberia ; and that in case of her refusal, I should keep her, and make 
 her as free as the laws of the state of Georgia would permit. AVhcn the 
 time arrived, she refused to go to Liberia, and of her own choice re- 
 mains legally my slave, although I derive no pecuniary profit from her. 
 She continues to live in her own house on my lot ; and has been and 
 is at present at perfect liberty to go to a free state at her pleasure ; but 
 the laws of the state will not permit her emancipation, nor admit such 
 deed of emancipation to record, and she refuses to leave the state. In 
 her case, therefore, I have been made a slaveholder legally, but not 
 with my own consent. 
 
 " 2dly. About five years since, the mother of my former wife left to 
 her daughter, not to me, a negro boy ; and as my wife died without a 
 will more than two years since, by the laws of the state he becomes 
 legally my property. In this case, as in the former, emancipation is 
 impracticable in the state ; but he shall be at liberty to leave the state 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 11 
 
 whenever I shall be satisfied that he is prepared to provide for himself, 
 or I can have sufficient security that he will be protected and provided 
 for in the place to which he may go. 
 
 " 3dly. In the month of January last I married my present wife, she 
 being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from her former hus- 
 band's estate, and belonging to her. Shortly after my marriage, being 
 unwilling to become their owner, regarding them as strictly hers, and 
 the law not permitting their emancipation, I secured them to her by 
 a deed of trust. 
 
 " It will be obvious to you, from the above statement of facts, that I 
 have neither bought nor sold a slave ; that in the only two instances in 
 which I am legally a slaveholder, emancipation is impracticable. As 
 to the servants owned by my wife, I have no legal responsibility in the 
 premises, nor could my wife emancipate them if she desired to do so. 
 I have thus plainly stated all the facts in the case, and submit the 
 statement for the consideration of the General Conference. Yours 
 respectfully, James 0. Andrew." 
 
 "All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 " Robert Paine, Chairman." 
 
 The case, after mucli discussion, was finally disposed of by the 
 adoption of the following preamble and resolution : — 
 
 " Whereas, the Discipline of our church forbids the doing anything 
 calculated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas 
 Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by marriage and 
 otherwise, and this act having drawn after it circumstances which in 
 the estimation of the General Conference will greatly embarrass the 
 exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in 
 some places entirely prevent it ; therefore, 
 
 "Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he 
 desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment remains. 
 
 "J. B. FlNLEY, 
 
 "J. M. Trimble." 
 
 On June 5th the following Declaration was presented by Rev. 
 A. B. Longstreet, signed by fifty-two names : — 
 
 " The delegates of the conferences in the slaveholding states take 
 leave to declare to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, that the continued agitation on the subject of slavery and aboli- 
 tion in a portion of the church ; the frequent action on that subject in 
 the General Conference ; and especially the extra-judicial proceedings 
 against Bishop iVndrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual 
 suspension of him from his office as superintendent, must produce 
 a state of things in the south which renders a continuance of the 
 jurisdiction of this General Conference over these conferences incon- 
 sistent with the success of the ministry in the slaveholding states." 
 
 On the 6th of June the famous Protest was read by the Rev. 
 Dr. Bascom. A committee was immediately appointed to draw 
 
12 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 up a Reply to this document. On the same day the following com- 
 munication was received from the bishops : — 
 
 " To the General Conference. 
 
 " Rev. and Dear Brethren, — As the case of Bishop Andrew un- 
 avoidably involves the future action of the superintendents, which, in 
 their judgment, in the present position of the bishop, they have no 
 discretion to decide upon ; they respectfully request of this General 
 Conference official instruction in answer to the following questions : — 
 " 1. Shall Bishop Andrew's name remain as it now stands in the 
 Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline, or shall it be struck off of these 
 official records ? 
 
 " 2. How shall the bishop obtain his support ? As provided for in 
 the form of Discipline, or in some other way ? 
 
 " 3. What work, if any, may the bishop perform ; and how shall he 
 be appointed to the work 1 
 
 " Joshua Soule, 
 " Elijah Hedding, 
 " Beverly Waugh, 
 "Thomas A. Morris." 
 
 The following resolutions, offered by the Rev. J. T. Mitchell, 
 contain the response of the General Conference :— 
 
 " 1 . Resolved, as the sense of this conference, That Bishop Andrew's 
 name stand in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline, as formerly. 
 
 "2. Resolved, That the rule in relation to the support of a bishop, 
 and his family, applies to Bishop Andrew. 
 
 " 3. Resolved, That whether in any, and if any, in what work. 
 Bishop Andrew be employed, is to be determined by his own decision 
 and action, in relation to the previous action of this conference in his 
 case." 
 
 The Reply to the Protest was read by Dr. Durbin, on the 10th 
 of June, and ordered to be spread upon the Journals. 
 
 In the mean time, on the 8th of June, the report of the com- 
 mittee of nine on the Declaration of the Southern delegates was 
 read and adopted. (See Journals, pp. 133-137.) This report 
 contained provisional arrangements for a territorial division, and 
 a division of the property, if the southern portion should find it 
 necessary to form a distinct and independent ecclesiastical con- 
 nection. 
 
 The reader now has before him the documentary history of the 
 whole case. The Declaration, the Protest, the Defense of the 
 Protest, by Dr. Bascom, and the Report of the committee on divi- 
 sion, adopted by the Louisville Convention, set forth the reasons 
 and ground for refusing to submit to the action of the General Con- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 18 
 
 ference, and for organizing a separate church, as viewed by our 
 southern brethren. I shall now proceed to examine the leading 
 positions and arguments of these documents. The Protest con- 
 tains the fundamental principles of the argument in favor of the 
 southern movement. The Reply, though hastily drawn up, con- 
 tains the gist of the argument in defense of the action of the Gen- 
 eral Conference, and remains unimpaired, so far as I can see, after 
 all the strength which Dr. Bascom and others have exhausted upon 
 it. It is now necessary to re-examine the Protest and the Reply, 
 and with the aid that subsequent publications afford us perhaps we 
 may come to a safe conclusion as to where the truth lies. 
 
 § IV. — The Compromise. 
 
 The first objection to the action of the General Conference which 
 I shall notice is, that it is a violation of a "compact" or "treaty" 
 which had long existed between the north and the south upon the 
 subject of slavery. The protesters say, — 
 
 " The whole subject is, in the very nature of things, resolved into a 
 single original question : Will the General Conference adhere to, and 
 in good faith assert and maintain, the compromise law of the church 
 on the vexed question dividing us — or will it be found expedient 
 generally, as in the case of Bishop Andrew, to lay it aside, and tread 
 it under foot? .... Law always pledges the public faith of the body 
 ostensibly governed by it to the faithful assertion and performance of 
 its stipulations ; and the compromise law of the Discipline, partaking, 
 as it does, of the nature of the law of treaty, and embracing, as has 
 been seen, all possible cases, pledges the good faith of every minister 
 and member of the Methodist Episcopal Church against saying or doing 
 anything tending to annul the force or thwart the purposes of its en- 
 actment." — Protest, Journal, p. 190. 
 
 The Reply very properly denies that there is anything in the 
 existing law upon slavery that partakes of the nature of a " treaty" 
 or '* compact," though it concedes that the law is of force, and 
 must be kept according to its true nature and intent. 
 
 Dr. Bascom materially varies from the position of the Protest in 
 his Review. He states the question thus : — 
 
 "The first general topic claiming attention, is the compromise character 
 of the general law of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church ; its 
 assumption by the south in their Protest, and its denial by the north in 
 their rejoinder. To prevent misapprehension, it may be well to 
 state here, and once for all, that the term compromise is used in the 
 Protest in its most ordinary popular acceptation, in connection with 
 legislation, to denote a mutual agreement to adjust difficulties, in the 
 shape of a legal arrangement — some general rule or law, upon the 
 
14 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 grounds of mutual concession and forbearance, by the parties legislating, 
 acting as the authorized representatives of the more primary parties 
 immediately interested." — Review, pp. 5, 6. 
 
 Again he says, — 
 
 " I am not at all careful or tenacious about words or phrases. My 
 object is, to make it appear to the satisfaction of the candid and well- 
 informed, that for the last thirty years I have been taught, and taught 
 too by the ablest masters in our common Israel, that the whole legis- 
 lation of the church, on the subject of slavery, but especially from 
 1800 to 1816, originated in mutual concession and compromise, between 
 men representing the church north and south, and, therefore, that the 
 law of the church is, ipso facto, a compromise, as assumed in the 
 Protest of the minority at the late General Conference, the principles 
 and the positions of which it is the object of this publication to de- 
 fend." — Ibid., p. 9. 
 
 This I say is changing the question at issue between the Protest 
 and the Reply. The Protest uses the word " compromise " as sy- 
 nonymous with " compact" and " treaty ;" and the Reply so con- 
 strues the Protest, and only denies that the law of the Discipline on 
 slavery is a compromise in that sense. What the Reply denies is, 
 
 " that there has been some period when the question of slavery was 
 settled in the Methodist Episcopal Church as it was in the general 
 government at the adoption of the federal constitution, — that ' the 
 confederating Annual Conferences,' ' after a vexed and protracted 
 negotiation,' met in convention, and the section on slavery 'was finally 
 agreed to by the parties after a long and fearful struggle,' as ' a com- 
 pact,' ' a treaty,' which cannot be altered by the General Conference until 
 certain constitutional restrictions are removed." — Rej)ly, Journal, p. 203. 
 
 This is wliat the committee who drew up the Reply supposed 
 the Protest asserted, and is what they objected to. But Dr. 
 Bascom, in his Review, instead of attempting to show that the 
 committee had misapprehended the language of the Protest, or to 
 prove its correctness, falls upon the word "compromise, in its 
 most ordinary popular acceptation ;" and labors through forty-one 
 of his large pages to prove that the law of the Discipline on slavery 
 is a compromise in this sense. Through the whole of this space 
 he beats the air by proving what the Reply does not deny, and what 
 I presume no northern man will for a moment be disposed to deny. 
 What we maintain is, that the law on slavery (excepting, of course, 
 the general rule) is a simple statute, which the General Conference 
 has a right at any time to alter ; and not a compact, a treaty, or 
 a part of the constitution proper. Tiiat the law was passed in 
 the spirit of compromise no one will deny. It was a concession 
 to circumstances that the conference could not control or modify. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 15 
 
 I of course have no occasion to follow Dr. B. through his long 
 argument upon " the compromise character of the general law of 
 slavery." He makes a false issue, and will meet with no opponent 
 from this quarter. But to go a little further into the subject. 
 Whence all this ado about the " compromise," " compact," or 
 " treaty ;" since, whatever be the nature of the law, the majority 
 of the General Conference steadily maintained that they had not 
 in the least infringed upon its provisions ? The Reply maintains 
 this position, and the north still stands upon it. It must first be 
 proved that the law has been infracted ; and then, in attempting to 
 show the magnitude of the offense of the "dominant majority," 
 it would be pertinent to inquire into the nature and history of the 
 law. And if it could fairly be made out that the General Con- 
 ference did, in the case of Bishop Andrew, contravene the existing 
 law, and that the law so contravened is of the nature of a most solemn 
 and sacred treaty, and a part of the constitution, then the separation 
 would stand upon a solid foundation. But the whole of this ground 
 is contested. We of the north maintain that no existing law, in 
 the case in question, was infringed ; and that the law which it is 
 alledged has been infringed is a simple statute of the Disciplme, 
 and nothing else. 
 
 § V. — Laws of the Discipline on Slavery. 
 
 So much has been said of the nature of the laws of the Disci- 
 pline on slavery, that I shall here give them in full, with the date of 
 each, that the reader may have the whole before him, and be able 
 to judge of the character of the existing law in the light of the 
 documentary history of the whole subject. 
 
 The following are the provisions on slavery previous to the year 
 1784:— 
 
 " 1780. Quest. 16. Ought not this conference to require those 
 traveling preachers who hold slaves to give promises to set them free ? 
 
 "Ans. Yes. 
 
 " Quest. 17. Does this conference acknowledge that slavery is con- 
 trary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society ; con- 
 trary to the dictates of conscience and pure religion, and doing that 
 Avhich we would not others should do to us and ours ? Do we pass 
 our disapprobation on all our friends who keep slaves, and advise 
 their freedom ? 
 
 "Ans. Yes." 
 
 "1783. Quest. 10. What shall be done with our local preachers 
 who hold slaves contrary to the laws which authorize their freedom in 
 any of the United States ? 
 
 " Ans. We will try them another year. In the mean time let every 
 
16 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 assistant deal faithfully and plainly with every one, and report to the 
 next conference. It may then be necessary to suspend them." 
 
 In 1784 the following regulations were passed : — 
 
 " Quest. 13. What shall we do with our local preachers who will not 
 emancipate their slaves in the states where the laws admit if? 
 
 " Ans. Try those in Virginia another year, and suspend the preachers 
 in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New- Jersey." 
 
 " Quest. 22. What shall be done with our traveling preachers that 
 now are, or hereafter shall be, possessed of slaves, and refuse to 
 manumit them where the law permits ? 
 
 ^^ Ans. Employ them no more." 
 
 " Quest. 42. What methods can we take to extirpate slavery ? 
 
 " Ans. We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making new 
 terms of communion for a religious society already established, excepting 
 on the most pressing occasion : and such we esteem the practice of 
 holding our fellow-creatures in slavery. We view it as contrary to the 
 golden law of God, on which hang all the law and the prophets, and 
 the unalienable rights of mankind, as well as every principle of the 
 revolution, to hold in the deepest debasement, in a more abject slavery 
 than is perhaps to be found in any part of the world except America, 
 so many souls that are all capable of the image of God. 
 
 " We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately 
 some effectual method to extirpate this abomination from among us : 
 and for that purpose we add the following to the rules of our society, 
 viz. : — 
 
 " 1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession, 
 shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant, 
 (which notice the assistants are required immediately, and without any 
 delay, to give in their respective circuits,) legally execute and record 
 an instrument, whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in 
 his possession who is between the ages of forty and forty-five imme- 
 diately, or at furthest when they arrive at the age of forty-five. 
 
 " And every slave who is between the ages of twenty-five and forty 
 immediately, or at furthest at the expiration of five years from the date 
 of the said instrument. 
 
 " And every slave who is between the ages of twenty and twenty- 
 five immediately, or at furthest when they arrive at the age of thirty. 
 
 " And every slave under the age of twenty, as soon as they arrive 
 at the age of twenty-five at furthest. 
 
 " And every infant born in slavery after the above-mentioned ndes 
 are complied with, immediately on its birth. 
 
 " 2. Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly 
 minute down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the 
 masters in his respective circuit, and also the date of every instrument 
 executed and recorded for the manumission of the slaves, with the 
 name of the court, book, and folio, in which the said instruments re- 
 Bpeclively shall have been recorded : which journal shall be handed 
 down in each circuit to the succeeding assistants. 
 
 " 3. In consideration that these rules form a new term of commu- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 17 
 
 nion, every person concerned who will not comply with them shall 
 have liberty quietly to withdraw himself from our society within the 
 twelve months succeeding the notice given as aforesaid ; otherwise 
 the assistant shall exclude him in the society, 
 
 " 4. No person so voluntarily withdrawn, or so excluded, shall ever 
 partake of the supper of the Lord with the Methodists, till he complies 
 with the above requisitions. 
 
 " 5, No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into 
 society, or to the Lord's Supper, till he previously complies with these 
 rules concerning slavery. 
 
 " N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no 
 further than as they are consistent with the laws of the states in which 
 they reside. 
 
 "And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and 
 after due consideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them 
 two years from the notice given, to consider the expedience of com- 
 pliance or non-compliance with these rules. 
 
 " Quest. 43. What shall be done with those who buy or sell slaves, 
 or give them away 1 
 
 ^^Ans. They are immediately to be expelled; unless they buy them 
 on purpose to free them." 
 
 " Not more than six months had elapsed after the adoption of these last 
 rules before it was thought necessary to suspend them. Accordingly, 
 in the Annual Minutes for 1785 the following notice was inserted : — 
 
 "'It is recommended to all our brethren to suspend the execution of 
 the minute on slavery till the deliberations of a future conference ; and 
 that an equal space of time be allowed all our members for considera- 
 tion, when the minute shall be put in force. 
 
 " ' N. B. We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice of slavery; 
 and shall not cease to seek its destruction by all wise and prudent means.' 
 
 "This note does not seem to refer to Question 43, (1784,) as it, 
 with the same answer, was retained in the Discipline of 1786. From 
 this till 1796 no mention, it would seem, was made of the subject ex- 
 cept in the General Rules. 
 
 " 1796. The following section was introduced on the subject : — 
 
 " ' Quest. What regulations shall be made for the extirpation of the 
 crying evil of African slavery ? 
 
 " ^Ans. 1. We declare, that we are more than ever convinced of the 
 great evil of the African slavery that still exists in these United States, 
 and do most earnestly recommend to the yearly conferences, quarterly 
 meetings, and to those who have the oversight of districts and circuits, 
 to be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official stations 
 in our church ; and in the case of future admission to official stations, 
 to require such security of those who hold slaves, for the emancipation 
 of them, immediately or gradually, as the laws of the states respectively, 
 and the circumstances of the case will admit ; and we do fully authorize 
 all the yearly conferences to make whatever regulations they judge 
 proper, in the present case, respecting the admission of persons to 
 official stations in our church. 
 
] 8 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 " ' 2. No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher 
 who has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faith- 
 fully on the subject of slavery. 
 
 " ' 3. Every member of the society who sells a slave shall immedi- 
 ately, after full proof, be excluded the society. And if any member of 
 our society purchase a slave, the ensuing quarterly meeting shall 
 determine on the number of years in which the slave so purchased 
 Avould work out the price of his purchase. And the person so purchasing 
 shall, immediately after such determination, execute a legal instrument 
 for the manumission of such slave, at the expiration of the term deter- 
 mined by the quarterly meeting. And in default of his executing such 
 instrument of manumission, or on his refusal to submit his case to the 
 judgment of the quarterly meeting, such member shall be excluded the 
 society. Provided also, that in the case of a female slave, it shall be in- 
 serted in the aforesaid instrument of manumission, that all her children, 
 who shall be born during the years of her servitude, shall be free at 
 the following times, namely : every female child at the age of twenty- 
 one, and every male child at the age of twenty-five. Nevertheless, if 
 the member of our society executing the said instrument of manumission 
 judge it proper, he may fix the times of manumission of the children 
 of the female slaves before mentioned at an earlier age than that which 
 is prescribed above. 
 
 '"4. The preachers and other members of our society are requested 
 to consider the subject of negro slavery with deep attention till the 
 ensuing General Conference : and that they impart to the General 
 Conference, through the medium of the yearly conferences, or otherwise, 
 any important thoughts upon the subject, that the conference may have 
 full light, in order to take further steps toward the eradicating this 
 enormous evil from that part of the church of God to which they are 
 united.' 
 
 " 1800. The following new paragraphs were inserted : — 
 
 " ' 2. When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave 
 or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in 
 our church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation 
 of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the state in which he lives.' 
 
 " ' 6. The Annual Conferences are directed to draw up addresses for 
 the gradual emancipation of the slaves, to the legislatures of those states 
 in which no general laws have been passed for that purpose. These 
 addresses shall urge, in the most respectful but pointed manner, the 
 necessity of a hiw for the gradual emancipation of the slaves; proper com- 
 mittees sliall be appointed, I)y the Annual Conferences, out of the most 
 respectable of our friends, for the conducting of the business ; and the 
 presiding cklers, ciders, deacons, and traveling preachers, shall procure 
 as many proper signatures as possible to the addresses, and give all the 
 assistance in their power in every respect to aid the committees, and 
 to further this blessed undertaking. Let this be continued from year 
 to year, till the desired end be accomplished.' 
 
 " 1804. The following alterations were made : — 
 
 " The question reads, — ' What shall be done for the extirpation of 
 the evil of slavery ?' 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 19 
 
 "In paragraph 1 (1796) instead of ' more than ever convinced,' we 
 have, ' as much as ever convinced,' and instead of, 'the African slavery 
 which still exists in these United States,' we have ' slavery.' 
 
 " In paragraph 4, (3 of 1796,) respecting the selling of a slave, before 
 the words ' shall immediately,' the foliov/ing clause is inserted : — 
 ' except at the request of the slave, in cases of mercy and humanity, 
 agreeably to the judgment of a committee of the male members of 
 the society, appointed by the preacher who has the charge of the 
 circuit.' 
 
 " The following new proviso was inserted in this paragraph : — 
 ' Provided also, that if a member of our society shall buy a slave with 
 a certificate of future emancipation, the terms of emancipation shall, 
 notwithstanding, be subject to the decision of the quarterly meeting 
 conference.' All after ' nevertheless'' was struck out, and the following 
 substituted : — ' The members of our societies in the states of North 
 Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, shall be exempted 
 from the operation of the above rules.' The paragraphs about con- 
 sidering the subject of slavery and petitions to legislatures, (namely, 
 No. 4 of 1796, and No. 6 of 1800,) were struck out, and the following 
 added : — 
 
 " ' 5. Let our preachers, from time to time, as occasion serves, ad- 
 monish and exhort all slaves to render due respect and obedience to the 
 commands and interests of their respective masters.' 
 
 " 1808. AH that related to slaveholding among private members 
 (see 2 and 3 of 1796) struck out, and the following substituted: — 
 
 " '3. The General Conference authorizes each Annual Conference to 
 form their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves.' 
 
 " Paragraph 5 of 1804 was also struck out. 
 
 " 1812. Paragraph 3 of 1808 was altered so as to read, — 
 
 " ' 3. Whereas the laws of some of the states do not admit of eman- 
 cipating of slaves without a special act of the legislature ; the General 
 Conference authorizes each Annual Conference to form their own regu- 
 lations relative to buying and selling slaves.' 
 
 " 1816. Paragraph 1 (see 1796) was altered so as to read, — 
 
 " ' 1. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great 
 evil of slavery : therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any 
 official station in our church hereafter, where the laws of the state in 
 which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated 
 slave to enjoy freedom.' 
 
 "1820. Paragraph 3, (see 1812,) leaving it to the Annual Con- 
 ferences ' to form their own regulations about buying and selling 
 slaves,' was struck out. 
 
 " 1824. The following paragraphs added : — 
 
 " ' 3. All our preachers shall prudently enforce upon our members the 
 necessity of teaching their slaves to read the word of God ; and to 
 allow them time to attend upon the public worship of God on our 
 regular days of divine service. 
 
 " ' 4. Our colored preachers and official members shall have all the 
 privileges which are usual to others in the district and quarterly con- 
 ferences, where the usages of the country do not forbid it. And the 
 
20 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 presiding elder may hold for them a separate district conference, where 
 the number of colored local preachers will justify it. 
 
 " ' 5. The Annual Conferences may employ colored preachers to 
 travel and preach where their services are judged necessary; provided 
 that no one shall be so employed without having been recommended 
 according to the form of Discipline.'" — History of the Discipline, ^^. 
 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 43, 44, 274-279. 
 
 Now here are several facts standing out prominently. First. 
 That our fathers commenced with stern opposition to slavery both 
 in liie ministry and membership ; and on tlie organization of the 
 church, in 1784, took measures wholly to eradicate it from the 
 connection. Secondly. Finding the laws of several of the states 
 did not admit of emancipation, they judged it necessary to make 
 exceptions. Xliirdly. That the anti-slavery character of the Dis- 
 cipline still remains, the holding of slaves only being tolerated in 
 a traveling preacher where "emancipation" is not "practicable" 
 under " the laws of the state in which he lives." Finally. That 
 the General Conference kept a steady eye to the moral and reli- 
 gious improvement of the slaves.* It is a perfectly clear deduction 
 
 * General Conferenco action upon this subject has often been sadly mis- 
 represented. Take the following instance, from my much-esteemed friend, 
 Dr. Capers : — " Look at the disciplinary rules which have been passed from 
 time to time, examine the history of all our struggles in General Conference, 
 and you will be mortified to find how absent from the minds of the emancipa- 
 tors a care of the negro's soul has been ; while their conceit of philanthropy 
 has carried it strongly against the gospel in the church of Christ." — Letter to 
 Dr. Bangs: Southern Christian Advocate, Dec. 20, 1844. 
 
 I hope upon a review of " the disciplinary rules " on slaverj', the good 
 doctor will be able to find some recognition of the fact that negroes have souls. 
 I would refer him especially to answers 3, 4, and 5, sec. x, of the Discipline. 
 These are the last rules made by the General Conference on the sul)ject of 
 slavery. The following note, from Emory's " History of the Discipline," is 
 also worthy of his attention : 
 
 " The Methodists iu America have from the first taken an active part in 
 promoting the welfare of the colored people. In the Annual Minutes for 
 1787 we find the following : — 
 
 " ' Quest. 17. What directions shall we give for the promotion of the spiritual 
 welfare of the colored people 1 
 
 " ' We conjure all our ministers and preachers, by the love of God, and the 
 salvation of souls, and do require them, by all the authority that is invested in 
 us, to leave nothing undone for the spiritual benefit and salvation of them, 
 within their respective circuits or districts ; and for this purpose to embrace 
 every opportunity of inqumng into the state of their souls, and to unite in 
 society those who appear to have a real desire of Heeing from the wratli to 
 come ; to meet such in class, and to exercise the whole Methodist discipline 
 among them.' "—P. 274. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 21 
 
 from the plain letter of the law, as it now stands in the book, that 
 no traveling preacher can be a slaveholder unless he is appointed 
 by the bishop to labor within the bounds of a state or territory 
 where " legal emancipation" is not " practicable :" in no other case 
 can a traveling preacher claim exemption under the law as a slave- 
 holder. In order then for our southern brethren to make oat their 
 charge against the General Conference of a gross violation of the 
 law on the subject of slavery in its action in the case of Bishop 
 Andrew, they must prove that the bishop, by virtue of his office, 
 and in the prosecution of its functions, must necessarily live within 
 the bounds of a state where emancipation is not practicable : this 
 they have not as yet even attempted, though the majority in the 
 late General Conference steadily made this issue, and kept it con- 
 stantly in view. 
 
 Dr. Bascom has made an effort to prove that the offensive laws 
 on slavery were made by a dominant northern majority, and that 
 " parties were as distinctly marked sixty years ago as now :" — 
 
 " It is true, in early times the north and south would have been about 
 equal in numbers and strength, had the Bahimore Conference acted 
 with the south, where geographically and politically she properly 
 belongs. That conference, however, has always cherished affinities 
 for the north, and continues to do so, and this fact has secured to the 
 north the power of the church for sixty-five years or more. Contrary, 
 therefore, to the round assertion of the Reply, the preponderance of 
 strength has always been in the north. Upon this misstatement of 
 fact, and the consequent inconclusive reasoning of the respondents, it 
 is not necessary to enlarge. Numerous facts support our general 
 position." — Review, pp. 23, 24. 
 
 Now if the doctor is right in his views of the state of the question, 
 north and south, he certainly is not right in imputing an adverse 
 opinion to the Reply : for what he calls " the round assertion of 
 the Reply " is nowhere found in that document. The doctor pro- 
 bably saw this " assertion" somewhere else, where I wot not, nor 
 is it material. But I am sorry our learned friend is so very 
 anxious to load the Reply with odium as to charge upon it false- 
 hoods which it nowhere utters. He meets the case so formally 
 and zealously, that I scarcely thought of looking into the Reply 
 for the evidence of the truth of his allegation ; but was casting 
 about for data to justify " the round assertion" which I supposed 
 was verily to be found somewhere in it: but finally wishing to find 
 the place, that I might examine the language for myself, I ran 
 hastily over the pages without success. Supposing my failure to 
 be the result of too much haste, or perhaps dullness of sight 
 
22 Slavery arid the Episcopacy. 
 
 brought on by a long sitting at my desk, I laid the matter over 
 until I had refreshed myself with a walk, and then read the Reply 
 all carefully through, but with as little success as before. How 
 many similar blunders are contained in the doctor's book it will be 
 difficult to tell, as he never gives specific references, and to ferret 
 out all his numerous quotations is a task that few will ever un- 
 dertake. 
 
 After all, I am disposed to doubt the truth of his assertions with 
 regard to the state of parties. I am inclined to think, if the truth 
 were known, (and known it is to some who are still living,) that 
 the action against slavery, of which he speaks, was not the action 
 of a dominant northern majority, but that it was a Methodist move- 
 ment, and was far from being opposed by all the southern preach- 
 ers, excepting "the Baltimore Conference," which, it seems, "has 
 always cherished affinities for the north." Dr. Bascom has himself 
 furnished \is with the most conclusive evidence that there was at 
 least one other southern conference that was decidedly anti-slavery. 
 The following is the statement of the casej — 
 
 " After traveling nearly four years in the Ohio Conference, I was, in 
 the autumn of 1816, transferred to the Tennessee Conference, of which 
 I was a member until 1821. During this whole period, a fierce contro- 
 versy was raging in that conference, on the subject of slavery and abo- 
 lition, the abohlionists having a decided majority. The course and 
 practice of the majority went to settle the principle, that no slaveholder, 
 whatever might be the law of the state in the case, or his claims in 
 other respects, should be received into the traveling connection, and no 
 preacher, traveling or local, admitted to ordination, until he had first in 
 fact emancipated his slaves. The minority contended that such a 
 course was inconsistent with, and in violation of, the rights long secured 
 to slaveholders, in states where emancipation was impracticable. The 
 struggle was long and bitter, continuing from year to year, and at the 
 Tennessee Conference in 1819, the minority, acting imder the advice 
 of Bishops M'Kendroe and George, protested against the course of the 
 majority, and appealed to the General Conference of 1820. Upon the 
 presentation of the protest in conference, Bishop iM'Kcndree presiding, 
 admitted it to record, against the declared will of the majority, and 
 took occasion to address the conference at great length, on the course 
 of the majority, and the subject of slavery in general; and as the in- 
 terference of the conference with the subject had excited no little dis- 
 trust and jealousy in the public mind. Bishop iM'Kendree requested 
 that he might be heard by some of the most influential citizens of 
 Nashville, in which the conference sat ; and at his request, I intro- 
 duced into the conference the Hon. Felix Grundy and Oliver B. Hays, 
 Esq., who listened to the address of Bishop IM'Kendree with intense 
 interest, and declared to the conl'erence, that according to the address, 
 the law of the church was not, as they had been led to suppose, in con- 
 flict with the laws of the state." — Review, p. 7. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 23 
 
 This, upon the whole, is an interesting sketch. Here is a 
 south-western conference — one of those that have separated from 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church because of the " continued 
 agitation" upon the subject of slavery, "the frequent action on 
 that subject in the General Conference," and an expression of its 
 "sense" that slaveholding in the episcopacy is inadmissible: 
 one of the conferences whose delegates in 1844 signed the famous 
 Protest, and which now constitutes a portion of "the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, South." This conference was, at least during 
 Dr. Bascom's residence in it, an abolition conference, " the 
 abolitionists having a decided majority." Was this "decided 
 majority" made up of mad, "fanatical" Yankees? Was the 
 Tennessee Conference one of those northern conferences, which 
 for sixty years troubled and agitated the south, and oppressed 
 them with prescriptive enactments, which have at least had a 
 part in bringing about a separation of the south from the JMethod- 
 ist Episcopal Church ? No, indeed ! The Tennessee Conference 
 was no northern conference — she was a Methodist conference 
 of the old stamp all the while that Dr. Bascom was a member 
 there, and indeed much longer; her decided "abolition" majority 
 notwithstanding. It is in vain for our southern brethren to attempt 
 to palm off upon the north all the agitations and General Con- 
 ference action upon the vexed question of slavery for the last sixty 
 years. We know, and they are obliged to concede, that there were 
 many spirits among them — raised up among themselves — of the 
 type of Finle)^ and Cartwright, who first washed their own hands 
 of the evil of holding their fellow-beings in involuntary servitude, 
 and then preached to others the true Wesleyan doctrine upon that 
 subject.* We know, for Dr. Bascom tells us, that there was, at 
 least during the "whole period" between 1816 and 1821, abolition 
 agitations and anti-slavery conference action in the south. How 
 all this is consistent with the assertion that the anti-slavery move- 
 ments in the General Conference have been wholly northern 
 movements, and the action has been that of a dominant northern 
 majority, and that the lines between the anti-slavery portions of the 
 church and the others have for sixty-five years been drawn terri- 
 torially, as they now seem to be — how these assertions accord with 
 Dr. Bascom's own facts I need not say. 
 
 * I find, on an examination of the Journals, upon the committees which 
 reported the offensive measures on slavery in 1800 and 1804, the names of 
 Wm. M'Kendree, Jesse Lee, Geo. Dougherty, Philip Bruce, Wm. Burke, 
 and Henry Willis, all southern men except Burke, who was a member of 
 the Western Conference. 
 
24 Slavery and the Episcopacy, 
 
 ^ Vr. — Whether the Law, called at the South the Compromise Law, 
 covers Bishop Andrew. 
 
 The whole controversy now pending between the north and 
 south hinges upon the simple question, whether the law, called by 
 our southern brethren the compromise laiv, actually covers a bishop 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The majority in the late 
 General Conference took the negative of this question, and the 
 minority the aiBrmative. The question has now been largely dis- 
 cussed, and perhaps nearly all the light shed upon it that can be 
 expected. The law and its object are thus expressed in the Dis- 
 cipline : — 
 
 " Quest. What shall be done for the extirpation of the evil of slavery? 
 
 " Ans. 1. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the 
 great evil of slavery ; therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any 
 official station in our church hereafter, where the laws of the state in 
 which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated 
 slave to enjoy freedom. 
 
 " 2. When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or 
 slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our 
 church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of 
 such slaves, conformably to the laws of the state in which he lives." 
 
 The object of the law is " the extirpation of the great evil of 
 slavery ;" not its extension, its perpetuity, or even its protection. 
 The measures proposed for the accomplishment of this object are 
 two. First, depriving all slaveholders of the right of office in the 
 church, where the laws of the state in which tiiey live will admit 
 of emancipation. And secondhj, depriving all " traveling preach- 
 ers" of their " ministerial character," who by any means become 
 owners of a slave or slaves, unless they execute a legal emancipa- 
 tion, " if it be practicable, conformably to the laws of the state in 
 which they live." The law imposes disabilities upon slaveholders, 
 and requires all traveling preachers who have slaves to emancipate 
 them. The object of the law is " the extirpation of the great evil 
 of slavery." And the exception only applies to such as live within 
 states where the laws do not admit of emancipation — where eman- 
 cipation is not "practicable." The object of the law, then, will 
 of course enforce its application cverj'vvhere except where the 
 laws of the state oppose an insuperable barrier. This I may fairly 
 presume will be readily admitted. Supposing a traveling preacher 
 to be charged with owning a slave, tlie fact being admitted or 
 proved, the settling of two points will fix his guilt or innocence in 
 the eye of the law. First, where does he live ; that is, where is 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 25 
 
 the conference, in which he holds his membership, located ? And 
 secondly, do the laws of the state in which he holds his member- 
 ship, and receives his appointment, admit of emancipation ? If a 
 traveling preacher should see proper to locate his family far off 
 from his charge, within the limits of another state — if he were to 
 receive his appointment in Ohio, and should locate his family in 
 Viro-inia or Mississippi — the question of residence would be settled, 
 not by the location of his family, but by his membership and his 
 station. The residence of a traveling preacher is only known in 
 our economy by his membership in an Annual Conference, and his 
 appointment by the bishop. But a bishop is not a member of any- 
 Annual Conference, and receives his appointment, when elected to 
 office by the General Conference, to preside over the whole church, 
 east, ivest, north, and south. What right, then, has a bishop to 
 claim the protection of a law made only for the benefit of travel- 
 ing preachers, whose residence is fixed to certain localities by- 
 virtue of their connection with the Annual Conference, and their 
 appointment to labor within its bounds ? If our episcopacy were 
 diocesan, and a bishop were appointed to a southern diocese, 
 embracing only such slaveholding states as do not admit of 
 emancipation, then the bishop's residence being determined by 
 his field of labor to be within such states, there would be reason 
 in extending to him the protection of the law provided for such 
 traveling preachers as live within states where the laws do not 
 admit of emancipation. But this is not the character of our epis- 
 copacy. It is general, and by the nature of their office our bishops 
 have no residence assigned them, but are, in the nature of the case, 
 bound to select such a point as will best comport with the objects 
 and purposes of their appointment. How this argument is met by 
 the able reviewer, the reader shall now see. 
 
 "The Reply attempts to prove Bishop Andrew blameworthy, because 
 a bishop is ' allowed to live where he pleases,' and it seems it would 
 have pleased the repliers, and those they represent, had Bishop Andrew 
 removed north, and so freed himself from slavery by expatriation. It so 
 happens, however, that Bishop Andrew 'pleases' to live in Georgia, 
 where he resided at the time of his election, and the Discipline, as we 
 have seen, takes from the General Conference any right to disturb him 
 in his connection with slavery, in that state. And as a bishop is 
 kindly 'allowed to live where he pleases,' no blame can possibly 
 attach to Bishop Andrew for not removing north." — Review, p. 98. 
 
 This Dr. Bascom may think a very pertinent and conclusive 
 answer to the position of the Reply. But were I to say it is more 
 specious than solid I should place upon it too high an estimate. I 
 
26 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 will allow that it is quite flippant— that it talks up and " sounds 
 smart" — but its sophistry is scarcely covered with a veil of gossa- 
 mer. What the Reply means is obviously that the bishop is not 
 obliged by his official relations to live in Georgia ; and if a residence 
 in that state prejudices the work to which he had been called, he 
 ought to remove his residence to some other point where he would 
 not be thus embarrassed, or relinquish his office. But the bishop 
 does not choose to remove north. Very well. Of this the north 
 do not complain, nor do "the repliers" require or even advise him 
 to do so. But what they maintain is, that so long as he is not, by 
 the terms of his office or the functions imposed upon him, neces- 
 sarily located in Georgia, or any other state wliose laws do not 
 admit of emancipation, he has no right to the protection of a law 
 made for, and expressly limited to, such as are, by the legitimate 
 authority, appointed to labor in such states. But the bishop is 
 " allowed to live where he pleases," and therefore " no blame can 
 possibly attach to him for not removing to the north." Well, and 
 supposing all our bishops should remove to Georgia and buy slaves, 
 what then? As they are "allowed to live where they please," 
 where would be our remedy? According to the Protest and the 
 Review they are all traveling preachers, and they would be per- 
 fectly protected by the Discipline, and, though it were to effect the 
 ruin of the whole church, the General Conference could not touch 
 them. 
 
 But let us look at the object of the law. It proposes " the extir- 
 pation of the evil of slavery," and only suspends its efforts where 
 insuperable difficulties are presented by the laws of the state. If 
 then there is no necessary connection between the residence of a 
 bishop in a state where the laws do not admit of emancipation, 
 and the full performance of all the functions of his office, most 
 certainly a slaveholding bishop is not covered by the spirit and 
 intention of the law. For who would presume to urge that to have 
 bishops who are not, by the conditions of their office or the nature 
 of their work, obliged to reside in slaveholding states, who own 
 slaves, is following out the objects of the law, whose express "intend- 
 ment" is "the extirpation of the evil of slavery?" Supposing the 
 question and answer to stand thus : " What shall be done for the 
 extirpation of the evil of slavery? Answer. Let the bishop or 
 bishops loho may clioose to live in the states whose laws do not 
 admit of emancipation, hold slaves ad lihittim." Would there not 
 be a manifest incongruity in such an answer ? And yet this absurd 
 answer is a perfect parallel with the construction of the law con- 
 tended for by our southern brethren. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 27 
 
 But in addition to the reasons derived from the spirit and inten- 
 tions of the law in question, as urged in the Reply, the letter of the 
 law does not include bishops ; for it cannot be proved that bishops 
 are embraced in the phrase " traveling preachers." For, as the 
 Reply urges, " so far as judicial proceedings are concerned, the 
 Discipline divides the church into four classes, private members, 
 local preachers, traveling preachers, and bishops ; and establishes 
 distinct tribunals, and different degrees of responsibility for each." 
 In addition to the consideration, that the trial of a bishop is specially 
 provided for, and his case is not understood as embraced under the 
 general provision for the trial of traveling preachers, " the bishops" 
 are mentioned separately, as forming a class by themselves, indepen- 
 dent of the traveling preachers proper, no less than five times in one 
 section of the Discipline. The instances are in section v, part 2: 
 " The annual allowance of the married, traveling, supernumerary, 
 and superannuated preachers, and the bishops, shall be," &c. The 
 same formulary occurs successively in each of the first five para- 
 graphs of this section. This instance, at least so far fixes the 
 technical use of the phrase " traveling preachers," as to throw our 
 opponents upon the necessity of proving that in the law in question 
 it nece^^anZy embraces bishops; and a failure to do this renders their 
 whole argument utterly nugatory. This the Protest attempts, but 
 with what success the reader, after a very brief examination, can 
 judge. Thus it proceeds : — " Is there anything in the law or its 
 reasons creating an exception in the case of bishops ?" The Reply 
 shows there is something both "in the law" and "its reasons" 
 " creating an exception in the instance of bishops," And for this 
 conclusion I have given additional reasons above, which I need not 
 repeat. The Protest proceeds : — " Would the south have entered 
 into the arrangement, or in any form have consented to the law, 
 had it been intimated by the north that bishops must be an excep- 
 tion to the rule ?" Possibly they would not : but we of the north 
 have yet to learn that the south had the most distant idea at the 
 time this famous "compromise law" was enacted, that it included 
 bishops. And certain I am, that the argument may be retorted with 
 full effect. We may ask, with reason and with emphasis. Would 
 the north have entered into the arrangement, or in any form consented 
 to the law, had it been intimated by the south that bishops must be 
 included in the rule ? And especially if the understanding had been 
 that the law was to be " like the laws of the Modes and Persians, 
 which alter not," who can suppose that " the virtuous dead of the 
 north" would ever thus have bound themselves and the church in 
 all future time, in a "compact" or "treaty" which might in its 
 
28 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 practical operation give the high sanction of all the bishops to 
 "the great evil of slavery," without the possibility of a remedy? 
 Those who can for a moment entertain such an opinion, arrive at 
 their conclusions by mental processes which are to me unaccount- 
 able. That frigid, stubborn northern majority which Dr. Bascom 
 tells U3 produced all the anti-slavery laws of the Discipline, would 
 hardly have consented to labor " for the extirpation of the great 
 evil of slavery" at such a rate. A law which would protect the 
 bishops in settling themselves in the slaveholding states whose 
 laws do not admit of emancipation, and purchasing slaves or 
 receiving bequests in that species of property, would never have 
 passed in 1804 or 1816 ; and I doubt whether the protesters, upon 
 reflection, would seriously assert the contrary. Again : 
 
 " Are the virtuous dead of the north to be slandered by the supposi- 
 tion that they intended to except bishops, and thus accomplished their 
 purposes, in negotiation with the south, by a resort to deceptive and 
 dishonorable means?" — Protest, Journal, p. 189. 
 
 This is mere declamation ; utterly without force, proceeding as 
 it does upon the false assumption that there was a " negotiation 
 with the south," and that it was the intention of the parties to 
 include bishops in the law which was provided for those " traveling 
 preachers" who lived in certain slaveholding states. This we do 
 not admit, and our opponents can never prove. But then further : 
 
 " If bishops are not named, no more are presiding elders, agents, 
 editors — or indeed any other officers of the church, who are neverthe- 
 less included, ahhough the same rule of construction would except 
 them also." — Ibid. 
 
 These officers are differently situated, nor does " the same rule 
 of construction except them also ;" unless they are, by the nature 
 of the work assigned them, necessarily residents in slaveholding 
 states, and in that case I admit all the Protest asks for. 
 
 But I must not be understood as asserting that bishops are not 
 in any proper sense traveling preachers. Indeed the Reply does 
 not assert this. One of the southern delegates, in an earnest 
 speech in the late General Conference, demanded with emphasis, 
 *' Are not our bishops pj-eachers ? Do they not travel ? Are they 
 not then traveling preachers ?" This conclusion is perfectly 
 legitimate, and yet it proves nothing in relation to the point at issue. 
 That our bishops travel and preach everybody knows ; and that 
 they are consequently traveling preachers in the popular sense, no 
 one would be so foolish as to deny. But that they constitute a 
 class of officers by themselves is equally obvious, and is fully 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 29 
 
 asserted by our southern brethren. When a traveling elder is 
 made a bishop he gains some new attributes, and loses some old 
 ones. He acquires some new powers and immunities, and forfeits 
 some he formerly held. Among the things he loses are his mem- 
 bership in the Annual Conference, his right to a vote, his obhgation 
 to take an appointment upon a circuit, station, or district ; and by 
 consequence, he loses also his right to claim the protection of the 
 law upon slavery, made only for such as from the nature of their 
 conference connections are obliged to live in slaveholding states 
 where the laws do not admit of emancipation. Our position is 
 this : that such are the peculiarities of the episcopal office and 
 work, and such the peculiarities of our bishops as a class — a class 
 of traveling preachers, if our southern brethren will have it so — 
 that in claiming for them any privilege or immunity as traveling 
 preachers, it must be proved that it belongs to them as well as to 
 other traveling preachers — that there is nothing in their peculiar 
 circumstances which precludes the application of the rule or pro- 
 vision to them. This is the issue made in the Protest and met in 
 the Reply. The Protest asks, " Is there anything in the law or its 
 reasons creating an exception in the instance of bishops ?" and the 
 Reply answers : " There is, in both," and proceeds to adduce 
 arguments to prove it. 
 
 Dr. Bascom assails the position of the Reply upon this point 
 with all his power. But the great sophism he perpetrates con- 
 sists in his supposing that because some of the attributes of 
 traveling preachers still adhere to the episcopacy, therefore the 
 bishops are " traveling preachers proper," and in such sense as 
 entitles them to the exception of the rule on slavery. It is by this 
 fallacious mode of reasoning that he labors to convict the Reply 
 of inconsistencies and contradictions. I will give a specimen 
 or two of Dr. B.'s mode of treating this point. 
 
 " The majority think the laio cannot apply to bishops because the 
 mode of trial is not the same as in the case of other travehng preachers. 
 The same reasoning would exempt another class in like manner, as the 
 mode of trial is not the same in the cases of traveling and local preach- 
 ers ; therefore the law of slavery cannot apply to local preachers, as 
 they are not named any more than bishops." — Review, p. 72. 
 
 Local preachers hold an " official station in our church," most 
 surely ; and, of course, need not be further alluded to. And we will 
 allow Dr. Bascom to put down bishops in the same category, if he 
 pleases. Again the doctor says : — 
 
 "With regard to the trifling salary regulation of 1836, unless the 
 General Conference regarded bishops as traveling preachers proper, they 
 
30 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 violated the plain letter of the constitution in allowing them any salary 
 at all." — Review, p. 72, 
 
 Bishops are undoubtedly regarded as traveling preachers in such 
 a sense as to entitle them to a " salary." But thefe are peculiar- 
 ities in their case which necessarily deprive them of the support 
 allowed ordinary traveling preachers, and require special provisions. 
 And again the doctor says : — 
 
 " If the bishops are excluded from subjection to the law of slavery 
 because not named, then are they equally excluded in the instance of 
 many of the most important laws of the church, as in many of its most 
 cardinal regulations they are not named at all." — Ibid., p. 73. 
 
 Now, the difference in the two cases is, that, in these " cardinal 
 regulations," the bishops are evidently implied. But it devolves 
 upon the doctor to prove that tliey are embraced in the provision 
 for residents in slaveholding states. This is the point which he 
 always assumes, but which we have never conceded. Again, the 
 doctor turns, most cuttingly, upon the repliers : — 
 
 " This whole attempt to deprive bishops of the protection, and yet 
 subject them to the restraints, of the law of slavery, must strike all as 
 extraordinary, to say the least of it, and we are compelled to think that, 
 but for the good fortune of such folly, as it seems to us, in having able 
 supporters, its success would be slender indeed." — Ibid. 
 
 Now this is, all in all, one of the most curious passages I have 
 met in the doctor's book. It seems to our learned friend a most 
 unaccountable, though, in soine respects, a most fortunate, piece 
 of "folly" to deprive the bishops of the protection of the law of 
 slavery, and yet subject them to its restraints. But this is just 
 such folly as I am foolish enough to think worthy of the wisest 
 head in the land, either north or south. The law of slavery pro- 
 tects those who live in states which do not admit of emancipation, 
 and restrains all the rest. Now, the doctor thinks it " must strike 
 all as extraordinary," and as an instance of great "folly," that we 
 should deprive a class of men of the protection, while we subject 
 them to the restraits, of this law. Verily, we thought it a matter 
 of course, as the restraint is the general rule, and the protection 
 the mere exception, that the restraint would cover more ground 
 than the protection : for, if this were not the case, it would be no 
 restraint at all. I always supposed that all the traveling preachers 
 in the non-slaveholding states were deprived of the protection 
 of the law on slavery, and, at the same time, too, subjected to its 
 restraints. And yet, this is a strange piece of folly, according to 
 Dr. Bascom's way of thinking : for, according to him, the only 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 31 
 
 wise legislation upon the subject would be to protect, by law, all 
 in the practice of holding slaves, who are restrained, by the law, 
 from holding them ! The doctor's assault is strangely absurd, 
 either upon our theory of the episcopacy or his own ; and is only 
 consistent with common sense upon the false supposition that the 
 Reply denies that bishops are, in any sense, traveling preachers — 
 a supposition not supported by a shadow of proof. 
 
 ^ VII. — Recent Acts of the General Conference on Slavery. 
 
 It is contended that the General Conference of 1844, in the cases 
 of Mr. Harding and Bishop Andrew, violated the solemn pledges 
 which had been given by preceding General Conferences. 
 
 Dr. Bascom says : — 
 
 "The General Conference of 1836, by solemn resolution, declared, 
 'We wholly disclaim any right, loish, ox intention to interfere in i\\e civil 
 and political relation between master and slave, as it exists in the slave- 
 holding states in this Union.' Here the relation between master and 
 slave is ' civil and political,^ and the conference disavows any ' right' to 
 'interfere.' Georgia was a slaveholding state — Bishop Andrew a 
 citizen and master, and the late General Conference declared that the 
 ' civil and politicaV relation existing between him and his slaves must 
 be dissolved, or he cease to be a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, except in a state of suspension — that is, hung up for further 
 punishment. Take the public faith of the church, as pledged to James 
 O. Andrew, in the resolution above, and then turn to the redemption 
 of that pledge by the late General Conference, and tell us which is 
 laboring under the greater 'impediment,' and which ought to 'desist' 
 until it is removed? In the address of the bishops in 1836, they say, 
 ' From a calm and dispassionate survey of the Avhole ground, we have 
 come to the solemn conviction, that the only safe, Scriptural, and prudent 
 way for us, both as ministers and people, to take, is wholly to abstain 
 from this agitating subject.' What deference did the majority of the 
 late General Conference extend to this advice 1 In all the General 
 Conference olympiads of the church, has any one been half as much, 
 distinguished by agitation as was the close of the last ?" — Review, p. 20. 
 
 There is a very wide difference between disclaiming a right 
 " to interfere in the civil and political relation between master 
 and slave," and saying that " the relation between master and slave 
 is ^ civil and political.^ ^^ The General Conference of 1836 never 
 intended to indorse the doctrine that slavery, " as it exists in the 
 slaveholding states in this Union," is wholly a " civil and political" 
 institution, with which ecclesiastical bodies have nothing to do. 
 The relation between master and slave is of a mixed character. 
 Where it is authorized and regulated by law, it is, of course, partly 
 
32 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 " civil and political," but it is not wholly so, because the relation 
 involves the principles of moral justice and Christian charity. The 
 church may regard slavery as a moral question, and, even in slave- 
 holding states, treat it as such, so far as her Discipliaie legitimately 
 extends, without interfering with the " civil and political relation." 
 Where the church is not able to abolish this relation, she may 
 make it a matter of ecclesiastical discipline — may see that its evils 
 do not extend beyond the necessity of the case. Indeed, so far as 
 her own members are concerned, she is bound to do this by the 
 plainest examples of the New Testament. 
 
 As to the advice of the pastoral letter, "wholly to abstain from 
 this agitating subject," the last thing I should have supposed was 
 that it was a pledge that no future General Conference would ever 
 meddle with slavery at all. Did our southern brethren really sup- 
 pose that, in these acts, the General Conference made a solemn 
 promise never again to utter a word upon the vexed question, even 
 though the slave principle should break over all its ancient barriers, 
 and should threaten the church with destruction ? If these were 
 their views, they ought, in all fairness, to have given us notice of 
 them : for I can assure them that northern men would never have 
 contributed to the imposition of such an absurd and ruinous restric- 
 tion upon the future legislation of the church. Indeed, they too 
 well understood the powers of the General Conference to suppose 
 for a moment that it had any right to do so. There was no " public 
 faith pledged to James O. Andrew," in these acts, to protect him 
 as a slaveholder, and receive him as a bishop of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church at the north, should he see proper to assume 
 this new character. It is a new doctrine that the resolutions of a 
 General Conference nve public pledges — that, whatever change of 
 circumstances may take place, and however much additional light 
 may be reflected upon the subject by the lapse of time, no change 
 whatever shall ever be made. The emergency which has called 
 forth this strange conceit is this : Our southern brethren think them- 
 selves obliged to leave us. And, as there are many who doubt the 
 propriety of the course, a strong case must be made out for their 
 satisfaction. The north, "the dominant majority," must be shown 
 unworthy of southern confidence — not only reckless fanatics, but 
 false-hearted hypocrites — " covenant breakers," and what not. All 
 this is gross injustice to the north ; and, in our turn, we must enter 
 our solemn protest against so sweeping a sentence of condemnation. 
 
 Dr. Bascom repeatedly quotes, with great emphasis, the resolu- 
 tion passed by the General Conference of 1840, in relation to the 
 " Westmoreland case." The case was simply this : Several local 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 33 
 
 preachers, living in Westmoreland, Virginia, within the bounds of 
 the Baltimore Conference, petitioned the General Conference 
 for redress for having been deprived of the privilege of ordina- 
 tion by the Baltimore Conference, on the ground of their being 
 slaveholders. This memorial was committed to a special com- 
 mittee, of which Dr. Bascom was chairman. Nothing was heard 
 from the committee until the last session, at about ten or eleven 
 o'clock at night, when a bare quorum was present, in a perfect 
 state of exhaustion, and in too much of a hurry to adjourn to 
 be really fit for business. At such a time, and under such cir- 
 cumstances. Dr. Bascom read his learned report ; when, upon 
 a motion for adoption, without a word of discussion, came down 
 upon us, like a thunderbolt, from the presiding bishop, (Andrew,) 
 " As many as are in favor," &c., and the work was done. Dr. 
 Bascom says, "The report was adopted with great unanimity; in 
 fact, without a negative voice in the body." — Revieiu, p. 41. The 
 doctor, I hope, will stand corrected when I assure him that I voted 
 against the report, and I believe several others. I recollect 
 distinctly my feelings upon the occasion. I thought it an artful 
 document, which required time for examination and analysis. I 
 saw that the resolution especially was so worded that it might be 
 pressed into the service of a slaveholding episcopacy, and made 
 the suggestion to a leading northern member who was near me, 
 but he did not seem to sympathize with me in my apprehensions. 
 All this, I am aware, does not invalidate the resolution, for it was 
 the act of a constitutional quorum. But the reader will be able 
 more accurately to appreciate the importance of the resolution, as 
 expressive of the sentiment of the General Conference, and the 
 weight which Dr. Bascom attaclies to it, by an understanding of its 
 authorship and the circumstances under which it was passed. The 
 following is the resolution : — 
 
 " Resolved, by the delegates of the several Annual Conferences in 
 General Conference assembled, That, under the provisional excep- 
 tion of the general rule of the church on the subject of slavery, the 
 simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in states 
 or territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation, and permit 
 the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the 
 election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known 
 in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, there- 
 fore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such 
 election and ordination." — Journal of IS40, p. 171. 
 
 Now, let it not be forgotten that the report was drawn up upon 
 a memorial of several local preachers, who claimed to live in a 
 
 3 
 
34 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 state where emancipation was not practicable. All the conference 
 had a right to expect was, that the report would be made upon the 
 case referred. But it seems the doctor thought it a fit occasion to 
 generalize and settle the principle in relation to " the various grades 
 of oflfice known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 
 This I thought at the time might be construed so as to apply to 
 bishops, though I presume no one will venture to assert that a 
 majority of the General Conference of 1840 would have voted for 
 the resolution with such a vievv^. Still, its language does not fully 
 prove what Dr. Bascom would have it prove. It only applies to 
 •' states or territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation, 
 and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom." Now, I have 
 proved that a bishop has no claim to the protection of the rule made 
 for those who, either as local preachers or members of conferences, 
 live in such states, and, of course, the resokuion does not embrace 
 bishops. But what the author of the resolution intended to express 
 is plain from the commentary he now puts upon it. It is as follows : — 
 
 " Here is a solemn declaration, to the church and the world, explana- 
 tory of an existing law, by the supreme judicial authority of the church, 
 gravely announcing, that simple slaveholding, or ownership of slaves, in 
 states and territories where emancipation is not practicable, and the libe- 
 rated slave not allowed to enjoy freedom, is not, in any way, a legal barrier 
 to election and ordination, and cannot operate any forfeiture of right, on 
 the part of any minister of any grade, (deacon, elder, or bishop,) in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. And yet, Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, 
 as solemnly declare that the church has always let it be known that 
 slaveholding, even under the provisional exception of the law, would, 
 in the case of bishops, operate the forfeiture of right, which the Gene- 
 ral Conference stipulates, by formal decision, shall not take place, in the 
 instance of any grade of ministers. And accordingly, without any 
 change of the law, and in the very face of the above declaration of right, 
 the last General Conference did, directly and outrightly, and under the 
 precise circumstances specified, as rendering such action impossible, 
 what the pubhcly pledged faith of the church had said, four years before, 
 should not be done. WhcUier this amounts to the want of good faith, 
 assumed in the Protest, let the good sense and upright feeling of the 
 church and world determine." — Review, p. 41. 
 
 Now, we of the north know that Dr. Bascom intended, in this 
 resolution, to pledge the " failh of the church," that the holding of 
 slaves should not, in a bishop, operate any forfeiture of right to his 
 office, provided he should sec proper to take up his residence in a 
 state where the laws do not admit of emancipation. But, did tiie 
 General Conference actually make such a pledge ? No one can 
 prove that this was the understanding with which the resolution 
 was passed. The doctor himself will not assert it. Had he given 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 35: 
 
 his present commentary upon the report at the time it was read, he 
 knows, exhausted and drowsy as were the members at the time, 
 they would have voted it down instanter. With what face, then, 
 does he now come forward and accuse the General Conference of 
 1844 with "the want of good faith assumed in the Protest," be- 
 cause they did not practice upon the resolution according to a con- 
 struction which few, except the doctor himself, ever dreamed of? 
 These reiterated charges of a "want of good faith" are not plea- 
 sant, are not just, are utterly unbrotherly. Bad faith is a high moral 
 offense. It implies di false heart — the violation of an engagement 
 entered into under sta7idingly. No person is chargeable with this 
 crime unless there is good evidence to believe he has broken his 
 promise, according to his oiun understanding of it. One might 
 mistake the letter of a promise, in perfect good faith, through a 
 misapprehension of its nature. Especially where the language and 
 intention of a covenant is in controversy between the parties con- 
 cerned, would it be premature and unkind for one party to charge 
 the other with bad faith provided he should act upon his own con- 
 struction. Much less ground is there for the charge where there 
 is no covenant or promise at all, but merely a resolution of a Gene- 
 ral Conference, which any subsequent General Conference may 
 rescind, alter, or modify at pleasure, and its language is believed, 
 by a majority of the body accused, not to oppose any obstacle to 
 the offensive action in the case of Bishop Andrew. We beseech 
 our southern brethren to refrain from accusations which, if vv^ell 
 founded, go to unchristianize us. Believe us, brethren, according 
 to our view of the subject, the action of the late General Confer- 
 ence, in the case of Bishop Andrew, was a violation of no pledge — 
 was in perfect harmony with the existing laws of the church, and 
 was absolutely necessary. But I must not enlarge. Were I to 
 give full scope to my feelings, I should transcend due bounds. I 
 must hold in abeyance my grief and sorrow, and resume a strain of 
 cool discussion. 
 
 § VIII. — Whether the Action of the late General Conference is a Violation 
 of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 In the adoption of the federal constitution, the slave states re- 
 served to themselves the right of legislating upon the subject of 
 slavery. The following provision was also made for the benefit of 
 southern slaveholders : — " No person held to service or labor in 
 one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in 
 consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
 such service or labor ; but shall be delivered up, on the claim of the 
 
36 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 party to whom such service or labor may be due." Upon this 
 Chief-justice Story observes : — " This clause was introduced into 
 the constitution solely for the benefit of the slaveholding states, 
 to enable them to recover their fugitive slaves who should escape 
 into other states where slavery is not tolerated. It is well known, 
 that, at the common law, a slave escaping into a state where 
 slavery is not allowed would immediately become free, and could 
 not be reclaimed. Before the constitution was adopted, the southern 
 states felt the want of some protecting provision against such an 
 occurrence to be a grievous injury to them. And we here see, 
 that the eastern and middle states have sacrificed their own opinions 
 and feelings, in order to take away every source of jealousy on a 
 subject so delicate to southern interests ; a circumstance sufficient 
 of itself to repel the delusive notion, that the south has not, at 
 all times, had its full share in the blessings resulting from the 
 Union." — Exposition of the Constitution, ^411. 
 
 The "compromise" of the federal constitution, for which Dr. 
 Bascom contends, is admitted ; and whether the north or the 
 south conceded the most, or wdiich gained the most, by the com- 
 pact, I shall not now inquire. But I hope, in the good providence 
 of God, it may be long before the extravagant folly of either north 
 or south will be the means of dissolving the Union. But Dr. 
 Bascom infers vastly too much from the compromise of the federal 
 constitution. The reader shall have a few specimens of an im- 
 mense mass of matter of the same sort contained in the doctor's 
 book. He says, — 
 
 "The subject of slavery being, as all must admit, compromised in 
 the constitution of the United States, and all cilizens of all the states, 
 free and slave, being parties to the compromise, all law, and of course 
 any possible form of ecclesiastical law, not in harmony with this ar- 
 rangement, must infringe the guaranty of the great national compact. 
 If it be said, the church is a voluntary association, with fixed conditions 
 of membership, it does not affect the reasoning, for every such com- 
 pact, necessarily subject to the higher, is in itscJf unlawful, iinless in 
 conformity with the greater over-riding it, and to which every citizen 
 of the United States is a party." — Review, p. 35. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " But that the church has claimed, and continues to claim, the au- 
 thority to interfere with the civil rights of her ministers, as it regards 
 slave property, it is useless to deny, and the difficulty and delicacy of 
 such claim must always connect with the fact, that by special compact 
 and deliberate compromise, in the federal constitution, such rights are 
 placed beyond the reach of any kind of infringement, without an inva- 
 sion of constitutional right." — Ibid., p. 37. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 37 
 
 And again : — 
 
 " Was it competent for a free and sovereign people, in organizing 
 a government for themselves, to decide that they would have among 
 them, by allowing them to remain, a class of human beings, introduced 
 into the country without their agency, by subjecting them to the kind 
 of inhabitancy \us,i described ? If yea, then what right has a church to 
 meddle with such civil arrangement ? Is the right derived from their 
 own civil relations? We have seen, that any original right they may 
 have had, has been surrendered by contract. And what is their religious 
 right ? Before any can be established, they must first prove a right to 
 resist civil authority." — Review, p. 39. 
 
 This is the process by which Dr. Bascom proves that the late 
 General Conference, in its action in the case of Bishop Andrew^ 
 infringed the constitution of the United States, and interfered 
 with "the civil rights" of the bishop, and, indeed, of the whole 
 south. But the whole is pure fallacy. For, first, the constitution 
 says nothing about church discipline, and imposes not the least 
 barrier in the way of the treatment of moral questions upon the 
 part of the church, or its ecclesiastical councils. Indeed, if it did so, 
 it would be in conflict with itself, nor would it in such instances 
 be morally binding, for the laws of God are paramount, to borrow 
 the beautiful phraseology of Dr. Bascom, "over-riding" all human 
 laws. 
 
 Secondly. We deny that the action of the late General Con- 
 ference, in the case of Bishop Andrew, is out of "harmony" with 
 the provisions of the constitution. When did the northern states 
 concede that the Methodist Episcopal Church should have a bishop 
 holding slaves ? What connection has this question with any 
 existing constitutional guaranty ? 
 
 And finally. The action in question has no relation whatever to 
 any civil right of either Bishop Andrew^ or any one else. Whence 
 did the bishop derive his civil right to be a bishop of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church ? Is this also guarantied in the federal con- 
 stitution ? So we must conclude, if we take Dr. Bascom for our 
 expositor of its language. 
 
 But in order to make his argument upon the federal constitution 
 plausible. Dr. Bascom assumes that the action of the late General 
 Conference complained of was an abolition movement — part and 
 parcel of a system of aggression upon "the civil and political" 
 rights of the south. This we have explicitly denied from the 
 first. It is only an attempt to repel southern aggression upon the 
 ecclesiastical rights of the north. The conservatives of the north 
 took no advance position in that instance. They did not, as they 
 are constantly charged by the south with doing, go over to ultra- 
 
38 Slaverjj and the Episcopacy. 
 
 abolitionism. They have alwa5's stood in opposition to a slave- 
 holding episcopacy ; and there has not been a moment since 1832 
 when It would not have been met by the northern majority with as 
 stern and uncompromising opposition as it was in the General 
 Conference of 1844. The learned doctor has made a false issue, 
 and his labored argument upon the compromise of the states, and 
 the provisions of the constitution, all depends upon it. The 
 General Conference of 1844 violated no law, human or divine, in 
 the action in question ; they made no aggressive movement ; they 
 formed no coalition with the party which (right or wrong) are 
 charged with perpetual aggressions upon southern rights. The 
 majority of that conference are entitled to stand or fall upon their 
 own acts, and this they demand before heaven and earth. The 
 action in the case of Bishop Andrew is the act for which they 
 demand to be tried. If that act, under all its attendant circum- 
 stances, is an infringement upon the federal constitution, and a 
 death-blow to the union of the states, why then, after due forms of 
 trial and conviction, hang us for traitors ! But we must most 
 earnestly and solemnly protest against being first mixed up with 
 fanatics and madmen, and then subjected to a common fate with 
 them. Let the conservative party of the north but stand upon their 
 own foundation, and they will have nothing to fear from the judg- 
 ment of posterity. Let their own simple acts constitute the basis 
 of the charge, and they are ready to be tried. ■ 
 
 But it is contended by Dr. Bascom that the late General Con- 
 ference required Bishop Andrew to violate the penal laws of Geor- 
 gia, or on failure be disfranchised of his office. This is not a fair 
 statement of the case. The General Conference did require of him 
 the competency for the office which he had when he was elected, 
 and to desist from his episcopal functions until that object should 
 be secured. If he could not do this, and reside in the slate of 
 Georgia, whose fault is that, pray ? It has been said, and reiterated 
 scores of times, that Bishop Andrew became a slaveholder hy 
 necessity. This is easily said ; but it has not yet been proved. 
 So far as his marriage is concerned, I believe no one alledges any 
 necessity, cither physical, legal, or moral. The slave possessed 
 by " bequest " certainly did not necessarily make him a slaveholder, 
 for no one in any state is obliged to receive a bequest ; and as to 
 the one which fell to him by his first wife, I know not enough of 
 the circumstances to determine whether he necessarily came into 
 possession of that item of his mother-in-law's estate or not. If 
 really so, the north would, had this been the only instance, doubt- 
 less have exercised all reasonable forbearance, and have given the 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy, 39 
 
 bishop due time to dispose of the difficulty.* But admitting all 
 that is claimed, that the bishop became a slaveholder by necessity, 
 certainly the church is not responsible for that necessity, and ought 
 not to suffer on account of it. 
 
 ^ IX. — Was the Action in the Case of Bishop Andrew unconstitutional ? 
 
 The question, whether we have a constitution, and if so, what it 
 is, has been mooted at different periods in our history. The period 
 between 1820 and 1828 was occupied by a controversy upon our 
 church government. A party undertook to effect a radical change 
 in our existing system, by the establishment of what they denomi- 
 nated a " constitution" which would provide for a "lay delegation 
 in our General and Annual Conferences." This party maintained 
 that we had no constitution ; while " the old school " contended 
 that the six restrictive rules were de facto a constitution. The 
 question was largely debated, first in the Wesleyan Repository, 
 and then in the Mutual Rights. Upon the question of a " consti- 
 tutional test," which was brought up and discussed in the General 
 Conference of 1824, the constitutional character of the restrictive 
 rules was ably debated by James Smith, of Baltimore, a delegate 
 from the Philadelphia Conference, and William Winans, of Missis- 
 sippi- The first great speech the latter gentleman ever made in 
 a General Conference was upon this question, and consisted in a 
 strong argument to prove, in opposition to his eloquent opponent, 
 that the restrictive rules contain all the elements of a constitution 
 proper. To this speech I gave strict attention, as it was the first 
 argument I had then heard upon that side of the question. I was 
 predisposed to doubt the correctness of his position, but, not being 
 able to answer his reasoning, I finally concluded he was right. 
 The view he took of the subject I have from that time to this sup- 
 posed to be the orthodox view. In it I am persuaded the whole 
 south heartily acquiesced, for there was much glorying in that 
 qtiarter in the triumph of their then young debater over the expe- 
 rienced and eloquent champion of reform. But now, it would seem, 
 the south have changed their position. Dr. Bascom says, — 
 
 " We reject, and always have, as absurd and utterly untenable, 
 the position, that the * restrictive rules ' are the constitution of the 
 church." — Review, p. 67, 
 
 Two reasons are given for this view. 
 
 *' The very proposition appended to the articles is sufficient, with- 
 out anything else, to overthrow the pretension." — lb. 
 
 * Since writing the above, I learn that the bishop has actually enaancipated 
 this slave, and he is now free in Ohio. 
 
4# Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 i: I am unable to feel the force of this reason, as I find no " propo- 
 sition appended to the articles." The last article concludes the 
 section ; and there is no proposition connected with the articles in 
 any way except the one which precedes them ; and that is this : 
 " The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules 
 and regulations for our church, under the following limitations and 
 restrictions." If this is his "appended" "proposition," though it 
 is more properly prefixed than appended, I am at a loss to see how 
 it overthrows the position at all. 
 Again, Dr. Bascom says, — 
 
 " Very little discernment is necessary to see, at once, that no govern- 
 ment is established by these articles ; they do not pretend to establish 
 one, and of course, of necessity, cannot be a constitution, for all admit 
 that a constitution is that which establishes and constitutes a govern- 
 ment." — Review, p. 67. 
 
 This is a novel notion, at least to me. Absolute monarchies 
 are certainly governments, and yet they have no constitution. Nor 
 is it true, that " all admit that a constitution is that which establishes 
 and constitutes a government :" for those who maintain that the 
 restrictive rules are a constitution, never yet took it into their heads 
 to doubt that the Methodist Episcopal Church had a goverment 
 from 1784 to 1812 — the period between the organization of the 
 church and the first delegated General Conference. 
 
 Again, Dr. Bascom says, — "A constitution, further, means the 
 form in which the governing power is exercised." — Ih. 
 
 This is but a part of the truth. For a constitution not only pre- 
 scribes " the form in which the governing power is exercised," but 
 fixes its boundaries. These instruments are of two classes. One, 
 like the constitution of the United States, prescribes the duties and 
 powers of the government in detail ; and the other commits to the 
 government the power of governing in general, under certain limi- 
 tations and restrictions. Our constitution is of the latter class. 
 
 But the doctor admits that " such form is found in the restrictions 
 in part. The restrictive articles are a part of the constitution of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, and a small part only." — lb. 
 
 Perhaps we ought to thank tiie learned author of the Review for 
 admitting the restrictive rules to "a small" participation in the great 
 constitutional provisions of our government. But he proceeds to 
 tell us what is our constitution : — 
 
 '• In a word, our only constitution is our book of statutes, rules, and 
 regulations — the J^iscipline of the church. All these, essential either 
 to the existence of the government or to secure the ends of its institu- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. M 
 
 tion, are of constitutional force and validity, and by consequence parts 
 of the constitution." — Review, p. 67. 
 
 Now though we think the doctor all wrong here, yet if we were to 
 admit all he^'conteuds for, what would he gain ? He would gain 
 the advantage of being able to charge the General Conference with 
 the sin of altering and amending the constitution at every session; 
 for that body has made some amendments to " the Discipline of 
 the church" at each successive session. But what would all this 
 amount to, when, at the same time, the Discipline provides for these 
 alterations, and our southern brethren— including Dr. Bascom— 
 have helped to make them ; and, indeed, in many instances have 
 been first to propose, and most zealous in sustaining them ? Now, 
 under all these circumstances, what killing affair is it to alter 
 the constitution of the church? The slightest change in the 
 Discipline is a change of the constitution. And to few ot the 
 chancres which have been made do the south object, except such as 
 relate to slavery ; and not even to these if they happen to be, as 
 most of the action for the last twelve years has been, in their favor. 
 But admitting this broad and anomalous sense of the word con- 
 stitution, how will our opponents prove that the action of the late 
 General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew was unconsti- 
 tutional? What law of the Discipline did that action contravene ? 
 We deny that there is any such law. The General Conference m 
 that act were fully covered by the powers given them in the Dis- 
 cipline, to " make rules and regulations for our church. Under 
 this o-eneral provision they have often regulated the episcopacy as 
 wellts other appendages of Methodism, and by the help of southern 
 members too, without ever dreaming that they were acting uncon- 
 
 stitutionally. . . , 
 
 In the history of General Conference action, so far as it has come 
 under my own observation, I recollect but one instance in which 
 the constitutionality of such action was called in question on the 
 ground that it was not provided for by specific law, until the case 
 of Bishop Andrew came up. This was in 1828, I think, on the 
 Canada question. The Rev. Wm. Winans contended, through the 
 former part of the discussion, that the proposed action was uncon- 
 stitutional, because the Annual Conferences had not delegated to 
 the General Conference any such power. He made several strong 
 speeches upon that point ; but finally he was met, and, as I supposed, 
 sicrnally defeated by Dr. Fisk. The doctor, after pleasantly com- 
 plTmenting his opponent, observed that he did not believe m the 
 sermon the brother had so often preached, and he rejected the ser- 
 mon because he did not believe the text canonical. In his argu- 
 
42 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 ment the brother proceeded upon the supposition, that all that the 
 General Conference might do was written in the constitution. This 
 was a mistake. In some instruments of this kind, distinct powers 
 were granted and all others withheld ; but in our constitution cer- 
 tain powers were withheld and all others given. If, then, the pro- 
 position in question was not inhibited in the restrictive rules, the 
 General Conference certainly had a constitutional right to pass it. 
 I thought this entirely conclusive ; and I was the more fully per- 
 suaded of it, from the fact that we heard nothing more during the 
 discussion, either of "the text" or "the sermon" from the brother 
 from Mississippi. 
 
 But in 1844 both "the text" and "the sermon" were revived 
 by our southern brethren, and the one declared canonical and the 
 other orthodox. The member from Mississippi — now Dr. Winans 
 — took his old ground, and declared that the General Conference 
 had no constitutional right to go " one hair's breadth beyond the 
 express language of the Discipline." 
 
 Now, it must be clearly understood that we do not claim for the 
 General Conference the right to act "without law," or "above law." 
 And we deny that, in the action in the case of Bishop Andrew, that 
 body went a hair^s breadth beyond its proper powers, as they are 
 defined in the Discipline of the church. In the "full powers" 
 there given " to make rules and regulations for our church, '»' we 
 recognize authority to do everything necessary for the proper 
 government of the church and its defense against fatal innovations. 
 Upon this ground has that body always acted, and acted, too, with 
 the good leave and hearty co-operation of the south up to its session 
 in 1844. And even then, "the plan of division," as it is called, 
 which was demanded hy the south, and passed for their special 
 accommodation, cannot be sustained upon any other basis, if, indeed, 
 it is at all defensible on constitutional grounds. 
 
 Does not Dr. Bascom see that his whole argument upon the con- 
 stitution reacts upon himself? For, upon the principle he assumes, 
 the anti-slavery laws of 1784, 1800, 1804, &c., were parts and 
 parcels of the constitution, and " solemn pledges," too, made to the 
 north that the future action of the General Conference should 
 always harmonize with tiicm. And when the retrograde movement 
 began, the General Conference began to violate the constitution, 
 and was chargeable with " a breach of good faith." Let him but 
 follow out his theory, and he must go back to the strong anti- 
 slavery ground of the Discipline of 1784, and upon that ground he 
 Would find himself far in advance of the present position of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. And, according to the southern 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 43 
 
 theory, every retrograde step from that point, in favor of slavery, 
 under some circumstances w^as unconstitutional, and, consequently, 
 null and void. 
 
 § X. — Character of the Action in the Case of Bishop Andrew. 
 
 "What the General Conference really did in the case of Bishop 
 Andrew it seems difficult for many to determine. Some consider 
 the action of that body mere " advice," others consider it a " sus- 
 pension," and some have characterized it as an " expulsion from 
 the church." I will here repeat the preamble and resolution, that 
 the reader may have them distinctly before him : — 
 
 " Whereas, the Discipline of our church forbids the doing anything 
 calculated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas 
 Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by marriage and 
 otherwise, and this act having drawn after it circumstances which in 
 the estimation of the General Conference will greatly embarrass the 
 exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in 
 some places entirely prevent it ; therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he 
 desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment re- 
 mains." 
 
 Now, whatever this language implies, it is certain that it does 
 not in any way affect the bishop's character as a minister. He is 
 neither suspended from his ministerial functions, nor advised to 
 discontinue them. The only point the resolution touches is " the 
 exercise of his office" as a bishop. That "office" is not taken 
 from him, but he is merely required to " desist from the exercise" 
 of it " so long as the impediment remains." 
 
 The Reply says, — 
 
 " The action of the General Conference was neither judicial nor 
 punitive. It neither achieves nor intends a deposition, nor so much 
 as a legal suspension. Bishop Andrew is still a bishop ; and should 
 he, against the expressed sense of the General Conference, proceed in 
 the discharge of his functions, his official acts would be valid." — Reply, 
 Journal, p. 203. 
 
 This explanation of the action, or rather denial of certain con- 
 structions which had been, and still are, put upon it, has been 
 fiercely assailed and sadly misrepresented. The declaration that 
 "the action was neither judicial nor punitive; it neither achieves 
 nor intends a deposition, nor so much as a legal suspension," is 
 thought to be strangely inconsistent with the fact, that, for reasons 
 stated m the preamble, the bishop is required to " desist from the 
 exercise of his office." Dr. Bascom says, — 
 
44 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 " The nature of his punishment is defined by his judges ; he is to 
 'desist' from the exercise of his functions, that is, (nothing else can 
 be made of it,) he is suspended." — Revieiu, p. 120. 
 
 I doubt not that this is the light in which many honest minds 
 view the subject. But let it be borne in mind, that " a legal sus- 
 pension" must be in all cases "punitive" and must follow a "judi- 
 cial" process. Hence, though the act requiring the bishop to 
 " desist from the exercise of his office " looks like a legal suspen- 
 sion, and certainly is a provisional suspension from his functions, 
 yet it is not a proper "legal suspension," as it is neither "judicial 
 nor punitive." 
 
 That the resolution is " mandatory," I always fully believed, and 
 would certainly never have voted for it with any other view. So 
 far Dr. Bascora, I believe, takes the right view of the subject, and 
 offers many substantial reasons for its support. He is wrong, 
 however, in saying that "Dr. Elliott, in the Reply, says it was 
 mere advice." The Reply nowhere says so. This is one of the 
 many random shots of our learned friend. 
 
 Dr. Bascom is hardly consistent in taunting us with our differ- 
 ences as to the meaning of this famous resolution, when the south 
 are in the same condition. He thus severely thrusts at us : — 
 
 " It may be the Protest misapprehended the 'sense' of the General 
 Conference as to the judicial or mere advisory character of the pro- 
 ceedings in Bishop Andrew's case. What else could be expected 
 when the majority obstinately continue to disagree among themselves, 
 and, as a party, have not yet decided what they meant ?" — lb., p. 119. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Utterly at variance among themselves, as to what they meant then, 
 or might afterward find it convenient to mean, how can it be expected 
 that others should understand them?" — 76., p. 120. 
 
 And ag^in : 
 
 " What is most extraordinary, however, is the fact, that the majority 
 are as far from agreeing among themselves now as they were ten 
 months ago." — lb. 
 
 It is not denied that there has been some difference of judgment 
 at the north as to the meaning of the resolution, some supposing it 
 to be advisory and others mandatory. But I know of no difference 
 of opinion as to its binding character. As far as I know, none are 
 prepared to concede that a bishop may with impunity violate even 
 the advice of the General Conference, when formally and explicitly 
 given. So that with us the difl'erence is a very inconsiderable one 
 at most. And, supposing a difference of opinion, upon the point 
 
Slavery and the Episcopaaj. 45 
 
 alluded to, a matter of just reproach, as Dr. Bascom seems to think 
 it, how stands the case with the south upon the question ? Dr. 
 Bascom undertakes to prove the action mandatory and the bishop 
 in fact suspended ; but Bishop Soule takes the opposite position. 
 He labors to prove that the action was not mandatory, and that 
 Bishop Andrew is under no restraint whatever as to the exercise 
 of the functions of his office. In a communication published in the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal of Feb. 19, 1845, Bishop Soule 
 says : — " The only object of this brief note is to show that the 
 bishops agreed in their sense of the action of the conference, at 
 least, so far as to believe that it did not prohibit Bishop Andrew 
 from exercising the functions of the episcopal office ; and conse- 
 quently that in giving him work they would not 'do what the Gen- 
 eral Conference decided should not be done.' " The bishop 
 reasons erroneously, and concludes too much. I need not now 
 attempt to show the fallacy of the argument by which he Avould 
 justify himself for calling Bishop Andrew to the exercise of the 
 episcopal functions, as my object is merely to show with how little 
 reason we at the north are accused by our southern brethren with 
 different and opposing views of the character of the action in 
 question. 
 
 There is a grave aspect in which the southern differences upon 
 the point ought to be viewed. In the first instance, in order to 
 wake up the feelings of the southern people, and to show the world 
 that they had just cause for separation from the north, they must 
 make out a strong case. Hence they represent their favorite 
 bishop as a victim sacrificed to the moloch of abolition. But, to 
 make out their case, they must always assume that the bishop had 
 been "degraded from his office," "disfranchised," "deposed," 
 " suspended," &c., &c. In reading the southern speeches in the 
 late General Conference and the Louisville Convention, and some 
 of the southern resolutions, as published in the papers, a person 
 rmacquainted with the facts would almost conclude that " the 
 dominant majority" had so wretchedly maltreated the poor bishop 
 that the penitentiary would not be an unsuitable place for them. 
 But a set of circumstances arise at a particular juncture which 
 makes it necessary, for the defense of the official acts of another 
 bishop, to show that Bishop Andrew was left clear from all official 
 disabilities, and is at perfect liberty to resume his functions. And 
 now it is the easiest thing in the world to make everybody believe 
 that Bishop Andrew stands as clear as any other bishop — that the 
 action of the General Conference " did not prohibit him from 
 exercising the functions of the episcopal office." The same 
 
46 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 editors publish both these opposite and contradictory views, and 
 apparently with equal satisfaction, and in each instance seem to 
 suppose that the north were hopelessly overthrown. It is a little 
 difficuk to account for all this without questioning the ingenuous- 
 ness of some of the parties concerned. Not willing to do this, I 
 must for the present leave it among the mysteries. 
 
 Subsequent action upon the case of Bishop Andrew, called forth 
 by a communication from the bishops, is supposed by some to have 
 changed the aspect of the case.* 
 
 Some diversity of opinion has arisen as to the precise force 
 of the third resolution, which is in the following language : — ■ 
 " 3. Resolved, That whether in any, and if any, in what work, Bp. 
 Andrew be employed, is to be determined by his own decision and 
 action, in relation to the previous action of this conference in his 
 case." I can only say what I supposed its force and meaning 
 when I gave it my vote. I considered it as simply designed to 
 devolve the whole responsibiHty of being governed by "the 
 previous action " of the conference, or otherwise, upon Bishop 
 Andrew. As he was not deposed, but was still a bishop, should 
 he see proper to contravene the declared "sense" of the General 
 Conference, the other bishops would have no right to prevent him 
 from occupying a portion of the field. That the individuals who 
 voted for this resolution could have intended either to reverse the 
 former action, or so to explain it as to deprive it of its force, can 
 scarcely be pretended without a serious reflection upon their heads 
 or hearts. What had they been contending about for three weeks ? 
 Or what had occurred that they were finally brought to the point 
 of doing nothing in the case of the bisliop, or of undoing all they 
 had done ? The resolution is not happily worded. But tiie majority 
 had been assailed by one resolution after another, and the conflict 
 had become so burdensome that they were not disposed to be 
 punctilious. The action had been brought to the mildest possible 
 form ; and to the last, the conference dreaded to use strong lan- 
 guage. The whole action taken together was a compromise — it was 
 a large concession for the sake of peace, without finally being able 
 to secure it. The north generally believed the case miglit justly 
 have received much more severe treatment. But the prevailing 
 disposition was to go no further than absolute necessity required. 
 
 Dr. Bascom caricatures the proceedings of the General Con- 
 ference, and by this means makes them out a most pitiful specimen 
 of folly and inconsistency. This is the result at which he arrives : 
 
 • See page 12. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 47 
 
 " Take, then, the action of the conference upon Finley's resolution, 
 and it will be seen that the positions and reasoning of the Protest are 
 fully sustained. And turning to Mitchell's resolutions, giving a new- 
 aspect to the whole subject by additional and different action, and it 
 "will appear equally clear that Bishops Soule and Andrew have acted 
 in perfect conformity with the only intelligible position the conference 
 finally chose to assume, in relation to the whole affair." — Review, p. 121. 
 
 Now, if " Bishops Soule and Andrew have acted in perfect con- 
 formity with the only intelligible position the conference finally 
 chose to assume," why did Dr. Bascom write his book ? Why did 
 the south separate ? The whole argument of the doctor's book 
 is an effort to establish the doctrines and positions of the Protest. 
 The Protest declares the bishop deposed, and deposed in bad faith. 
 And the doctor labors hard throughout his book to prove that the 
 General Conference had violated the most sacred pledges ; had 
 invaded the rights of the episcopacy, and infracted the constitution ; 
 had infringed the constitution of the United Stales, and run foul of 
 the laws of Georgia ; had degraded a bishop " without law," 
 *' above law," and " contrary to law," and rent the church in twain ! 
 But it turns out that Bishop Andrew was not suspended — that he 
 Avas left at perfect liberty to resume his functions ; and that Bishop 
 Andrew in doing so, and Bishop Soule in inviting him to do so, 
 " have acted in perfect conformity with the only intelligible position 
 the conference finally chose to assume !" — so that for simply 
 expressing an opinion, without the force of a mandate, or even of 
 advice, the General Conference of 1844 has been represented as a 
 prodigy of bad faith, intolerance, proscription, and persecution. 
 And because o^ this harmless, but doubtless very foolish act, the 
 south must needs separate from us to avoid such horrible instances 
 of tyranny and oppression in the future ! This is no fancy sketch. 
 It is a true portrait of the state of the case, according to the con- 
 clusions of the learned author of the Protest and the Review. 
 
 ^ XI. — The Law of Expediency. 
 
 It has been made a question how far we should be governed by 
 expediency. If we understand the word as implying " fitness, or 
 suitableness to effect some good end — propriety under the par- 
 ticular circumstances of the case ;" it scarcely appears to involve 
 the dangerous principle often attributed to it. Paley adopts the 
 maxim that " whatever is expedient is right." " But then," says 
 he, " it must be expedient on the whole, at the long run, in all its 
 effects, collateral and remote, as well as in those which are imme- 
 diate and direct ; as it is obvious that in computing consequences. 
 
48 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 it makes no difference in what way or at what distance they ensue." 
 — Moral Philosophy, chap. viii. 
 
 In judging of expediency in any given case, we must inquire, 
 first, whether the object proposed is in itself good : secondly, 
 whether the means are suitable : and, thirdly, whether the end or 
 the means contravene any laws of God or of society. For if the 
 end and the means are not " expedient on the wliole" — " under the 
 particular circumstances of the case" — expediency cannot be plead 
 in their justification. Expediency is rarely the rule where there 
 is specific law. Where there is specific law, legitimately enacted 
 and acknowledged, conformity to it is a duty, unless in cases in 
 which circumstances entirely change our relations to it, so that 
 obedience would thwart the general purposes of its origination. 
 Then even all the general consequences, both immediate and 
 remote, of a violation of the law, must be taken into the account. 
 Then (though such instances are exceedingly rare) expediency 
 becomes the law, and is obligatory. 
 
 Another, and a far more common, case, in which the law of ex- 
 pediency is a legitimate rule of action is, Avhen there is no law, or 
 when the law is not specific. There are many things which are 
 not settled, either in the law of God, or the civil law, or the law 
 of the church. These are left to the discretion of individuals, or 
 of such persons or bodies as tiiey may choose to consult. Many 
 matters, in the order and government of the church, are of this 
 class. Bishop Hall says : " Matters of good order, in holy offices, 
 may be ruled by the wise institution of men according to reason 
 and expediency^ This is the case in all those instances in which 
 certain general powers are given to ecclesiastical (Councils, for the 
 conservation and edification of the church, without specific direc- 
 tions as to the particular course to be pursued for the accomplish- 
 ment of these objects. In all such cases expediency, or, in other 
 language, sound discretion, is the rule of action. 
 
 Under circumstances like these, with a general law which leaves 
 a broad scope for discretion — one which, in its ample range, per- 
 fectly covers the case — the late General Conference acted in the case 
 of Bishop Andrew. That action was, as one of the speakers justly 
 characterized it, "a great prudential measure." In other words, 
 as to its mode and particular promptings, it was based upon "rea- 
 son and expediency." The emergency was extraordinary, the 
 pressure of circumstances was great, and the action was just 
 such as, after a careful balancing of consequences, expediency, 
 that is, " propriety, under the particular circumstances of the case," 
 required. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 4§ 
 
 Let none apprehend me to set expediency, in this case, against 
 law, or above law. It is in perfect harmony with law, and covered 
 by the general trust committed to the body. And that it is in har- 
 mony with the spirit and drift of all the rules of the Discipline, we 
 of the north all steadfastly believe. 
 
 This word expediency has been made a great bugbear, and the 
 majority of the late General Conference have been charged with 
 the abominable heresy of adopting, in a most momentous matter, 
 maxims of " mere expediency." After all that has been said, I do 
 not flinch from the adoption, under proper qualifications, both of the 
 word and the principle. Dr. Bascom charges the General Con- 
 ference with having adopted " the tactics of a loose and reckless 
 expediency," and with having made a " defection from law and 
 right." Revieiu, p. 116. I do not plead guilty to this charge, by a 
 great deal. I do not oppose expediency to " law and right," nor 
 did the General Conference do any such thing. Nor was the ex- 
 pediency by which that body was governed " a reckless expedi- 
 ency." Never was a body more considerate, never one more 
 sympathizing with the feelings and interests of a complaining party, 
 never one more deeply and solemnly impressed with a sense of 
 their responsibilities, and a conviction of duty. No, my dear 
 sir; the majority of that body are the last men who ought to 
 be accused with following " a reckless expediency." Could you 
 appreciate their circumstances ; could you know their struggles ; 
 could you fathom the depths of their sorrow ; were you capable 
 of taking the measurement of the ocean of interest and feeling at 
 the north, which was ever and anon heaving and swelling, and 
 threatening, upon the least indications of faltering, to roll its mighty 
 billows over them, you would not charge them with recklessness. 
 The fact is, that our southern brethren knew nothing of the state 
 of feeling among the northern Methodists during the pendency of 
 the question in relation to Bishop Andrew. They could see few 
 demonstrations of feeling : but why ? Our people had confidence 
 in the men, that they would not yield a point which all knew and 
 felt could not be given up without reducing the church — north, 
 east, and west — to a wreck. The first symptom of a disposition to 
 sacrifice the principle for which we so long, and, as our southern 
 brethren supposed, so obstinately, contended, would have called 
 forth an expression, from " the foundations of society," a little more 
 potent and ominous than the clatter of a few heels in the gallery, 
 which, during the discussion, was thought by some to be so strong 
 an indication of the state of the popular feeling. We knew well 
 the sentiments and feelings of the north, and we know them now. 
 
 4 
 
50 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 And, would it not be offensive, I would warn Dr. Bascom not to 
 be deceived upon this point by any " evidence," either oral or 
 written, he may have in his " possession." 
 
 But, after all our southern brethren have said in disparagement 
 of the law of expediency, upon what other principle can they ever 
 attempt to justify their southern organization ? Can they plead any 
 other law for it? There is no rule for it in the Discipline. It is cer- 
 tainly wide of all the constitutional provisions of that book. Now, I 
 hope they have not adopted " a reckless expediency ;" though I will 
 not go their security that all their measures have been marked by a 
 sound discretion : yet expediency is the only basis upon which they 
 can pretend to the least justification of their great movement. 
 
 ^ XII. — The Usage of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 In the controversy, in the late General Conference, in the case 
 of Bishop Andrew, it was assumed by the north that usage was 
 against a slaveholding bishop. The following is the original reso- 
 lution, which was superseded by the one that finally passed : — 
 
 " Whereas, the Rev. James 0. Andrew, one of the bishops of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, has become a slaveholder, and whereas 
 it has been, from the origin of said church, a setded policy, and the 
 invariable usage, to elect no person to the office of bishop who was 
 embarrassed with this 'great evil,' as under such circumstances it would 
 be impossible for a bishop to exercise the functions and perform the 
 duties assigned to a general superintendent with acceptance in that 
 large portion of his charge in which slavery does not exist ; and whereas 
 Bishop Andrew was himself nominated by our brethren of the slave- 
 holding states, and elected by the General Conference of 1832, as a 
 candidate who, though living in the midst of a slaveholding population, 
 was, nevertheless, free from all personal connection with slavery ; and 
 whereas this is, of all periods in our history as a church, the one least 
 favorable to such an innovation upon the practice and usage of Method- 
 ism as confiding a part of the itinerant general superintendency to a 
 slaveholder ; therefore 
 
 " Resolved, That the Rev. James O. Andrew be, and he is hereby 
 affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the bishops of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. Alfred Griffith, 
 
 John Davis." 
 
 Dr. Winans denied that there was any usage in the case. He 
 said :— 
 
 " The mere fact that a thing has not been done, docs not constitute 
 usage. I admit that it is a fact that no slaveholder has been elected, and 
 It would bo true to affirm that it has been the invariable custom of the 
 M. E. Church to choose for bishops those who were not slaveholders. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. Sl- 
 
 it may be, sir, that slaveholders have never possessed an individual 
 among them suitable for the office ; or sectional matters may have influ- 
 enced the vote. How are vve to arrive at the fact, that the mere elec- 
 tion of a man not a slaveholder proves the settled usage of not electing 
 slaveholders ? The term is improperly employed, and I could prove, 
 beyond question, that this has not been the usage of the church." — 
 Debates, p. 88. 
 
 Now, we must admit that " the mere fact that a thing has not 
 been done, does not constitute usage :" but the fact that a thing has 
 not been done fo?' a deji?iite reason, does constitute usage. And 
 this the very argument of Dr. Winans proves. He says : " It may 
 be that slaveholders have never possessed an individual among 
 them suitable for the office ; or sectional matters may have influ- 
 enced the vote." If, then, there have been slaveholders who were 
 acknowledged to be " fit for the office," in all other respects, and 
 if no " sectional matters have influenced the vote," but simple slave- 
 holding has been the reason, and the only reason, why they have not 
 been elected, according to the doctor's own argument a usage 
 against a slaveholding bishop has for a long time been established. 
 It is a fact, known to all who have taken the pains to inform them- 
 selves of the reasons upon which the elections proceeded in 1832 
 and 1836, that the question of slaveholding was taken into the 
 account, and that there were southern men who stood every way 
 fair, excepting in the particular of slaveholding, and who, but for 
 this impediment, would have received the sufirages of a majority 
 of the General Conference for the office. 
 
 Dr. Bascom follows Dr. Winans on this point, and quotes from 
 Lord Bacon " an incontrovertible principle of law and morals," 
 thus: "In all true judgment, there is a very great diflTerence ^ 
 between a usage to prove a thing lawful, and a non-usage to 
 prove it unlawful," This is, doubtless, a very sound principle; but j 
 it does not apply in the case in question. It is not merely " the / 
 non-usage" that we plead, but the non-usage for a specific reason, 
 and a reason, too, which has been of public notoriety for many 
 years. Dr. Bascom gives a strange account of Bishop Andrew's 
 election. The reader shall have it at length : — 
 
 " The circumstances under which Bishop Andrew was elected 
 have been utterly misrepresented. As was perfectly natural, the 
 southern delegates in 1832 were anxious that one of the bishops 
 to be elected should be from the south. It so happened, however, 
 (without any reference to slavery,) that the only individuals upon whom 
 the southern delegates could generally unite were, in fact, slaveholders, 
 and as the northern majority were not backward to let it be known, that 
 no slaveholder could be elected, the southern delegates determined to 
 
52 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 have no candidate, and allow the majority to select the men they might 
 prefer. They selected J. O. Andrew as one, knowing he was not the 
 choice of the south, and that they were not gratifying the southern 
 delegates (except a few) in doing so. It was the avowed policy of 
 the north, to elect a southern man, that there might be no apparent 
 ground of complaint from the south, and yet to accomplish their own 
 purposes in the exclusion of the men preferred by the south, who hap- 
 pened to be the owners of slaves. The north did not elect Bishop 
 Andrew as the candidate of the south. They knew he was not the 
 choice of the south, and would not be supported by a majority of the 
 southern delegates, especially as the latter knew he had been fixed 
 upon by the north for the express purpose of defeating the wishes of the 
 south. The idea, therefore, so industriously inculcated, that Bishop 
 Andrew and the south have violated the conditions of a private under- 
 standing, in the instance of the bishop's election, by the position they 
 assumed at the late General Conference, has no foundation in truth. 
 Furthermore, northern men elected Bishop Andrew without consulting 
 him — without coming to any understanding with him or the south on 
 the subject. Northern views and purposes were alone consulted. The 
 south was not referred to, nor cared for, in the matter, beyond the fact, 
 well understood at the time, as a matter of policy, that the election of a 
 southern man would silence the south, or compel the avowal, they 
 wanted a slaveholding bishop! Such are the facts, as I understood 
 them at the time; and I believe them to be correct ; from which it will 
 not be difficult to see to what extent Bishop Andrew and the south are 
 indebted to northern magnanimity, so plausibly set forth in the Reply, 
 and various other accounts we have had of Bishop Andrew's election." 
 — Revieio, pp. 80, 81. 
 
 How Dr. Bascom could ever fall into so many errors in a case 
 of such a kind is to me surpassingly strange. The main points 
 in his statement I know to be utterly untrue, and the reflections 
 which the whole contains against the honor and candor of the north 
 to be wholly unjust. The fact is, that the north selected no south- 
 ern candidate — that James O. Andrew was selected by southern 
 men, as liigh in the confidence of the whole south, and having 
 as mtich influence over southern action, as any other southern men, 
 not excepting Dr. Bascom himself. The circumstances of the 
 whole transaction are yet fresh in my recollection, and I will now 
 briefly relate them. . 
 
 Early in the session, a note from Dr. Capers was circulated 
 among the northern delegates, stating, in substance, that the Soutli 
 Carolina Conference wanted no ofiice witiiin the gift of the Gene- 
 ral Conference ; but as probably two additional bishops would be 
 wanted, and as it would be desirable that one of them should be 
 selected from the south, they had a southern man in view who 
 would probably be unexceptionable at the north, whom they wished 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 53 
 
 to offer as a candidate for the office. In order, then, to make an 
 arrangement which would be mutually satisfactory, the northern 
 delegates were invited to select a man from each conference, to 
 confer with such as might be selected from the south. The north, 
 generally, most cheerfully responded to the call, and I was appointed 
 by the delegation from the Oneida Conference to represent them 
 in the proposed meeting. The meeting came, and I attended. Dr. 
 Capers opened the business, and repeated, with enlargement and 
 explanations, the proposition of the note. Up to that hour I did 
 not know that Dr. Capers was a slaveholder. The matter then had 
 not been so fully canvassed at the north as it has been since ; and 
 local information was, of course, not so perfect as at present. 
 After the doctor had named James 0. Andrew as the southern 
 candidate, as he was comparatively unknown to many of us, he 
 gave us his views of his qualifications with so much earnestness 
 and candor that the impression was very favorable. Some one 
 finally intimated to the doctor that public attention had been some- 
 what directed to him as a candidate for the office. He then staled 
 the fact that he was a slaveholder, and gave us the substance of 
 the relation which has, within two years past, been published 
 in the papers, of his connection with slavery, his experiments in the 
 way of making his people support themselves, the utter failure of 
 his plans, his inability to send them to Africa, &c. He then dis- 
 tinctly objected to being a candidate for the episcopacy, on the 
 ground that he was irretrievably a slaveholder. He further stated 
 that, when he was a delegate to the British Conference, he found 
 himself in new circumstances — he represented the whole Methodist 
 connection, north and south ; and as a slaveholder, he found himself 
 very unpleasantly situated. He was obliged to sustain a new and 
 an important relation to the north, which, as a southern man and 
 a slaveholder, he found a very delicate position. His difficulties 
 in occupying his position, as delegate to the British Conference, 
 had more than ever convinced him that a slaveholder should never 
 be a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 This was all fair and candid, though it was only necessary for 
 us of the north then to know that he was a slaveholder — his reason- 
 ing upon the case was not necessary to the determination of our 
 course. And when I reported the whole to my colleagues, there 
 was, I believe, a unanimous acquiescence in the southern nomina- 
 tion, and, as far as I know, all voted the ticket. 
 
 I might now leave the reader to judge of the correctness of Dr. 
 Bascom's statements without another word. I am responsible for 
 the substance of what I have stated, and I know that I have related 
 
54 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 what Dr. Capers said at the meeting in nearly his own words. 
 Now what reason had we to doubt of the fairness of the whole pro- 
 ceeding? If James O. Andrew was not the southern candidate, 
 the north were grossly deceived. It is not true that he was taken 
 up by the north to defeat " men preferred by the south ;" it is not 
 true that he was not elected " as the candidate of the south ;" but 
 "had been fixed upon by the north for the express purpose of 
 defeating the wishes of the south." The whole is an injurious 
 fabrication. I exceedingly regret to say so much as this ; but justice 
 compels me to do it ; and I do it the more readily because the 
 confidence with which Dr. Bascom tells his tale will make its 
 impression ; and I may add, by the way, because the doctor ought 
 better to understand what he writes about. 
 
 Dr. Bascom makes another very strange statement. He says : — 
 
 " It is well known, too, that at the General Conference, in 1832, 
 more than forty northern votes were given for a southern slaveholder 
 as bishop, and given, too, against a southern man, proposed for the 
 same office, who was not a slaveholder." — Review, p. 93. 
 
 In this statement Dr. Bascom follows Dr. Winans. In one of 
 his speeches in the late General Conference, he says : — 
 
 "Did the brother know that a slaveholder, in 1832, received forty 
 non-slaveholding votes, and if he had received, perhaps, fifty, he would 
 have been elected bishop ?" — Debates, p. 155. 
 
 How near Dr. Winans is to the truth, in one part of his assertion, 
 will be seen by the following extract from the Journal of the Gene- 
 ral Conference of 1832: — 
 
 " Two hundred and twenty-three voters were present, and, on count- 
 ing the ballots, James Osgood Andrew had one hundred and forty, and 
 John Emory had one hundred and twenty-five votes." 
 
 So it is plain enough that "fifty," or twice fifty, votes would not 
 have elected his slavcholding candidate. And, supposing it to be 
 a fact that " more tlian forty northern votes were given for a south- 
 ern slaveholder as bishop," and only a few southern votes were 
 given for James O. Andrew, as Dr. Bascom wovdd have us believe, 
 how came it about that the slaveholder did not come within striking 
 distance of succeeding ? Tiie whole is a pure fiction. It doubtless 
 has an existence in the heads of Drs. Bascom and Winans ; but 
 how it found its way there I am at a loss to divine. 
 
 Another instance of the excessive credulity of Dr. Bascom, in 
 everything wliich seems to favor the idea of slavcholding in tlie 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 55 
 
 episcopacy, is his giving currency to the report which has, some 
 way, got afloat, that Jesse Lee was a slaveholder. He says : — 
 
 " That Jesse Lee was the owner of slaves, when designated, by 
 Bishop Asbury, for the office of bishop, and came within a single vote 
 of being elected by the General Conference, is, I am informed, suscepti- 
 ble of proof." — Review, p. 93. 
 
 Now I formally ask Dr. Bascom for the " proof." I deny his 
 statement, and call for the testimony. There are many reasons 
 which go wholly to discredit this tale. It is well known that Jesse 
 Lee was fully enlisted, with the bishops and most of the leading 
 preachers, north and south, against slavery, and in favor of the 
 measures of the General Conference for the " extirpation of the 
 great evil " from the church. I now have before me a copy of 
 the Address of the General Conference of 1800, upon the subject, 
 with Jesse Lee's name attached to it as one of the committee who 
 drew it up. And in this Address it is said : " We have, for many 
 years, restricted ourselves, by the strongest regulations, from par- 
 taking of ' the accursed thing,' and have also laid some very mild 
 and tender restrictions on our societies at large."* To suppose 
 that any man who could use this language was himself a slave- 
 holder, and especially that the honest and high-minded Jesse Lee 
 could act so inconsistently and absurdly, is beyond reason and pro- 
 bability ; not to insist that a General Conference that would sanc- 
 tion the Address which was issued at the very conference at which 
 Jesse Lee came so near being elected bishop, without the grossest 
 inconsistency, could never thmk of electing a slaveholder to the 
 episcopal office. 
 
 Finally, it is alledgedby Dr. Bascom that Dr. Coke was a slave- 
 holder ! He states the case thus : — 
 
 " The boast of the majority, so much relied upon in the Reply, that 
 the episcopacy in the whole line of bishops, from Coke to the present 
 worthy bench, has never had any connection with slavery, until the 
 unfortunate derelicdon of Bishop Andrew, is rather premature. The 
 Rev. Wm. Hammet, of Charleston, South Carolina, and some time 
 missionary in the West Indies, on leaving the Methodist Church, and 
 setting up for himself, as a separatist, published, in 1792, a virulent 
 pamphlet against Dr. Coke, and amongmany other charges enumerated, 
 the most of which are clearly and ably refuted by Dr. Coke in his an- 
 swer, he brings to view Dr. Coke's connection with slavery in the island 
 of St. Vincent, alledging that the doctor had used the Caribb Mission fund 
 in the purchase of a lot of negroes to work a cotton and coffee plant- 
 
 * The reader will find this curious and rare document preserved in the 
 Appendix. See Appendix, C. 
 
56 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 ation, presented by the colonial legislature, for the benefit of the mission. 
 Dr. Coke, in his reply, now before me, printed in London, 1793, in a very 
 frank and satisfactory manner, disposes of many of the statements and 
 inferences of Mr. Hammet, in reference to this transaction, as incorrect 
 and unjust; but distinctly and in various forms admits the fact ihat, with 
 money he had collected for the Caribb Mission, and funds of his own, 
 he had, at the urgent solicitations of friends, purchased the slaves as 
 charged, and had held and worked them as such upon the cotton 
 division of the mission plantation." — Review, p. 79. 
 
 I am, for many reasons, sorry that Dr. Bascom has brought this 
 affair from the oblivion into which it had fallen. But, inasmuch 
 as it must be conjured up from the grave, and figure in the present 
 controversy, all must be grateful to him for sending along with 
 it a few scraps of Dr. Coke's explanation ; so that, with a little 
 pains, it will not be difficult to account for the affair without yield- 
 ing the argument from usage. The following are the explanations, 
 as quoted from Dr. Coke's pamphlet by Dr. Bascom : — 
 
 " ' In answer to the charge of my purchasing slaves, I shall give 
 an account of the transaction with all possible candor. My friends 
 on all sides of me, urged that the present might be considered as an 
 exempt case — that the gift of the land was undoubtedly providential 
 — that the slaves purchased for the cultivation of it would certainly be 
 treated by us in the tenderest manner. These and other arguments 
 prevailed, and I gave directions that a sufficient supply should be pro- 
 cured for the cultivation of cotton on the low land.' Whatever we may 
 think of it, the missionary zeal of Dr. Coke made him a slaveholder, by 
 actual, deliberate purchase. This the doctor avows in explanation of 
 his course. He says further : ' I had hardly left the island, when my 
 established principles began to operate. I considered that no exempt 
 case could justify the proceeding — that we are not to do evil that good 
 may come. The wound continued to deepen in my mind for some 
 months, till I at last wrote from Baltimore to inform our missionary, 
 (Mr. Baxter,) that I could not admit of any slaves upon the estate, on 
 any consideration. Thus I have stated the whole business of the 
 slaves. At the time I acted for the best, and humanum est errare.'" — 
 Ibid. 
 
 Dr. Bascom further represents Dr. Coke as repudiating the 
 charge of an abuse of the missionary funds, as he had refunded the 
 money, and was "the only loser, in a pecuniary point of view," 
 and he is willing to admit, though he says Dr. Coke does not posi- 
 tively assert it, tiiat "he gave freedom to these slaves." 
 
 The whole case, then, amounts to this : that Dr. Coke had, 
 inconsiderately, and in opposition to the principles which he liad 
 always maintained, purchased some slaves to work a plantation for 
 the benefit of the mission. But, after a little time to reflect upon 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 57 
 
 the matter, his " established principles began to operate " — he con- 
 sidered "that we ought not to do evil that good may come." " The 
 wound continued to deepen in" his "mind for some months, till, 
 at last," he "wrote from Baltimore to the missionary," that he 
 "could not admit of any slaves upon the estate, on any considera- 
 tion." Dr. Coke, then, held slaves " for some months," and then, 
 as Dr. Bascom charitably conjectures, "gave" them their " free- 
 dom." 
 
 I have said I am sorry Dr. Bascom has revived this item of 
 history. It is precisely of a piece with Dr. Coke's letters to Bishop 
 White and Mr. Wilberforce, and is hardly a fit case to be bandied 
 about before the public, except by the enemies of the fair fame of 
 the good, but often mistaken. Dr. Coke. The great infirmity of 
 Dr. Coke was precipitancy ; but he had, as an offset against this weak- 
 ness, a remarkable share of ingenuousness. He never found him- 
 self in error, but, in all humility and childlike simplicity, he made 
 retraction, and asked " a thousand pardons." It is hardly fair to 
 plead the eccentric movements of such a character as precedents, 
 especially after they have been heartily repented of. And I urge 
 further, that there is not the least probability that the General 
 Conference would have borne with the doctor at all had he kept 
 his slaves. But, having washed his hands of the evil immediately 
 upon reaching the States, there, we may well suppose, the matter 
 ended, until Mr. Hammet, who had left the connection, used it 
 against the doctor. And had that been the last use made of it, the 
 cause of truth, of charity, and of justice would have lost nothing 
 from the quiet slumber of the whole affair. But Dr. Bascom has 
 again given it wing; and the whole history is copied into the 
 southern papers under the imposing head, " Bishop Coke a slave- 
 holder !" After all, it amounts to nothing. But if our southern 
 brethren stand in need of such specimens of slaveholding bishops, 
 we ought not to grudge them this. 
 
 § XIII. — Petitions upon Slavery — Temper of the North. 
 
 The last three General Conferences have been more or less 
 agitated upon the subjects of slavery and abolition, and it is not to 
 be denied that the petitions which have been sent up from the north 
 on these subjects have ministered not a little to the excitement which 
 has prevailed in the body. Some of the petitioners have employed 
 extravagant and irritating language, which so evidently proceeded 
 from a fanatical recklessness, that the conservative party at the 
 north have often been beset by no little difficulty to maintain their 
 
5S Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 position of opposition to slavery, and yet a toleration of those who 
 are unfortunately and innocently connected with the evil. Mode- 
 rale counsels have, however, generally prevailed. The sensitive- 
 ness of the south in the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840 was 
 so strong, and the danger of permanent disunion so threatening, 
 that several measures were permitted to pass, which were declared 
 by many as pro-slavery in their tendency, and occasioned no little 
 difficulty in our societies in the northern and eastern states. 
 
 The fierce opposition which was made to the "abolition petitions," 
 by southern men, served to promote extravagant action at the 
 north, and increased their number. At the same time it cannot be 
 denied but that a fair proportion of the petitions were respectful, 
 kind, and argumentative ; and asked for such action as was at least 
 lawful, and, in some instances, I think, quite expedient. Among 
 the "ten thousand" petitioners who sent up their prayers to the 
 last General Conference, some merely asked that that body would 
 not elect " a slaveholding bishop," and that they would " rescind" 
 the obnoxious "colored testimony resolution" of 1840. There 
 are few at the north who did not most heartily sympathize with 
 the petitioners thus far. 
 
 But there were others, and by far the greater proportion, who 
 added to these requests others upon the subject of slavery in gene- 
 ral. These, after a careful examination of a mass of the petitions 
 now before me, I have classified, and think, with very few excep- 
 tions, they will all answer to one of the following types. 
 
 One class prays the General Conference "to take such consti- 
 tutional measures as shall effectually separate the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church from all connection with the sin of slavery." Another 
 requests that body "to lake such action as will tend grndually, but 
 effectually, to exclude from the church all who hold slaves, ex- 
 cepting those cases in which the slave wishes to retain the rela- 
 tion." And another, " to take such decided action as, in their 
 wisdom, shall be best calculated to effect an immediate extirpation 
 of this great evil from the Methodist Episcopal Church." 
 
 As far as I can judge, the first and second classes embrace by 
 far the greatest number : and there seems to be little in these peti- 
 tions which ought to be regarded as furnishing just occasion of 
 offense. The General Conference has in all instances received 
 petitions upon slavery, and referred them to a committee, and 
 very brief reports, simply declaring the inexpediency of the action 
 prayed for, have ended the matter. So long as the action of the 
 General Conference has been conservative, I am not able, to see 
 why the simple recognition of the right of the people to petition, 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 59 
 
 which is about all that the last three General Conferences did upon 
 the general subject, should have given occasion of offense to the 
 south. I find that, in times of old, petitions sometimes came up 
 from the south upon the subject of slavery, and were respectfully 
 received and acted upon without producing a disruption of the 
 church; and I cannot see why any portion of the church should 
 not be allowed the right to petition the General Conference upon 
 any matter of general interest. 
 
 The Reply, in relation to the petitions upon the subject of slave- 
 holding in the episcopacy, says : — 
 
 " Since the year 1832, the anti-slavery sentiment in the church, as 
 well as in the whole civilized world, has constantly and rapidly gained 
 ground ; and within the last year or two it has been roused to a spe- 
 cial and most earnest opposition to the introduction of a slaveholder 
 into the episcopal office — an event which many were led to fear, by 
 certain intimations published in the Southern Christian Advocate, the 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, and perhaps some other Methodist 
 periodicals. This opposition produced the profoundest anxiety through 
 most of the non-slaveholding conferences. The subject was discussed 
 everywhere, and the dreaded event universally deprecated as the most 
 fearful calamity that ever threatened the church. Many conferences 
 instructed their delegates to use all possible means to avert such an 
 evil. Other conferences, and many thousand laymen, sent up peti- 
 tions and memorials to the same eifect to the present General Confer- 
 ence. Such was the state of sentiment and of apprehension in the 
 northern portion of the church, when the delegates to the General 
 Conference learned, on reaching this city, that Bishop Andrew had 
 become a slaveholder. The profound grief, the utter dismay, which 
 was produced by this astounding intelligence, can be fully appreciated 
 only by those who have participated in the distressing scenes which 
 have since been enacted in the General Conference." — Reply, Journal, 
 p. 200. 
 
 For this statement the committee who reported the Reply are 
 severely arraigned by Dr. Bascom. He thinks it great folly for 
 the north to " dread what they knew they had the power to pre- 
 vent." — Review, p. 87. This "dread" arose from a fear lest the 
 sympathies of a portion of the northern delegation might be carried 
 away, as they had been, in some few instances in forner General 
 Conferences, by the complaints and pathetic appeals of the southern 
 delegates. The fear was, indeed, altogether groundless, but the 
 petitioners probably did not know it. They did not fully under- 
 stand the position occupied by the conservative majority upon the 
 subject of " a slaveholding episcopacy." But hear him further : — 
 
 " But why does not the Reply give us the whole truth in the pre- 
 mises, so that what they report might be explained by what they sup-- 
 
<06 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 press ? Why not frankly inform the church, (for they knew it to be true,) 
 that a much larger number of petitioners than that against a slavehold- 
 ing bishop demanded an absolute separation of the church from all 
 slavery and slaveholders, in all the forms of the one and relations of 
 the other ? Why did not the repliers tell the church, what they well 
 knew, that the separation of the episcopacy from slavery was not the 
 thousandth part of what was prayed for 1 Was it just or candid — did it 
 comport with fair dealing not to do so ? Why were these facts sepa- 
 rated, ' the one taken and the other left V " — Review, p. 88. 
 
 From the view I have furnished of the character of the petitions 
 presented, the reader will be able to form a tolerably correct 
 estimate of the fitness and justice of the high charge here 
 brought against the "repliers." It is ncrt true that "a much 
 larger number of petitioners than that against a slaveholding 
 bishop demanded an absolute separation of the church from all 
 slavery and slaveholders." For, in ihc first place, it must be noted 
 that only a portion of the petitioners asked for an immediate and 
 unconditional separation of slavery from the church. And in the 
 second place, that all the petitioners, of whatever class or character, 
 prayed the General Conference not to elect a slaveholding bishop. 
 This is an item in all the petitions I have examined, and I have 
 looked over all of them, excepting a few that are lost. Nor is the 
 doctor mucli nearer the truth when he says, " the separation of the 
 episcopacy from slavery was not the thousandth part of what was 
 prayed for." In general it constitutes one item out of three, and 
 that I think is somewhat more than a " thousandth part." After 
 making all due allowance for the doctor's rhetoric, this is an inex- 
 cusably extravagant declaration. And it is upon such a basis — 
 such incautious, extravagant, and false positions — that Dr. Bascom 
 demands : " Was it just or candid — did it comport with fair deal- 
 ing not to do so ?" that is, not to say what was absolutely untrue ! 
 
 It is in this way that Dr. Bascom has convicted "the repliers" 
 before the bar of public opinion, south, of the most dishonorable, 
 deceptive, and false-hearted proceedings. Let the reader now take 
 the facts in relation to the petitions as they are, and judge of the 
 above passage from the Review, and then make up as charitable 
 an opinion as possible upon its " temper," candor, and truthfulness. 
 
 There is good reason why the voice of the petitioners should be 
 heeded in some points, and disregarded in others : for some things 
 they asked for were right and proper to be done, and others, in the 
 view of the majority, were not so. Would it have been right, be- 
 cause some of these petitions asked for what was judged neither 
 lawful nor expedient, to treat with entire indifference their earnest 
 prayers, when they ask for what, in the view of the majority, was 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 61 
 
 both lawful and expedient ? If Dr. Bascom thinks so, I shall cer- 
 tainly beg leave to differ from him. 
 He says : — 
 
 " It is, too, a well-understood principle of law and morality, in the 
 construction of compromises, that the temper of the parties which led 
 to compromise remains one of its conditions ; and either party offending, 
 in this respect, violates an important obligation contracted in becoming 
 
 a party Abstract law, involving compromise, can only be 
 
 carried into effect by acts of kindness, and the ministry of the affec- 
 tions, without which it is a lifeless text, unexplained by living example, 
 and must fail to accomplish the purposes of its enactment. This view 
 of the subject applies equally to north and south, and should be well 
 considered by both." — Review, p. 34. 
 
 What the doctor expects to gain upon this ground I am at a loss 
 to tell. Does he think all the bad blood has been on the north side 
 of Mason and Dixon's line ? If so, I think him much mistaken. 
 In the General Conference of 1832, I distinctly recollect that the 
 venerable Stephen George Roszel v^^as most wofully belabored by 
 Rev. J. Early, of the Virginia Conference, for offering a resolution 
 providing for " a committee to take into consideration the rights 
 and privileges of our people of color." And many remember the 
 speeches of W. A. Smith, one of his colleagues. Who, that was 
 present, does not remember the explosion which took place upon a 
 motion to publish the Address of the British Conference, in 1836, 
 because it contained a passage upon slavery ? In 1840, " the mid- 
 dle men" were fiercely assailed, both by the ultra-abolitionists and 
 the southern men, and there were occasional comparisons made by 
 speakers from each of these parties, evidently designed to wound 
 and afflict us. Abolitionists would compliment slaveholders who 
 "came out like men " in defense of slavery; and southern men 
 really admired the "frankness and honesty" of the abolitionists, 
 who doomed them all to perdition outright. But as for the " con- 
 servatives," they were mere " trimmers," " dodgers," and what not. 
 Here we stood between two fires, charged with pro-slavery princi- 
 ples — with being worse than slaveholders — on one side ; and 
 accused with being a sort of sneaking, under-ground abolitionists, 
 on the other. And after going so far for the sake of the peace and 
 unity of the church, in the way of conciliating the south, as to be 
 stigmatized by Scott, Horton, and Co., as northern men with 
 southern principles ; because we would not go much further — and 
 even vindicate "slavery as it exists in the southern states" — 
 southern men taunted us with our truckling, cowardly disposition, 
 and one of them, a distinguished member from Georgia, said : 
 
62 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 "We are tired of your sickening sympathies." This is but a faint 
 sketch of the "temper" of the ultra northern and southern parties 
 in the General Conference of 1840, and of the delicate and diffi- 
 cult position of the majority. 
 
 It has been the common course of things since 1832, in the 
 General Conference, that the slightest mention, in any form, of the 
 subject of slavery, has called forth a tide of southern eloquence 
 which threatened to sweep everything by the board. The stento- 
 rian oratory of Dr. Smith has sometimes been thought by northern 
 men rather indicative of bad " temper," but being assured by the 
 doctor that he is always " calm," and by his friends that he is a 
 man of a generous and kind heart after all, we of the north had 
 long since made up our minds not to separate from the south on 
 his account. 
 
 I do not justify northern heat and extravagance any more than 
 southern, nor do I plead an offset with our southern brethren. 
 But I would meet Dr. Bascom upon the issue which he makes on 
 the score of temper, and should not fear attempting to prove, were 
 it expedient, that if the temper of the parties is a condition of the 
 alledged compact between the north and south, the south have 
 long since forfeited their claim to its provisions. 
 
 I might allude to " the temper " of the resolutions of the southern 
 primary meetings, which have been so extensively laid before the 
 public. I might, also, refer to " the temper" of Dr. Bascom's bock, 
 for it certainly contains many poor specimens of an unruffled 
 spirit. And, if it would not be offensive, I might suggest that, 
 upon the doctor's rule, the report of the committee of nine on divi- 
 sion has been somewhat periled by the indications of a bad spirit 
 in several directions at the south. This was a real " compromise," 
 made in good faith on the part of the majority. I need not say that 
 our expectations have not been met. 
 
 If I may add a word or two more upon this delicate point, I 
 would say that the late General Conference conceded much for the 
 sake of peace. The report of the committee of nine, providing 
 for an amicable and equitable adjustment of the claims of the 
 south, as to territory and pecuniary interests in the Book Concern 
 and chartered fund, " should they see it necessary to organize a 
 separate ecclesiastical connection," was a concession. It was 
 asked " as a peace-offering," and as such it was granted. But it 
 was granted with the assurance from our southern brethren, that 
 if, upon their return home, they could quiet the public mind and 
 retain tlieir connection with the north, they would do so. I was 
 personally assured by leading southern members, that if the recom- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 63 
 
 mendation for the alteration of the sixth restrictive rule was passed 
 promptly in the northern conferences, it would do much toward 
 restoring confidence, and preserving the unity of the church Con- 
 sequently 1 advocated that recommendation, m the three Annual 
 Conferences which I attended, in all of which the vote passed by 
 a very large majority. But while we were laboring to farther this 
 peace measure, and actually carried it swimming y through all the 
 New-En-land Conferences, excepting one, and that conterence 
 laid it over, merely to see what the state of things might be after 
 the lapse of a year ; and the same course of things was rolling on 
 west- all at once the tide of sympathy was interrupted by the 
 extravagant measures of the south. It has been said that none 
 favored the proposed alteration of the restrictive rule, except pro- 
 slavery men on the one hand and ultra-abolitionists on the other; 
 both of whom desired division. This representation does the con- 
 servatives of the north and east great injustice. They voted the 
 recommendation as a peace measure, hoping that a disposition upon 
 the part of the north to do ample justice to the south would either 
 prevent disunion, or give it a mild and comparatively harmless 
 form If they have been disappointed, they have the consolation 
 of having done all they could to save the church from the evils of 
 schism Had we good reason to believe that the southern dele- 
 gates, upon their return, used their best endeavors to restore peace 
 we should now be much better satisfied. Did it appear that the 
 separation was demanded by the southern people, and merely sub- 
 mitted to as a matter of necessity by the preachers we should 
 meet the result with all due submissiveness, and feel no loss ot 
 confidence in our old friends of the southern conferences. But as 
 it is we feel injured, and cannot suppress the conviction that talse 
 issues have been raised, and extravagant and utterly erroneous 
 representations have been made to the southern people, in relation 
 to the action of the General Conference, and the prevailing views 
 and feelings of the north. To prove that these convictions are just, 
 I need go no further than Dr. Bascom's book. I shall not ot set 
 purpose quote passages to prove this; but the reader will see, in 
 the references I make to that production in the course of my argu- 
 ment, that there is no small reason for complaint on the part ot the 
 north, of the unfairness, censoriousness, and downright contempt 
 of my distinguished opponent. I wish I might find inyself mis- 
 taken in my conclusions upon this subject. It is deeply mortity- 
 ing and atHicting for me to feel myself called to meet such assaults 
 from such a quarter as are found in the book under examination 
 and especially to throw back the charge of a want of the right 
 
64 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 " temper." Nothing but a sense of duty would bring me up to the 
 point of repelling and retorting an imputation which must certainly 
 imply a deficiency of true Christian charity somewhere. 
 
 § XIV. — The Powers of the General Conference. 
 
 When the resolution in the case of Bishop Andrew was under 
 discussion, it was strongly contended, by those who were in the 
 opposition, that the General Conference had no constitutional right 
 to depose, or in any way to inflict official disabilities upon a bishop, 
 except upon impeachment ; and a theory of episcopacy arose out 
 of the emergencies of the question in debate. This theory is pre- 
 sented, in its main features, in the Protest, and is vindicated at large 
 in the Review. The theory is embraced in the following pro- 
 positions : — 
 
 1. That the episcopacy is a co-ordinate branch of the govern- 
 ment — constituting its executive department proper. 
 
 2. That the bishops are an integral part of the General Confer- 
 ence, have a right to participate in its debates, and to a voice in its 
 decisions. 
 
 3. Episcopacy in the Methodist Episcopal Church is an order 
 superior to the order of presbyters. 
 
 4. The General Conference has no power to depose a bishop 
 except upon conviction of moral or official delinquency, after 
 impeachment, and a formal trial. 
 
 5. Our episcopacy, in its origination and continuance, is derived 
 from Mr. Wesley alone. 
 
 6. The right of episcopal jurisdiction is communicated in ordina- 
 tion, and not in election. 
 
 These propositions embrace the elements of the system, which, 
 as it seems to us, was concocted for the purpose of arresting the pro- 
 ceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew^, and of making, at least in part, 
 those proceedings appear to furnish reasonable ground to the minority 
 for protest and separation. I am aware that they are represented 
 to contain a fair statement of the primitive doctrine of Methodist 
 episcopacy, and to be a true exponent of the Discipline and the 
 views of our fathers upon the subject. But in this we honestly 
 differ from the representations of our southern brethren. They 
 charge us with novelties, and declare the action of the late General 
 Conference to constitute a dangerous infringement upon tlie con- 
 stitutional rights of the episcopacy. But, from this sentence, Ave 
 beg leave to appeal to the only authorities competent to settle the 
 question at issue. I shall now discuss the several points brought 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 65 
 
 out in the soulliern theory, and test them by the standards which 
 are, or ought to be, acknowledged by both parties. The speech 
 of Bishop Hamline before the late General Conference, in the case 
 of Bishop Andrew, made previous to his election, is a luminous 
 exposition of the powers of the General Conference, and an irrefra- 
 gable argument in defense of the action finally had in that case. I 
 thought first of quoting portions of it; but, upon further reflection, 
 determined to insert it entire in the Appendix.* I hope the reader 
 will give it a careful perusal just at this point. Dr. Bascom makes 
 honorable mention of this speech. He says it is "really able 
 and eloquent;" but that he does not yield to the bishop's conclu- 
 sions he gives ample proof. If the doctrines and positions of his 
 book did not prove this, several flings at the bishop and his speech, 
 which it contains, would furnish the evidence. It is much easier 
 to give that production a back-handed cut than to refute its clear, 
 logical reasoning. Its doctrine, as I understand it, is the true 
 Methodist doctrine ; and, though it has often been assailed, it 
 still stands as firm as the everlasting hills. 
 
 ^ XV. — Is the Episcopacy a Co-ordinate Branch of the Government? 
 
 Webster defines co-ordinate, "Being of equal order, or of the 
 same rank or degree ; not subordinate." In this sense I understood 
 the word to be used in the Protest. But Dr. Bascom gives us a 
 somewhat different definition of tlie word, and claims that it is used 
 in the Protest in his sense. He says : — 
 
 " The Protest, in assuming episcopacy to be a co-ordinate branch 
 of the government, intended to convey the idea usually conveyed by such 
 phrase, that it is an independent department, a separate sphere of ex- 
 ecutive power and action, standing in the same relation to the constitu- 
 tion that the General Conference does ; that is to say, as the episcopacy 
 cannot constitutionally invade, in any way, the rights and powers of the 
 General Conference, so the General Conference has no constitutional 
 right to touch, in any form, the vested rights of the episcopacy." — 
 Review, p. 154. 
 
 The explanatory part of this passage comes short of "the idea 
 usually conveyed by such phrase." It may be conceded that, " as 
 the episcopacy cannot constitutionally invade, in any way, the rights 
 and powers of the General Conference, so the General Conference 
 has no constitutional right to touch, in any form, the vested rights 
 of the episcopacy." If by "vested" he mean "fixed — not in 
 a state of contingency, or suspension," no one will dispute him. 
 And if he only mean, by " a co-ordinate branch of the government," 
 * See Appendix, B. 
 5 
 
66 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 a branch that "the General Conference has no constitutional right 
 to touch," so far as it is covered by the restrictive rules, the propo- 
 sition of the Protest, that "the episcopacy is a co-ordinate branch 
 of the government," is a mere truism. This, however, is not his 
 meaning; for this sense w^ould nullify the whole argument of the 
 Protest, and convict its signers of gross folly. But, if he mean by 
 "a co-ordinate branch," "an independent department " — "not sub- 
 ordinate" — then we must dissent from him. And that this is the 
 true doctrine, both of the Protest and the Review, is as clear as the 
 sun in the heavens. I readily admit that the General Conference 
 cannot destroy the episcopacy. This is guarded against in the third 
 restrictive rule. That rule says : " They [the General Conference] 
 shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as 
 to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general 
 superintendency." Here all that is essential to "episcopacy," and 
 "our itinerant general superintendency," is put beyond the "touch" 
 of the delegated General Conference. But this is all the restriction 
 there is upon the General Conference in relation to this " branch of 
 the government." All beyond this simple restriction is wholly 
 subordinate to the power of the General Conference. This is 
 evident to me, at least, for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. The very restriction upon the General Conference supposes 
 the episcopacy a subordinate and not a co-ordinate department of 
 the government. 
 
 If the episcopacy and the General Conference are co-ordinate, 
 in any proper sense, would there not be as much propriety in re- 
 strictmg the episcopacy as the General Conference ? Why is it not 
 somewhere in the constitution provided that the episcopacy shall 
 not "do away" the General Conference? The importance of such 
 a provision appears in a strong light, if we believe the Protest. 
 
 That instrument says : — 
 
 " In a sense by no means unimportant the General Conference is as 
 much the creature of the episcopacy, as the bishops are the creatures 
 of the General Conference. (Constitutionally the bishops alone have 
 the right to fix the time of holding the Annual Conferences, and should 
 they refuse or neglect to do so, no Annual Conference could meet, 
 according to law, and, by consequence, no delegates could be chosen, 
 and no General Conference could be chosen, or even exist." — Protest, 
 Journal, p. 194. 
 
 Now, if the bishops were to exercise the fearful power which is 
 here attributed to them, they would not only prevent the existence 
 of another General Conference, l)ut would prevent all Annual Con- 
 ference business. No preachers would be received or ordained : 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 6? 
 
 the characters of the preachers could not be examined, nor could 
 they receive their appointments, according to the provisions of the 
 Discipline : the preachers w^ould be without places, and the people 
 without preachers : and what would remain but for the preachers 
 and people to make their own arrangements, — and here would end 
 the whole economy of Methodism ! So it turns out, according to 
 the Protest, that the bishops can destroy the General Conference by 
 destroying the church ! but whether they can do either, we shall 
 not very soon see demonstrated by experiment. The simple right 
 to appoint the time of the Annual Conferences cannot, in any sense, 
 make " the General Conference the creature of the bishops." Not 
 at all — this is reaching too far. We can hardly suppress the re- 
 flection, that our protesting brethren must have been hard run for 
 argument, or they would never have advanced this. 
 
 But if the bishops have such fearful power in their hands, cer- 
 tainly it ought to be in some way restricted ; unless, indeed, un- 
 limited power is more safe in the hands of the bishops than it 
 would be in those of the General Conference. It is quite sure, I 
 think, that our fathers never saw so far into the system they had 
 constructed, as to perceive that the bishops might one day destroy 
 it without the possibility of a remedy. They saw no danger in 
 this direction, and therefore they did not provide against it. But 
 they did provide, that the General Conference should "not do 
 away episcopacy," and by doing so plainly declared that the two 
 departments were not co-ordinate — that without such a restriction 
 the General Conference, acting under the general provisions of the 
 Discipline, might do away episcopacy. This argument seems to 
 me perfectly conclusive against the "co-ordinate" system of the 
 Protest. 
 
 2. The bishops are made responsible to the General Conference. 
 In section iv, question 4 and answer, we have the foUoAving : 
 " To whom is a bishop amenable ? To the General Conference, 
 who have power to expel him for improper conduct, if they see it 
 necessary." Is this provision in harmony with the notion that the 
 episcopacy is " an independent department, a separate sphere of 
 executive power and action, standing in the same relation to the 
 constitution that the General Conference does ?" Dr. Bascom 
 seems to have anticipated a difficulty here, and because " the con- 
 stitution " makes no provision for such a process against an offend- 
 ing bishop as would accord with his elevated views of the "order," 
 he pronounces it "defective." The reader shall have the whole of 
 the doctor's argument, and then he can judge for himself how the 
 new theory has hurried him on : — 
 
68 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 " The right of trial by committee, and of appeal, under circumstances 
 affording full and fair opportunity of defense, is another constitutional 
 principle of Methodist polity, existing prior to, and independently of, 
 the General Conference, and applies to all ministers and members of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to a bishop (if he be a minister) 
 not less than others. Nor is there anything in the Discipline opposed 
 to this. The answer to question 4, section iv, is simply declaratory 
 of the amenability of the bishop to the General Conference, and the 
 right of the conference to try and determine in the case ; but the mode 
 of trial is determined by the constitution to be hy committee, and as the 
 case comes of course before the General Conference, it is virtually an 
 appeal. The real difficulty is defective legislation ; no statute exists 
 to carry out xha provision of the constitution, which expressly declares 
 that no minister shall be deprived of trial by committee. When a bishop 
 is charged or arraigned at a General Conference, not to violate the 
 constitution, he should be tried by a committee of his peers, and then 
 let the conference decide. I know no statute requires this, and it is 
 equally true that none forbids it ; and as it is explicitly exacted by the 
 constitution, trial, without the intervention of a committee, is a violation 
 of that instrument, and would be equally unconstitutional were it au- 
 thorized by statute, for, in either case, it is doing what the constitution 
 says the General Conference shall have no power to do, in the case 
 of any minister, preacher, or member." — Review, p. 69. 
 
 Now, according to the doctor's theory, who are a bishop's 
 " peers ?" " The bench of bishops," of course. And, though " no 
 statute exists to carry out the p7'ovisio7i of the constitution," he 
 would have that provision carried out without " statute." Tliough 
 there is confessedly no law providing for it, an offending bishop 
 should be tried by the board of bishops, and then should have " an 
 appeal" to the General Conference. All this should be done with- 
 out " legislation," proceeding upon a mere coiistniction of " tlic con- 
 stitution !" Can this be the same Dr. Bascom who wrote tiie famous 
 Protest? who contends so stoutly, both in the Protest and the 
 Review, for tiie ^^law made and provided in the case?" who 
 declares, with so much vehemence, the proceedings of the late 
 General Conference "extra-judicial," "without law," "above law, 
 and contrary to law," merely for the want of an explicit " statute" 
 authorizing specifically the act which they performed? "Thou 
 that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege ?" 
 
 But saying nothing of tiie doctor's inconsistency, let us look for 
 a moment at tlie tendency of his theory. Perceiving that his views 
 of the episcopal " order," and its independency in relation to the 
 General Conference, are inconsistent vt[\\\ the idea of responsibility 
 to that body, he would make another leap toward (rallior into) pre- 
 lacy. We have an " order" of bishops, who constitute " a co- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 69 
 
 ordinate branch, the executive department proper of the govern- 
 ment" — " an independent department" — and why should not they 
 *' be tried " by their " peers ?" In carrying out this construction of 
 "the constitution," the doctor would be brought up against the 
 answer to question 5, section iv, which provides for " the trial of a 
 bishop if he should be accused of immorality." And here he would 
 find himself " not only above law, but against law." But this 
 could be got along with ; for he does not invade " the constitutional 
 rights of the episcopacy," but only adds a little to them, or, as he 
 might explain himself, he only labors by construction to remedy 
 "defective legislation." These are some of the strides that our 
 southern brethren have made away from "the ancient landmarks!" 
 
 3. That the episcopacy is subordinate to the General Conference, 
 is evident from the fact that that body uniformly appoints a com- 
 mittee upon the episcopacy, whose duty it is to inquire into the con- 
 duct and administration of the bishops. This committee, when 
 they judge it necessary, call the bishops before them to explain 
 and justify their proceedings, and that too without any formal im- 
 peachment or regular judicial investigation. This has been the 
 usage from the very commencement, and shows conclusively that 
 the episcopacy is subordinate to the General Conference. 
 
 4. Another reason against the doctrine of the Protest upon this 
 point is, that the General Conference has always regulated the 
 powers of the episcopacy, adding to and taking from, as they judged 
 necessary. 
 
 Up to 1789 the bishop had the power " to receive appeals from 
 the preachers and people, and try them ;" then this power was taken 
 from him. In 1804 the General Conference commenced making 
 restrictions as to the time during which the bishop might " allow a 
 preacher to remain in the same station," until which time this was 
 entirely at the discretion of the bishop. The stationing power of 
 the episcopacy has been modified at every General Conference, 
 with the exception of 1824, since 1820. Even at the late session 
 important modifications of the stationing power were introduced at 
 the suggestion of the bishops themselves, and were heartily sus- 
 tained by several leading southern members. From 1796 to 1812 
 the bishops had " authority to appoint otiier yearly conferences in 
 the interval of the General Conference, if a sufficient number of 
 new circuits be anywhere formed for that purpose." Since 1812 
 the bishops have had no power to organize new conferences ex- 
 cept in special cases designated by the General Conference. See 
 Emory's History of the Discipline, chap, i, sec. iv ; part ii, sec, i. 
 
 Now, on what principle are all these modifications of episco- 
 
,70 Slaver?/ and the Episcopacy. 
 
 pal power by the General Conference to be accounted for, upon 
 the hypothesis of the Protest ? Was there any such constitutional 
 provision for them as our protesting brethren now require, in order 
 to the validity of General Conference action ? Had the General 
 Conference any more power to make one of these changes than 
 the bisliops had to disorganize and destroy the church ? According 
 to the new southern doctrine, no more, nor even half so much. 
 We see, then, that the doctrine of a co-ordination of power be- 
 tween the episcopacy and the General Conference is altogether 
 inconsistent with the history of General Conference action, ever 
 since the organization of the church. 
 
 5. I object to the views of our southern brethren in relation to 
 the relative powers of the General Conference and the episcopacy, 
 that they were not the views of our fathers. 
 
 Dr. Coke and Bishop Asbury, in their Notes upon the Discipline, 
 drawn up by order of the General Conference, and printed in 1792, 
 hold the following language. Speaking of the primitive episco- 
 pacy, they say : — 
 
 " The bishop by no means superintended his diocese in a despotic 
 manner, but was rather the chief executor of those regulations which 
 "were made in the college of presbyters, which answered to the convo- 
 cations, synods, or conferences, of all well-organized churches in 
 modern times." — Discipline of 1192, p. 8. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " And we verily believe, that if our episcopacy should at any time, 
 through tyrannical or immoral conduct, come under the severe censure 
 of the General Conference, the members thereof would see it highly 
 for the glory of God to preserve the present form, and onhj to change 
 the men." — lb., p. 42. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " But the American bishops are as responsible as any of the preach- 
 ers. They are perfectly subject lo the General Conference." — lb. 
 
 I preserve the italicising as it is in the copy. And again : — 
 
 " They [the bishops] are perfectly dependent ; their power, their 
 usefulness, themselves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Con- 
 ference." — lb., pp. 43, 44. 
 
 And yet again : — 
 
 " Among us there is no exception. Our bishops are bound to obey 
 and submit to the General Conference."— /A., p. 66. 
 
 We have an authority upon this point preserved by Bishop 
 Emory, in his "Defense of our Fathers," which I shall here intro- 
 duce, with his account of the author, and his own indorsement. It 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 71 
 
 is from Mr. John Dickens, one of the early Methodist preachers,* 
 and is as follows : — 
 
 " ' We all know Mr. Asbury derived his official power from the con- 
 ference, and therefore his office is at their disposal.' ' Mr. Asbiiry,' he 
 says in another place, ' was thus chosen by the conference, both before 
 and after he was ordained a bishop ; and he is still considered as the 
 person of their choice, by being responsible to the conference, who 
 have power to remove him, and fill his place with another, if they see 
 it necessary. And as he is liable every year to be removed, he may 
 be considered as their annual choice.' The high standing of John 
 Dickens is too well known to need any statement of it here. He 
 was also the particular and most intimate friend of Bishop Asbury. 
 And the pamphlet containing the above sentiments was published by 
 the unanimous request of the conference held at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 
 1792 ; and may be therefore considered as expressing the views both 
 of that conference and of Bishop Asbury in relation to the true and 
 original character of Methodist episcopacy." — Defense of our Fathers, 
 p. 110. 
 
 To all this Dr. Bascom replies as follows : — 
 
 " These concessions all date back to an order of things not in exist- 
 ence since 1808, and can, therefore, have no weight whatever against 
 the force of our general position on this subject. All the power now 
 found in the General Conference over the episcopacy, amounts to no- 
 thing more than that bishops are legally and strictly responsible for their 
 conduct as ministers and bishops, and that it is competent for the con- 
 ference to lay them aside, by judicial process, whenever they shall be 
 found guilty of misconduct, either as men or officers, which obviously 
 requires it." — Review, p. 155. 
 
 The answer is not at all satisfactory : because all the original / 
 powers of the General Conference, when it was composed of all 1 i^ 
 the elders, were given to the delegated General Conference, ex- 
 cept what is embraced in the six restrictive rules ; and there is "^ 
 nothing there touching the responsibilities of the bishops. They j,* 
 hold their office by the same tenure, and subject to the same re- \ ^ 
 sponsibilities, as before the delegated General Conference had a 
 being. 
 
 Bishop Hedding is still living, and it is devoutly to be hoped he 
 may be able for years to serve the church in the highly-responsible 
 office of a bishop. Though still among us, his age, talents, and 
 piety, entitle his opinions to be enrolled with those of Coke, Asbury, 
 and their contemporaries. He says : — 
 
 * John Dickens, when the Book Concern was established in Philadelphia, 
 in 1789, was constituted agent and editor, and continued to fill the office until 
 1798, when he died with yellow fever. He was a man of great Judgment and 
 integrity, and a considerable scholar. See Bangs' Hist., vol. ii, pp. 67-71. 
 
72 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 " The traveling preachers gave the bishop his power, they continue 
 it in his hands, and they can reduce, limit, or transfer it to other hands 
 whenever they see cause." — Discourse on the Discipline. 
 
 6. To these authorities I add all the bishops who signed the 
 episcopal Address to the late General Conference. In that Address 
 we have the following very clear and explicit avowal of the doctrine 
 of the subordination of the episcopacy to the General Conference : — 
 
 " The general itinerant superintendency, vitally connected, as it is 
 believed to be, with the effective operation, if not with the very exist- 
 ence, of the whole itinerant system, cannot be too carefully examined 
 or too safely guarded. And we have no doubt but you will direct your 
 inquiries into such channels as to ascertain whether there has been any 
 departure from its essential principles, or delinquency in the adminis- 
 tration in carrying it intd execution ; and in case of the detection of 
 error, to apply such correction as the matter may require. 
 
 "There are several points in this system which are of primary 
 importance, and on that account should be clearly understood. The 
 office of a bishop, or superintendent, according to our ecclesiastical 
 system, is almost exclusively executive ; wisely limited in its powers, 
 and guarded by such checks and responsibilities as can scarcely fail 
 to secure the ministry and membership against any oppressive mea- 
 sures, even should these officers so far forget the sacred duties and 
 obligations of their holy vocation as to aspire to be lords over God's 
 heritage. 
 
 " So far from being irresponsible in their office, they are amenable 
 to the General Conference, not only for their moral conduct, and for 
 the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful administration of the 
 government of the church, according to the provisions of the Discipline, 
 and for all decisions which they make on questions of ecclesiastical 
 law. In all these cases this body has original jurisdiction, and may 
 prosecute to final issue in expulsion, from which decision there is no 
 appeal." — Address, Journal, p. 154. 
 
 This language is too explicit to need a commentary. Both in 
 doctrine and expression, it is plainly and directly opposed to the 
 positions of Dr. Bascom. 
 
 These testimonies arc conclusive. The language is so explicit 
 upon the point at issue, that there is no necessity for commentary 
 or argument. And it is worthy of remark, that, although most of 
 them were quoted in the argument in the late General Conference, 
 in the case of Bishop Andrew, and are imbodied in the Reply, they 
 were not answered by the speakers in the opposition, nor are they 
 met by Dr. Bascom in his Review. Dr. Bascom's course is to 
 prove his peculiar views by these same authorities, in connection 
 with others, by counter passages. But, in all his quotations (and 
 they are numerous) he proceeds upon the slovenly and most repre- 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 78 
 
 hensible plan of leaving his readers to find his passages, in their 
 proper connections, as they can, never quoting the page, or even 
 the book. Authorities, thus thrown in, in cases in which all depends 
 upon the sense designed by the author, and, without reference to 
 their connections, mean nothing at all, are of no weight whatever ; 
 and a writer has no right to expect that an opponent will take the 
 trouble to search out authorities wliich are never properly pre- 
 sented. I do not say this to avoid the force of the authorities inti- 
 mated by Dr. Bascom : for a thorough examination would show 
 that they are either but partially quoted, or are not at all to his 
 purpose. I will now give the reader a specimen of the doctor's 
 proofs, and it shall be one which is more direct to the point now 
 in question than any of the others. Thus he proceeds : — 
 
 " Dr. Bangs says, ' Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke to this very office,' 
 (the episcopal,) and sent him to America, 'with power to ordain others, 
 and exercise functions which appertained not to simple presbyters.' 
 He says, of Methodist episcopacy, it was of Mr. Wesley's ' own 
 creation — the child of his choice.' He adds, ' Mr. Wesley certainly 
 intended Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to exercise jurisdiction over the 
 whole church in America.' And again, ' episcopal powers were certainly 
 invested in them ' by Mr. Wesley, and, says the doctor, there ' was an 
 episcopal jurisdiction, to all intents and purposes.'" — Review, p. 128. 
 
 Now, where Dr. Bangs says all this the reader is left to find out 
 as well as he can. I shall not concern myself about it, as it proves 
 nothing to Dr. Bascom's purpose. There is one line, indeed, which 
 seems to look toward the southern theory. " Mr, Wesley certainly 
 intended Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to exercise jurisdiction over 
 the whole church in America." But it is nothing to the question 
 what "Mr. Wesley intended:" the question is, what actually 
 obtained. Did they exercise that jurisdiction ? and if so, by what 
 authority, and on what tenure ? But there is not a word in all Dr. 
 Bascom's mass of quotations about co-ordinate powers : not one 
 of them represents the episcopacy as "an independent department" 
 of the government. Most of these authorities seem to be directed 
 to the question of the origin of our episcopacy. To this question 
 I shall attend under another head ; for the present I am endeavoring 
 to ascertain the relations of the episcopacy to the General Confer- 
 ence. I have shown, I think, clearly and conclusively, that the 
 episcopacy is subordinate to the General Conference. The evi- 
 dence of this fact which I have adduced I now leave with the 
 reader, and I do this with the more confidence, as there is scarcely 
 the shadow of argument adduced in opposition to our position. Our 
 southern brethren seem to have satisfied themselves with opposing 
 
74 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 their own simple denials to what we bring from the Discipline, the 
 history of General Conference legislation, and the declarations of 
 our venerated fathers. But, though we are ready to give them 
 all the credit to which their learning, talents, and piety entitle them, 
 we cannot concede to them the right to settle a question of so much 
 importance by a mere ex cathedra decision, without either reason 
 or authority pertinent to the point in debate. But I must hasten 
 to another point. 
 
 ^ XVI, — What are the Rights and Powers of the Bishops in the General 
 
 Conference ? 
 
 According to the Discipline, " the General Conference shall be 
 composed of one member for every twenty-one members of each 
 Annual Conference, to be appointed either by seniority or choice, 
 at the discretion of such Annual Conference." — Disciplijie, chap, i, 
 sec. iii. It is further said that " one of the superintendents shall 
 preside in the General Conference ; but in case no general super- 
 intendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a pre- 
 sident pro tem." — lb. There never has been any rule constituting 
 the bishops members proper in the General Conference, nor is 
 there anything in the nature of their relation to the body, as mere 
 presidents, which entitles them either to a vote or a part in the 
 discussions. The Protest declares that " the bishops are, beyond a 
 doubt, an integral, constituent part of the General Conference, 
 made such by law and the constitution." — Journal, p. 194. And 
 Dr. Bascom says : — 
 
 " As connected with the presidency of the General Conference, 
 bishops have been in the habit of giving their opinion and advice, ofl'er- 
 ing resolutions, and even voting in the instance of a tic. The practice, 
 however, has varied at different times, and with different men. As 
 lately as the General Conference of 1 840, one bishop offered a series 
 of resolutions, which were adopted by the conference, and another gave 
 the casting vote on an important question, to which no exception was 
 taken, and both these acts, stated upon the Journals, were subsequently 
 approved by the conference, without dissent. In fact, the presidents 
 have always been recognized as constitutional members of the General 
 Conference, until the new era of 1844." — Review, p. 140. 
 
 Early in the history of General Conference action, " the chair," 
 in some instances, made motions ; but this practice has long since 
 been obsolete. It was never orderly ; but was not, perhaps, in the 
 days of Coke and Asbury, regarded as particularly objectionable. 
 As to "voting in the instance of a tic," that has occasionally occurred ; 
 but I see no reason to justify it which would not entitle the chair lo 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 75 
 
 a vote upon every count. As to the " series of resolutions " " offer- 
 ed " by " one bishop" in " the General Conference of 1840," north- 
 ern men recollect the matter vi^ith no great amount of pleasure. 
 But for the resolutions offered by "the senior superintendent," vire 
 should not have been vexed for four years with the obnoxious 
 "colored testimony resolution," By putting himself into the posi- 
 tion of an advocate, and moving a set of resolutions, which had 
 the appearance of a pacific measure, and yet really did nothing at all 
 for the north, he inflicted upon us a blow which is not yet forgotten. 
 The same bishop made party speeches at the late General Confer- 
 ence. And from several allusions which he has made to the affair 
 since, it would seem that he took it in ill part that a member ven- 
 tured to suggest that we did not " wish our bishops to enter the 
 arena of strife." The author of that remark, upon noticing the 
 bishop's sensitiveness upon the point, observed : "If the bishop 
 does not find, in the end, that the remark was dictated by discretion, 
 history will not confirm what philosophy teaches." All the speci- 
 mens which have come under my observation of the exercise, upon 
 the part of the bishops, of the assumed right to move resolutions, 
 and take part in the discussions of the General Conference, have 
 been unfortunate ones ; and have gone to confirm me in the opinion 
 that, if it were even a "vested right" of the episcopacy, it would 
 at least be policy to waive it. But Dr. Bascom gives us a final 
 qualification : — 
 
 " It is not meant to say the president of a General Conference is a 
 member in the sense in which Annual Conference delegates are ; but 
 that the constitution makes him a part of the body in virtue of his right 
 of general oversight, which extends to the General Conference, as well 
 as other departments of the ecclesiastical system." — Review, p. 141. 
 
 " The constitution makes him " no " part of the body," except 
 the president. And as president in a General Conference he is a 
 mere moderator. No powers, privileges, or rights, are assigned to 
 him there, except what are implied in his position as chairman, or 
 moderator ; and if Dr. Bascom knows where " the constitution " 
 gives anything more than this, I would thank him, most kindly, to 
 point it out. But surely, after all he has said about " law," "sta- 
 tutes," " constitutional provisions," and " vested rights," and the 
 efforts he has made to prove that the General Conference of 1844 
 committed a mortal sin, in acting upon its own construction of law, 
 where there was no specific statute, he will not claim "constitu- 
 tional rights " for the bishops, merely upon construction, and espe- 
 cially where his construction is made out of whole cloth, without a 
 
76 Slavery and the Episcopacy 4 
 
 shred in the hook with which to weave his web. I must hold Dr. 
 Bascom to consistency, whoever else violates that principle. 
 
 Dr. Bascom seems to have forgotten the doctrine of the bishops' 
 Address to the late General Conference upon the subject of 
 the rights and duties of a bishop in the General Conference. I 
 will refresh his memory. In defining their duties, they mention 
 "presiding in the General and Annual Conferences." They then 
 say:— 
 
 " But there is a marked difference in the relations the president sus- 
 tains to these two bodies. The General Conference, being the highest 
 judicatory of the church, is not subject to the official direction and 
 control of the president any further than the order of business and the 
 preservation oi' decorum are concerned : and even this is subject to 
 rules originating in the body. The right to transact business, with 
 respect to matter, mode, and order of time, is vested in the conference, 
 and limited only by constitutional provisions ; and of these provisions, 
 so far as their official acts are concerned, the conference, and not the 
 president, must be the judge." — Address, Journal, p. 155. 
 
 This is a passage which Dr. Bascom ought well to have consi- 
 dered before he wrote his book. " The right to transact business, 
 with respect to matter, mode, and order of lime — limited only by 
 constitutional provisions ; and of these — the conference — must 
 judge." Surely this is all that the north ever claimed for the Gene- 
 ral Conference. And it was for doing just what the bishops — 
 including Bishops Soule and Andrew — say they have a "right" 
 to do, that the late General Conference have been so severely 
 arraigned by the south. And it is the very power that the bishops 
 here concede to the General Conference, without the least apparent 
 reserve, that Dr. Bascom thinks so dangerous to the interests of 
 the church, and so evidently " unconstitutional." 
 
 § XVII. — Is the Episcopacy in the Methodist Episcopal Church an 
 
 Order? 
 
 The theory of Methodist episcopacy is based upon the hypo- 
 thesis that, in New Testament and primitive usage, emoKonoi, epis- 
 Tiopoi — bishops — and rrpeafivTeQoi, preshutcroi — presbyters — were 
 essentially of the same order. It was upon this principle that Mr. 
 Wesley assumed the right to ordain a " superintendent" and seve- 
 ral "presbyters" for America. In his letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. 
 Wesley says : " Lord King's account of the primitive church con- 
 vinced me, many years ago, that bishops and presbyters arc the 
 same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain." 
 
 These few lines show definitely the ground upon which Mr. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacij. Tl 
 
 Wesley proceeded to ordain ministers for America. They are far 
 better than a thousand pages of explanation because they are 
 more easily understood. Upon the ground of Mr. Wesley s or- 
 dinations there is, I believe, no controversy between the north 
 and the south. Dr. Bascom makes no issue with us here. 
 
 But it has become a question whether, though Mr. Wesley pro- 
 ceeded upon the principle that "bishops and presbyters are the 
 same order," he did not institute a third order : that is, whether he 
 did not, in fact, constitute an order above the order of presbyters, 
 which he called " superintendents," and which we now call bishops 
 I understand our southern brethren now to take the affirmative ot 
 this question. The following is Dr. Bascom's qualified statement 
 of his views upon the question :— 
 
 "In the theory of Methodist Church government, as found in the 
 Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and variously explained 
 and iTlustrated in the history and publications of the church, bishops 
 are rec^arded as a thud order in the ministry only, in view of their govern. 
 •S powers as church or ecclesiastical rulers. They are a third order 
 not n the institution of the Christian ministry, as derived from Christ 
 bu Tn the structure of the government which claims to be dmnely 
 authorized, because consistent with the doctrme and practice of the New 
 TestameT>t, without being required by it, to the exclusion of other forms 
 of government." — Review, pp. 126, 127. 
 
 Then it would seem that bishops are "a third order in the 
 ministry only, in their governing powers, as church or ecclesiastical 
 rulers " If the doctor means to say merely that our bishops, as 
 ecclesiastical officers, are above the presbyters, I have no dispute 
 with him. But he certainly exposes himself to be misunderstood 
 by using the word order in a sense in which it is not sanctioned by 
 Methodtst usage. Our writers uniformly use the words order and 
 office in different senses, and characterize our episcopacy as an 
 oiRce in contradistinction from the order of bishops as held by 
 melatists If Dr. Bascom does not differ from them in reality why 
 need he in appearance ? Why affect a new and peculiar phrase- 
 olocry? I should like a little more light upon the meaning of this 
 phrfse -governing powers, as church or ecclesiastical rulers^ 
 What portion of the episcopal functions are embraced under the 
 notion of " governing powers ?" Does it embrace the right of ordina- 
 tion ? If it does not, then that right must belong to the eldership , 
 but this Dr. Bascom everywhere discards. If the "governing 
 powers" of the episcopacy, as it is estabUshed in our church 
 embrace the exclusive right of ordination, with other ministerial 
 
 functions peculiar to the office, we have in it the essential elements 
 
t8 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 of prelacy, whatever we may say of "the institution of the Chris- 
 tian ministry as derived from Christ." 
 
 There are other passages in Dr. Bascom's book which look 
 more directly to what I should call Methodist prelacy. He says : — 
 
 " The forms of ordination, as it relates to three orders or grades 
 of the ministry, originally received from Wesley, as not only valid and 
 sufficient, but always regarded as essential to the very existence of the 
 ministry, and, of course, the church, must be considered as a consti- 
 tutional arrangement, and an undoubted part of the constitution." — 
 Review, p. 68. 
 
 And again : — 
 
 " The episcopacy was the first formative element or principle in the 
 organization of the church. It was the primal arrangement, around 
 which all others clustered and settled into order and symmetry. It was 
 by an authority antecedent and superior to the General Conference, that 
 the bishop was created president, and head of that body, which he 
 could not be without belonging to it. His right of headship and presi- 
 dency is not derived from the General Conference in any way. He is 
 not indebted to the General Conference for his position there. His 
 being there is not by concession of that body. As the general rule, his 
 presidency is one of the conditions of the existence of that body." — 
 Ibid., p. 69. 
 
 What does this imply but that the episcopacy is the source of 
 all ecclesiastical power? "this [the bishop's] right of headship" 
 being inherent in the office he holds, or rather, the order to which 
 he was elevated in his ordination. The Protest says, " The 
 General Conference . . . does not possess the right of ordination, 
 without which a bishop cannot be constituted."— /o2«7?o/, p. 194. 
 Is not this the doctrine of succession ? — that the presbytery, or 
 highest council, or synod of the eldership, " does not possess the 
 right of ordination ;" that " a bishop cannot be constituted without " 
 ordination; that "episcopacy is the first formative element or 
 principle in the organization of the church ;" that the bisliop's 
 " right of headship, or presidency, is not derived from the General 
 Conference," or supreme council of the elders, "in any way;" that 
 this " right of headsliip" is imparted by ordination ; and that "three 
 degrees or grades of the ministry" are " always regarded as essen- 
 tial to the very existence of the ministry, and, of course, the church." 
 I have always supposed these principles constituted the very ele- 
 ments of prelacy, as held by the rankest Puseyites of the present 
 age. These are the very propositions which have been in debate 
 between prelatists and presbyterians for centuries ; and upon which 
 we, as I suppose, have always taken the presbyterian side. If I 
 have been deceived, I wish now to know it. For if Methodist 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 79 
 
 episcopacy turns out to be a kind of upstart prelacy, with all the 
 arrogant assumptions of that system, and yet without any preten- 
 sions to "the apostolic succession," I should wish to make all 
 haste to repudiate and renounce it altogetiier. But, in my humble 
 judgment, this is not the right view of our church polity. Against 
 it I must enter my humble protest, for many reasons, some of 
 which are the following : — 
 
 1. The supposition that Mr. Wesley intended to institute three 
 orders of ministers — bishops as distinct from presbyters as presby- 
 ters are from deacons — involves him in gross inconsistencies and 
 absurdities. 
 
 According to "Lord King," the primitive bishops were, as to 
 order, simple presbyters. This theory he sustains by the New 
 Testament and the fathers of the first three centuries. His argu- 
 ments convinced Mr. Wesley "that bishops and presbyters are the 
 same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain." 
 And as Mr. Wesley says in his letter, the " American brethren " 
 " are at liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive 
 church," he could not have intended to institute a form of govern- 
 ment radically different from that which " Lord King's account of 
 the primitive churcli" presents. The view here opposed involves 
 Mr. Wesley in the grossest absurdity and folly. It makes him say, 
 " Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many 
 years ago, that bishops and presbyters are of the same order, and 
 consequently have the same right to ordain : I, accordingly, as a 
 presbyter in the church of Christ, have concluded ' to exercise 
 that right' by ordaining a superintendent and several presbyters 
 for America : and now, brethren of America, I leave you ' at full 
 liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church,' 
 by accepting at my hands, and ever preserving with inviolable 
 fidelity, a system of church polity which recognizes ' th7'ee orders 
 or grades of the ministry, originally received from me, as not only 
 valid and suflacient, but always regarded as essential to the very 
 existence of the ministry, and, of course, the church :' and this, 
 down to the end of time, ' must be considered as a constitutional 
 arrangement, and an undoubted part of the constitution.'" Now 
 who can believe that John Wesley ever fell into such gross ab- 
 surdity as this would be ? And, according to the southern theory, 
 this inimitable folly stands out upon the very surface of the papers 
 which that gi'eat and good man put into the hands of Dr. Coke, 
 when he sent him to America. A strange compliment this to Mr. 
 Wesley, to his poor dupe Dr. Coke, to the simple Francis Asbury, 
 and to the blinded preachers and people under his care in America ! 
 
80 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 2. I object to this theory, that it is a flat contradiction of the 
 doctrines, teaching, and professions of our venerated fathers and 
 defenders, 
 
 I will now quote two passages from Coke and Asbury's Notes 
 on the Discipline, which form as clear a contrast, both in doctrine 
 and language, to Dr. Bascom's representations, as could well be 
 constructed : — 
 
 " Nor must we omit to observe, that each diocese had a college of 
 elders or presbyters in which the bishop presided. So that the bishop 
 by no means superintended his diocese in a despotic manner, but was 
 rather the chief executor of those regulations which were made in the 
 college of presbyters, which answered to the convocations, synods, or 
 conferences of all the well-organized churches in modern times." — 
 Discipline of 1792. p. 8. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " The authority given to, or rather declared to exist in, the General 
 Conference, that in case there shall be no bishop remaining in the 
 church, they shall elect a bishop, and authorize the elders to consecrate 
 him, will not admit of an objection, except on the supposition that the 
 fable of an uninterrupted apostolic succession be allowed to be true. 
 St. Jerome, who was as strong an advocate for episcopacy as perhaps 
 any in the primitive church, informs us, that in the church of Alexan- 
 dria (which was, in ancient times, one of the most respectable of the 
 churches) the college of presbyters not only elected a bishop, on the 
 decease of the former, but consecrated him by the imposition of their 
 own hands solely, from the time of St. Mark, their first bishop, to the 
 time of Dionysius, which was a space of about two hundred years : 
 and the college of presbyters in ancient times answered to our General 
 Conference." — Ibid., p. 46. 
 
 Here the bishop is made "the chief executor of those regula- 
 tions which were made in the college of presbyters," who " not only 
 elected a bishop on the decease of the former, but consecrated him 
 by the imposition of their own hands solely ;'' and this " college of 
 presbyters, in ancient times," it is said, ^^ ansivercd to our General 
 Conference." Contrast this with the language of the Protest and 
 the Review : — " The General Conference, as such, cannot consti- 
 tute a bishop This right of headship and presidency is not 
 
 derived from the General Conference in any way. He is not in- 
 debted to the General Conference for his position there." Can 
 any two systems be more perfectly adverse than that of the bishops 
 of 1792, and that of our southern brethren of 1844-45 ? 
 
 3. This theory places our bishops in a " consecrated station," 
 which it would be impossible for them to resign, and fall back 
 upon their orders as presbyters in the church. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 81 
 
 The doctrine of orders implies the principle that the higher grade 
 embraces and swallows up the lower ; so that when we enter on a 
 higher grade the lower is annihilated, or, at least, so lost in the higher, 
 by, so to speak, being compounded with its very elements, that we 
 can never resign the higher and retain the lower order. So, as a 
 presbyter cannot resign the office of a presbyter and retain that 
 of a deacon, a bishop (upon the supposition that he is of a third 
 order, independent of that of presbyter) cannot resign the episcopal 
 office and retain that of presbyter.* That this would be a novel 
 principle in our church polity is plain from the fact that our bishops 
 have considered themselves at liberty, at anytime during the session 
 of the General Conference, to resign their office, and fall back into 
 the ranks of regular presbyters. Bishop Asbury, in consequence 
 of bodily infirmities, brought on through excessive labors, seriously 
 " came to the conclusion, that unless the episcopacy was strength- 
 ened at the General Conference of 1800, he would be under the 
 necessity of resigning ; and it is said had even prepared his valedic- 
 tory address." — See Memoij's of the Rev. Jesse Lee, by Minton 
 Thrift, p. 267. See also the statement of Jesse Lee himself, in his 
 Journal, ibid., p. 268.t In 1836 Bishop Roberts proposed to resign ; 
 
 * Bishop White has left upon record an account of the proposition of 
 Bishop Provoost, in 1801, to the General Convention, to resign his "jurisdiction 
 as a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church," and the action of the con- 
 vention upon the case. The action is as follows : — " The house of bishops 
 having considered the subject brought before them by the letter of Bishop 
 Provoost, and by the message from the house of clerical and lay deputies, 
 touching the same, can see no grounds on which to believe that the contemplated 
 resignation is consistent with the ecclesiastical order, or with the practice of 
 Episcopal churches in any age, or with the tenor of the office of consecration." 
 — Memoirs Prot. Ep. Ch., Appendix, No. 24. 
 
 Here we have the doctrine of prelatical churches. But whether it is a 
 docti-ine which harmonizes with the Methodist views of " the tenor of the 
 office of consecration," it will be well now seriously to inquire. 
 
 •f We have a minute of this delicate affair in the Journals, of a character 
 which of itself speaks the same doctrine which Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury 
 utter in their Notes upon the Discipline. The minute dates May 7, 1800, and 
 is as follows : — " A request being made that Mr. Asbury should let the con- 
 ference know what he had determined to do in future, he intimated that he did 
 not know whether this General Conference were satisfied with his former ser- 
 vices. A member proposed that a vote should be taken : the vote was objected 
 to until a reason should be assigned for such suspicion. Mr. Asbury then 
 arose to speak in his own behalf, and said, his afflictions since the last General 
 Conference had been such, that he had been under the necessity of having a 
 colleague to travel with him ; that his great debility had obliged him to 
 locate several times ; and that he could only travel in a carriage : and he did 
 
 6 
 
82 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 but the conference thought best to insist upon the continuance of 
 his services in the episcopal office. Whether that was the wisest 
 course, may now fairly be doubted, as his excessive labors probably 
 hastened his end. During the same conference, Bishop Hedding 
 preached the sermon upon the occasion of the ordination of Bishops 
 Waugh and Morris, in which he represented the episcopal office 
 as one held by the mutual consent of the General Conference and 
 the incumbents ; and, of course, as the General Conference might 
 deprive them of it, so they might voluntarily resign it. This did 
 not strike me as a novel doctrine at all ; and that it was not 
 supposed heretical by the General Conference is obvious, from 
 the fact, that a resolution was passed, requesting of the bishop 
 " a copy for publication !" Upon our return from Cincinnati 
 we had the pleasure of the company of Dr. Bascom to Au- 
 gusta, and of Bishop Andrew, I think, to Maysville. Some time 
 during the passage the doctrine of Bishop Hedding's sermon was 
 made matter of discussion. Bishop Andrew expressed himself 
 decidedly in favor of it, particularly so far as it related to the right 
 of a bishop to resign : but Dr. Bascom (I think not in the circle in 
 which the first conversation took place, but in an interview 
 between him and myself alone) objected to the doctrine ; and pro- 
 ceeded to say, that "much of a radical" as he had "been con- 
 sidered," that doctrine was " too radical " for him. I recollect this 
 circumstance more perfectly because Dr. Bascom's opposition to 
 what I supposed no Methodist preacher would for a moment doubt, 
 rather surprised me, and I now relate it merely as a part of the 
 history. That Bishop Andrew did meditate a resignation has been 
 often asserted since the commencement of the present controversy ; 
 and, I believe, has been conceded by himself. And that a Methodist 
 bishop might resign his office without forfeiting his ministerial 
 character, I think I never heard questioned except in the instance 
 above mentioned. 
 
 4. I object to this doctrine, because, if we were to adopt it, we 
 should be exposed to the suspicion of presbyterians, to the scorn 
 
 not know whether this General Conference as a body were satisfied with such 
 parts of his conduct. 
 
 " Whereupon a motion was made by Brother Ezekiel Cooper, that this 
 General Conference do resolve, that they do consider themselves under many 
 and great oljligations to Mr. Asbury for the many and great services that he 
 has rendered to this connection. Secondly. That this General Conference do 
 earnestly entreat the continuance of Mr. Asbury's services as one of the 
 general superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church as far as his 
 strength will permit. Agreed, nem. con." 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 8S 
 
 of prelatists, and should be utterly unprotected against the accusa- 
 tions of radicalism. 
 
 When presbyterians have accused us of prelatical assumptions, 
 and prelatists have denounced our episcopacy as " spurious," 
 hitherto we have said, Our episcopacy is an office created by the 
 eldership for the convenience and efficient action of our peculiar 
 system. We have uniformly rejected the doctrine of three orders, 
 of apostolic succession, and of prelacy in general ; and have thus 
 maintained a consistent position. But what we could say for our- 
 selves upon the southern ground, I am at a loss to divine. Perhaps 
 our southern brethren can sustain their new position ; but upon 
 what ground of legitimate reasoning I have yet to be informed. 
 
 5. I reject the theory of three orders, upon the authority of the 
 bishops of 1844. 
 
 Very fortunately our bishops, in the Address they presented at 
 the opening of the late General Conference, gave us an exposition 
 of the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the episcopacy. The 
 views set forth are sound, and true to the standard laid down by 
 our fathers' The bishops say, with regard to the part they take 
 in ordination, which they call "confirming orders," that 
 
 " this confirmation of orders, or ordination, is not by virtue of a distinct 
 and higher order. For, with our great founder, we are convinced that 
 bishops and presbyters are the same order in the Christian ministry. 
 And this has been the sentiment of the Wesleyan Methodists from the 
 beginning. But it is by virtue of an ofice constituted by the body of 
 presbyters, for the better order of discipline, for the preservation of the 
 unity of the church, and for carrying on the work of God in the most 
 effectual manner." — Address, Journal, p. 155. 
 
 To the Address containing this passage we have the signatures 
 of the board of bishops, embracing " Joshua Soule " and " James 
 O. Andrew." Whether these gentlemen will stand by their Ad- 
 dress, now that their great advocate finds it necessary, for the 
 defense of the southern movement, to take an entirely opposite view 
 of the subject, perhaps time will tell. 
 
 There are several other precious concessions in this Address, m 
 close connection with the above, of which I shall avail myself in 
 the proper places, which we might never have had with all the 
 signatures which are now appended to them, had not the Address 
 preceded the discussion in the case of Bishop Andrew. 
 
 For these reasons, and many others that might be urged, I ob- 
 ject to the doctrine of " three orders in the ministry" in the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church. I deny that Mr. Wesley intended to 
 institute three distinct orders ; I deny that our fathers so understood 
 
84 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 it ; I deny that we have three orders : and I assert, that the world 
 has no right to charge us, or our respected and venerated fathers, 
 with the absurdity which such a supposition involves. The doctrine 
 is a novelty ; and our southern brethern are welcome to it, if it will 
 be of any service to them ; but we wish it no local habitation at the 
 north. 
 
 § XVIII. — Has the General Conference Power to depose a Bishop? 
 
 The supremacy of the General Conference, from the period of 
 its organization, seems to have been a conceded point. The dele- 
 gated General Conference, which was authorized and provided for 
 in 1808, would naturally and necessarily have possessed all the 
 powers of the whole collective body of the preachers, had no limit- 
 ations been prescribed. The six restrictive rules constitute all 
 the limitations which the General Conference of 1808 saw proper 
 to prescribe to the action of the future delegated body, and these 
 have never been altered or modified without the consent of the 
 Annual Conferences. 
 
 Now, in the restrictive rules there is no one limiting the power 
 of the General Conference in relation to the episcopacy, excepting, 
 as I have already noticed, the one which prohibits its being destroyed, 
 or its being made a diocesan instead of a general superintendency — 
 " They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government 
 so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant 
 general superintendency." Here is all the restriction there is to the 
 action of the General Conference in relation to the episcopacy. As 
 we have seen, provision is made for a strict accountability of the 
 episcopacy to the General Conference, and that its powers have 
 been modified by that body from time to time, as occasion required. 
 It is not denied but that the General Conference have power to try 
 and expel a bisiiop. But our soutiiern brethren maintain that the 
 right to suspend from office judicially, or to suspend from the 
 exercise of the functions of office prudentially, does not follow. 
 The ground taken is, that the General Conference has no power 
 which is not delegated to it by the Annual Conferences in the con- 
 stitution, and as it is nowhere said that the General Conference 
 shall have power to suspend a bishop from office, or the exercise 
 of its functions, they cannot do it without an infringement upon 
 the rights of the episcopacy and a dangerous assumption of power. 
 The Protest says : — " The bishops are beyond doubt an integral 
 constituent part of the General Conference, made such by law and 
 the constitution ; and because elected by the General Conference 
 it does not follow that they are subject to the will of that body, 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 85 
 
 except in conformity with legal right and the provisions of law, in 
 the premises." Our southern brethren require us to show the 
 "law" giving the power, RXid prescribing the mode of its applica- 
 tion, before they will allow that the General Conference has any 
 constitutional right to touch a bishop. Now I oppose to this theory 
 the following considerations : — 
 
 1. According to this theory a bishop cannot be corrected, 
 censured, or reproved, whatever may be his course of administra- 
 tion or the character of his intercourse with the people ; for the 
 General Conference has no power given to it in the constitution 
 to do any such thing. Unless a bishop subjects himself to a charge 
 and a judicial process, which, if he be convicted, would expel 
 him from the church, the General Conference cannot correct him. 
 This would be leaving the highest officer in the church — the one 
 in whose hands are reposed the destinies of the church, and espe- 
 cially of the ministry — under no responsibilities except for moral 
 character. A bishop might through imbecility or recklessness ruin 
 every Annual Conference he should attend ; and if he were not 
 chargeable with immorality, no one could molest him — not even 
 the General Conference itself. These bearings of the southern 
 theory constitute an a priori objection to it. Such a construction 
 of the provisions of the Discipline must be, to say the least of it, 
 exceedingly doubtful, and it should require the most conclusive 
 proof to originate a suspicion that our wise legislators intended 
 to palm such a system upon the church. 
 
 2. The only rule fixing the responsibility of a bishop or providing 
 for his punishment, in the case of delinquency, which was instituted 
 in the General Conference of 1784, is still retained in the Discipline 
 without alteration : " To whom is a bishop amenable for his con- 
 duct ? To the General Conference, who have power to expel him 
 for improper conduct, if they see it necessary." From this till 
 1792 there was no form of trial for a bishop, even for immoral 
 conduct. The fact that this question and answer are retained in the 
 Discipline, notwithstanding the rule "for the trial of an immoral 
 bishop," would seem to imply that a class of offenses is looked to 
 below immorality * for the correction of which no other provision 
 has been made. 
 
 Suppose, then, a bishop to be accused of "improper conduct" 
 under the rule, what would be the order of proceedings ? I pre- 
 sume all would admit that the General Conference should proceed 
 to hear the charge, specifications, and pleadings pro and con, and 
 
 * This construction fills Dr. Bascom with great horror. After all, I prefer 
 the sound views of Bishop Hedding to those of the learned reviewer. 
 
86 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 then pass judgment. This would be sanctioned by analogy ; but 
 still there would be no law for it, according to the construction 
 of our southern brethren. For, if I understand them, the General 
 Conference must show from the book both the power and the mode 
 of its application — both the authority and the process in that specific 
 case. They can infer nothing from general grants of power — they 
 must show the right to proceed in such a particular case and the 
 mode of proceeding. And because they could not do this in the 
 case of Bishop Andrew, they are charged with "extra-judicial" 
 proceedings — with proceeding " without law and above law." I 
 have shown before that this charge is baseless, and that the 
 General Conference is fully sustained in the proceedings in the 
 case of the bishop by the general powers given in the constitution. 
 I refer to it again because it is related to the particular point in 
 question. Here, then, the General Conference has power to expel 
 a bishop for improper conduct, by a discretionary process — for 
 no form of trial is prescribed. I urge then that the less is con- 
 tained in the greater — that power to expel implies power to depose, 
 to suspend from office, or from the exercise of the functions of office. 
 And as the General Conference is left to select the mode or process 
 in a case of " improper conduct," for which the accused may be 
 expelled "if they see it necessary," I see no reason why they 
 should be bound to a mode or process if they do not " see it neces- 
 sary" to go quite so far as expulsion.* The power to expel at 
 discretion, for improper conduct, as contained in the rule, I con- 
 sider fully sustains the General Conference in its action in the case 
 of Bishop Andrew, and clearly sets aside the objection founded 
 upon the want of explicit law for the suspension of a bishop. 
 
 I have noticed before that Dr. Bascom is not very scrupulous of 
 the forms of law or of explicit constitutional provisions, when he 
 w^ould shield or extend the episcopal prerogatives. There is 
 another occasion for this remark connnccted with his commentary 
 upon the rule under consideration. He maintains that "there must 
 be [not there ought to be] something in the constitutional structure 
 of the government to check and counterbalance" "General Con- 
 ference power." 
 
 * I proceed in this argument upon the supposition that expulsion from the 
 church, and not mercdy expulsion from ofTice, is intended in the rule, though 
 the latter view would suit my argument equally well. For if mere deposition 
 is intended, (and there is high authority for this construction,) then here is clear 
 authority for deposing a bishop for improper conduct, at the discretion of the 
 General Conference, so far as the forms of proceeding are concerned. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 87 
 
 " When it is obvious, for example, that an act of the General Con- 
 ference is subversive of constitutional right, it is the plain and undeni- 
 able duty of the bishops, as constitutional officers of the whole church, 
 to resist the wrong in a proper manner, and not give sanction and cur- 
 rency to a grave constitutional abuse, by transforming a legislative or 
 judicial error into an executive general evil. In this way the subject 
 would be brought, in due form, before all the departments of the church, 
 equally independent, under the constitution, and the proper correction 
 of the evil would, in due time, be the probable result. If bishops are 
 allowed to have judgment and conscience in the premises, how can 
 they act otherwise than as we suggest ? When the General Confer- 
 ence, in the judgment of the episcopacy, have not only failed to repre- 
 sent the constituent bodies electing them, but so acted as to inflict deep 
 and permanent injury upon them, are not the bishops, as having the 
 general oversight of all, allowed to dissent, and in a proper and 
 respectful manner appeal the case for remedy to other departments of 
 the church?" — Review, p. 149. 
 
 To what "departments of the church" the bishops ought to 
 "appeal the case," the doctor does not say. He proceeds : — 
 
 " It is not intended to claim that any express grant gives full and 
 perfect right to this effect. It is not alluded to as a matter of right, 
 except upon high moral grounds, connected with the reasons and aims 
 of government." — Ibid., pp. 149, 150. 
 
 Here, then, Dr. Bascom gives it as his opinion that it is "the 
 plain and undeniable duty of the bishops to resist the wrong in a 
 proper manner — to dissent and to appeal the case," though he does 
 not " claim that any express grant gives full and perfect right to 
 this effect. ^^ Would he have the bishops act " without law and 
 above law ?" The bishops, it seems, may proceed upon " high 
 moral grounds" without " express grant," but such a thing in the 
 General Conference would be treason ! He proceeds further : — 
 
 " The power of the suspensive veto, at least, must be found sojnewhere 
 in every good government ; in every government, in fact, which is not a 
 tyranny, or liable to become one at any moment." — Ibid., p. 150. 
 
 He does not tell us precisely where this ^^ suspensive veto^'' is; 
 but I suppose he would have it constructively in the episcopacy. 
 It " must be somewhere in every good government," and as I sup- 
 pose Dr. Bascom does not think ours a bad government, he is con- 
 fident that this "power of the suspensive veto" exists, perhaps in 
 a latent state, in the constitution, and properly belongs to the 
 bishops. By way of proof he refers to Bishop M'Kendree's pro- 
 ceedings in relation to the "suspended resolutions" of 1820, and 
 proceeds to observe : — 
 
88 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 "And it is known, that in 1824 he had a measure brought forward, 
 the object of which was, to give to the episcopacy, subject to proper 
 restrictions, the right of the negative we are noticing : not with any 
 view to lessen the final power of the General Conference, but to pro- 
 tect the rights of the episcopacy and Annual Conferences, and secure 
 an effective, well-balanced administration of the government." — Re- 
 view, p. 150. 
 
 Now the mystery is that Bishop M'Kendree should have " had 
 a measure brought forward" to secure to the episcopacy this "veto" 
 powerif they, " as constitutional officers of the whole church," already 
 possessed it. I have a distinct recollection of the discussion upon 
 the question of " a constitutional test," in the General Conference 
 of 1824, and that it was strongly urged that the measure would 
 vest in the episcopacy a dangerous power. Dr. Bascom does not 
 merely revive Bishop M'Kendree's plan, which, in the shape of a 
 law, and applying, as it was intended to do, only to supposed viola- 
 tions of the restrictive rules, would have been comparatively inno- 
 cent ;* but he wishes the bishops to assume " the power of the 
 
 * The following is the bill which, after much discussion, was passed by a 
 majority of six votes. As it required " the joint recommendation of all the 
 Annual Conferences," before it could be brought up to the Genera] Conference 
 for final action, it was, of course, negatived by some Annual Conference, and 
 that was the end of it : — 
 
 " Be it resolved by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General 
 Conference assembled. That it be recommended, and it is hereby recommended 
 to the several Annual Conferences, to adopt the following article as a provision, 
 to be annexed to the sixth article of the ' limitations and restrictions,' adopted 
 by the General Conference in 1808, to wit : — Provided, also, that whenever 
 the delegated General Conference shall pass any rule or rules which in the 
 judgment of the bishops, or a majority of them, are contrary to, or an 
 infringement upon, the above ' limitations and restrictions,' or any one of them, 
 such rule or rules, being returned to the conference within three days after 
 their passage, together with the objections of the bishops to them, in writing, 
 the conference shall reconsider such rule or rules ; and if upon reconsideration 
 they shall pass by a majority of two-thirds of the members present, they shall 
 be considered as rules and go into immediate effect. But in case a less majority 
 shall differ from the opinion of the bishops, and they continue to sustain their 
 objections, the rule or rules objected to shall be laid before the Annual Con- 
 ferences, in which case the decision of the majority of all the members of the 
 Annual Conferences present when the vote shall be taken, shall be final. In 
 taking the vote in all such cases in the Annual Conferences, the secretaries 
 shall give a certificate of the number of votes, both in the affirmative and 
 negative, and such certificates shall be forwarded to the editor and general 
 book steward, who, with one or more of the bishops, who may be present, 
 shall be a committee to canvass the votes and certify the result. 
 
 (Signed) " LovicK Pierce, 
 
 "Wm. Winans." 
 
 This, as will be seen, is a mere provision to arrest such acts of the General 
 Conference as may be supposed, by the bishops, " to be contrary to or an 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 89 
 
 suspensive veto," without law ! Does this look toward the move- 
 ments of Bishops Soule and Andrew in the south ? I must 
 restrain myself; I find this dangerous ground for me to tread 
 upon. To hear from a Methodist divine of high standing such 
 stange inconsistencies and contradictions would be a trial to a 
 higher degree of forbearance than I can lay claim to. The General 
 Conference, it would seem, is a dangerous body, unless its power 
 is checked by the episcopacy. The General Conference acts 
 " above law and against law," because it construes the law under 
 which it acts. The General Conference has become a dangerous, 
 and indeed a destructive, agency in the government, because it 
 claims to regulate the episcopacy. But a power to veto the acts of 
 the General Conference, and a right to construe its own powers, 
 and to judge of the constitutional poioers of the General Confer- 
 ence, and to ^^dissent^^ from its acts and ^'appeal" to, nobody 
 knows who, and the right of acting " without law and above law," 
 can be assumed by the episcopacy ivithout the least peril to the 
 interests of the church ! All this may be an exhibition of a high 
 degree of respect for the episcopacy ; but as it seems to me, it is a 
 poor compliment to the virtue and integrity of the General Confer- 
 ence. Indeed there is quite too much in Dr. Bascom's book which 
 looks like sheer contempt for the " delegated General Conference." 
 I, however, give no specimens. Let them pass. 
 
 3. The practice of the General Conference is conclusive against 
 the doctrine here opposed. 
 
 The General Conference of 1808 did both in form and fact, by 
 a simple resolution, without a charge, or specification, or trial, sus- 
 pend Dr. Coke from the exercise of the functions of his office. I 
 need not give the history of the case.* The following is one of 
 four resolutions which were passed in the case of Dr. Coke, who 
 was then in England :— " Resolved, That Dr. Coke's name shall 
 be retained in our Minutes, after the names of the bishops, in a 
 
 infringement upon the limitations and restrictions," " adopted by the General 
 Conference of 1808 ;" and by no means, as Dr. Bascom supposes, a " suspen- 
 sive veto " upon all the acts of the General Conference. I venture to say 
 that Bishop M'Kendree never meditated any such law as Dr. Bascom contends 
 for, much less did he, or any of his contemporaries, ever imagine that the 
 right of " the suspensive veto " is now, by the constitution, vested in the 
 episcopacy. Whether Bishop M'Kendree had any hand in this measure at all, 
 does not appear upon the face of the Journals ; this, however, is wholly im- 
 material, as whoever first conceived the scheme, it is not at all to Dr. Bascom's 
 purpose. 
 
 * It may be found in Dr. Bangs' History of the M. E. Church, vol. i, 
 chap. vii. 
 
90 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 N. B. Dr. Coke, at the request of the British Conference, and by 
 consent of our General Conference, resides in Europe ; he is not 
 to exercise the office of superintendent or bishop among us in the 
 United States, until he be recalled by the General Conference, or 
 by all the Annual Conferences respectively." 
 
 " The sense" of the General Conference of 1808 was that Dr. 
 Coke should not " exercise the office of superintendent or bishop 
 in the United States until he be recalled," &c. He was never 
 recalled, and consequently he was suspended from the " exercise" 
 of "the office of bishop in the United States" until his death. And 
 all this was done without impeachment or formal trial ; and indeed 
 without stating what the " impediment''^ was, or affording him any 
 opportunity to remove it. 
 
 The argument derived from this case is met by a denial that there 
 is any analogy between the two cases. Of this the impartial must 
 judge. So far as I am able to see, the analogy is sufficiently per- 
 fect for our purposes, and, as we have seen, the failure of the 
 analogy, in a few points, strengthens the argument. That the 
 action in the case of Dr. Coke was a suspension from the exercise 
 of the functions of his office, no one will doubt; and that this 
 action is predicated upon no reason, and gives the bishop no chance 
 for escape, is plain upon the very surface of the proceedings. If, 
 then, the proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew were unconsti- 
 tutional, those in the case of Dr. Coke were still more so; and yet 
 I am not aware that they were ever complained of by any consider- 
 able number, either north or south ; much less did any party arise 
 who considered it a sufficient reason for a solemn protest, and a 
 separation from the jurisdiction of the General Conference. 
 
 For these reasons, I think the episcopacy at the disposal of the 
 General Conference. The power of removal grows out of the 
 nature of the relations of the two departments ; and is, in my 
 opinion, highly expedient. I would not have a bishop injured in 
 any case : I would have the character and feelings of all our 
 bishops duly respected. I respect them for tlieir talents and their 
 great moral worth : I love them " for their work's sake." But none, 
 I hope, will deem it disrespectful in me to say, that their high 
 office adds nothing either to their wisdom or holiness. Great 
 powers are no safer in their hands than they would be in the hands 
 of the same number of other men equally wise and good. Dr. 
 Bascom may think the centroUzation of power highly expedient : 
 he may think the church perfectly safe with the power in half-a- 
 dozen individuals, or even in one man, to stop the wheels of legis- 
 Jalion, and bring the operations of the machinery of the whole 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 91 
 
 system of the government to a pause : he may think that Mr. 
 Wesley's commission gives the bishops " the suspensive veto ;" 
 that they may, whenever they please, say to the General Confer- 
 ence, " Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further ; and here shall 
 thy proud waves [of power] be stayed:" that the purity of legislation 
 would be more effectually secured by this investment of unlimited 
 power in the bishops, than it can be by giving general powers, 
 under certain restrictions, to the General Conference ; and that 
 the General Conference would be likely to abuse even restricted 
 power, but unrestricted power would be safe in the hands of the 
 episcopacy ! Now I reject this theory altogether ; I always did 
 reject it ; and I hope I always shall reject it. It is not ancient 
 Methodism. It is much better suited to the meridian of Rome 
 than to that of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. 
 
 § XIX. — Source of our Episcopacy. 
 
 Our orders were derived from Mr. Wesley, who, as a presbyter 
 of the Church of England, and, under God, the father of the 
 Methodist connection, exercised the right of ordaining ministers 
 for America. He preferred the episcopal form of government ; 
 and so set apart Dr. Coke as a superintendent, and gave him letters 
 of episcopal ordination. It seemed right and proper that Mr. 
 Wesley should be consulted, when, in the providence of God, the 
 time had fully come for the American Methodist connection to 
 assume the form and character of a church ; and accordingly, 
 being " requested to take such measures in his wisdom and pru- 
 dence as would afford them suitable relief," he gave them his 
 counsel. The conference of Methodist preachers in America were 
 already an ecclesiastical body, with a superintendent, — unordained 
 indeed, but appointed by Mr. Wesley, under the name of "general 
 assistant," — and with pastors; they, too, unordained. But being an 
 associated ecclesiastical body, and entirely separate from all foreign 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except that which had been by mutual 
 consent exercised by Mr. Wesley as their spiritual father ; and as 
 it was not possible for Mr. Wesley to govern and direct them 
 personally ; and especially as the existence of the Methodist socie- 
 ties under Mr. Wesley's directions, without the ordinances, was no 
 longer expedient or practicable, certain obligations, duties, and 
 responsibilities, originating from the circumstances, devolved upon 
 the general assistant and the preachers under his care. They 
 were bound to provide for the spiritual nourishment and edification 
 of the souls committed to their charge, and to do this in the most 
 
92 Slavery and the Episcopacy 
 
 orderly manner possible. The most natural method, and the one 
 least exceptionable, was the one they resorted to. 
 
 But I do not concede that Mr. Asbury, and his preachers, in 
 conference assembled, were a company of mere laymen, who had 
 no ecclesiastical rights or responsibilities. They were ministers 
 of Jesus Christ, with the seals of their apostleship about them in 
 multitudes, though no hands had been laid upon them ; and they 
 were bound to take the best means, in view of the New Testament 
 examples, and the usages of evangelical churches, to settle a form 
 of ecclesiastical government. And had Mr. Wesley utterly re- 
 fused to send over ordained men to assist them in their organiza- 
 tion, they would have been justified in seeking orders from some 
 other source. Ordination by the Rev. Mr. Otterbine (Mr. Asbury's 
 friend, who, with Dr. Coke and others, laid hands on him) would 
 have been as good as that of the archbishop of Canterbury, and a 
 thousand times better than that of the pope of Rome, 
 
 The principles laid down by Archbishop Whately, in reference 
 to the reformers who had left the communion of the Church of 
 Rome, set forth with such admirable skill and consistency, are 
 perfectly applicable here. He says, — 
 
 " It is for men so circumstanced to do their best, according to their 
 own deliberate judgment, to meet their difficulties, to supply their de- 
 ficiences, and to avail themselves of whatever advantages may lie 
 within their reach. If they have among their number Christian minis- 
 ters of several orders, or of one order, — if they can obtain a supply of 
 such from some other sound church, — or if they can unite themselves 
 to such church with advantage to the great ultimate objects for which 
 churches were originally instituted, — all these are advantages not to be 
 lightly thrown away. But the unavoidable absence of any of these 
 advantages, not only is not to be imputed to them as a matter of blame, 
 but, by imposing the necessity, creates the right, and the duty, of 
 supplying their deficiences as they best can. Much as they may 
 regret being driven to the alternative, they ought not to hesitate in their 
 decision, when their choice lies between adherence to the human 
 governors of a church, and to its divine Master ; between ' the form of 
 godliness, and the power thereof ;' between the means and the end; 
 between unbroken apostolical successionof individuals, and uncorrupted 
 gospel principles. 
 
 " ^ 37. Persons so situated ought to be on their guard against two 
 opposite mistakes : the one is, to undervalue the privileges of a Chris- 
 tian community, by holding themselves altogether debarred from the 
 exercise of such powers as naturally and essentially belong to every 
 community ; the other mistake is to imagine that whatever they have 
 an undoubted right to do, they would necessarily be right in doing. 
 In no other subject perhaps would such a confusion of thought be likely 
 to arise, as is implied by the confounding together of things so different 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 93 
 
 as these two. Although the legislature (as I have above remarked) 
 has an undoubted right to pass, or to reject, any bill, a man would be 
 deemed insane who should thence infer that they are equally right in 
 doing either the one or the other. So also the governors of a church 
 are feft, in respect of ordinances and regulations not prescribed or 
 forbidden in Scripture, to their own judgment ; but they are bound to 
 act according to the best of their judgment. What is left to their dis- 
 cretion is not therefore left to their caprice ; nor are they to regard 
 every point that is not absolutely essential, as therefore absolutely 
 
 indifferent. • • i t v, 
 
 "They have an undoubted right, according to the principles 1 have 
 been endeavoring to establish, to appoint such orders of Christian 
 ministers, and to allot to each such functions as they judge most con- 
 ducive to the great ends of the society; they may assign to the lohole, 
 or to a portion of these, the office of ordaining others as their succes- 
 sors ; they may appoint one superintendent of the rest, or several; under 
 the title of patriarch, archbishop, bishop, moderator, or any other that 
 they may prefer; they may make the appointment of them for life, or 
 for a limited period,— by election, or by rotation,— with a greater or a 
 less extensive jurisdiction ; and they have a similar discretionary power 
 with respect to liturgies, festivals, ceremonies, and whatever else is 
 left at large in the Scn^tmes:'— Kingdom of Christ, essay ii, sections 
 36, 37, pp. 210-212. 
 
 Upon these principles we recognize, as I have already said, rights 
 and responsibilities attaching themselves to the American Methodist 
 preachers, before their regular organization in 1784 : and I wholly 
 reject Dr. Bascom's view, that "the directions of Wesley form the 
 only warrant of the American societies to become a separate organi- 
 zation."— J2e?;zeiy, p. 1 33. They had a " right to become a separate 
 organization " from the moment that it was necessary to the prose- 
 cution of the great work in this new country for them to administer 
 the ordinances, and assume all the regular ecclesiastical and pas- 
 toral functions ; and Mr. Wesley would have had no right to 
 interfere, or cause to complain, inasmuch as it would have been 
 impossible for him, on his former plan of sending his societies to 
 the Church of England for the sacraments, to sustain the work in 
 America ; and Mr. Asbury and his associates could not lay their 
 responsibilities on him. I go further, and say, that the action of 
 the General Conference of 1784, in electing their superintendents, 
 in adopting Mr. Wesley's plan and a form of discipline, and insti- 
 tuting prudential regulations, was fully and absolutely necessary 
 to the validity of the church organization. 
 
 Mr. Asbury refused to act as a superintendent in America under 
 Mr Wesley's appointment merely. He says, when the matter was 
 opened to him, " My answer then was, If the preachers unanimously 
 
94 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 choose me, I shall not act in the capacity I have hitherto done by 
 Mr. Wesley's appointnaent." — Journals, vol. i, p. 376. 
 
 The Rev. Jesse Lee says : " Mr. Asbury was appointed a 
 superintendent by Mr. Wesley, yet he would not submit to be 
 ordained, unless he could be voted in by the conference : when it 
 was put to vote, he was unanimously chosen." — History of the 
 Methodists, p. 94. 
 
 The Rev. Ezekiel Cooper says : " Mr. Asbury, though appointed 
 by Mr. Wesley, would not be ordained, unless he was chosen by a 
 vote, or the voice, of the conference." — Funeral Discourse, p. 108. 
 
 Dr. Bangs says : " The first act of the conference was, by a 
 unanimous vote, to elect Dr. Coke and Francis Asbury as general 
 superintendents ; for although Mr. Asbury had been appointed to 
 that high office by Mr. Wesley, yet he declined acting in that 
 capacity independently of the suffrages of his brethren over whom 
 he must preside." — History of the M. E. Church, vol. i, p. 157. 
 
 Mr. Asbury, twenty-one years after the organization of the 
 church, says : " I will tell you what I rest my authority upon. 
 1. Divine authority. 2. Seniority in America. 3. The election of 
 the General Conference. 4. My ordination by Thomas Coke, 
 William Philip Otterbine, German Presbyterian minister, Richard 
 Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey. 5. Because the signs of an apostle 
 have been seen in me." — Journals, vol. iii, p. 168. 
 
 Mr. Cooper says: Dr. Coke, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas 
 Vasey, came to America, " to confer ordinations, and to assist the 
 Methodist societies in becoming, and organizing themselves, an 
 independent church." — Funeral Sermon, p. 103. 
 
 Mark the language of this passage, " to assist the Methodist 
 societies in becoming, and organizing themselves.'''' This wise 
 living father in our church was present in Barret's chapel, in Dela- 
 ware, when Coke and Asbury first met — knows well the history 
 of the whole proceedings, and he is far from attributing the or- 
 ganization of the church solely to Dr. Coke ; but he considers 
 it as the act of " the Methodist societies," assisted, in the matter 
 of orders merely, by Dr. Coke and the presbyters who accom- 
 panied him. 
 
 Mr. Lee has preserved the following question and answer, which 
 were entered upon the minutes of this conference, and attributes 
 the act of organizing the church to the conference, and not to the 
 superintendents : — 
 
 " Quest. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these 
 United States have passed through a very considerable change by 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 95 
 
 the revolution, what plan of church government shall we hereafter 
 pursue ? 
 
 '^ Ans. We will form ourselves into an episcopal church, under the 
 direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to 
 the forms of ordination annexed to our liturgy, and the form of discipline 
 set forth in these minutes." — History of the Methodists, pp. 95, 96. 
 
 The same form of expression is preserved in the Minutes of the 
 Annual Conferences. After recording Mr. Wesley's letter to Dr. 
 Coke, Mr. Asbury, &c., the following minute is entered : — 
 
 " Therefore, at this conference, we formed ourselves into an indepen- 
 dent church ; and following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who 
 recommended the episcopal mode of church government, we thought it 
 best to become an episcopal church, making the episcopal office elective, 
 and the elected superintendent, or bishop, amenable to the body of 
 ministers and preachers." — Minutes for 1785. 
 
 According to these authorities, the General Conference of 
 1784 assumed the right and the power to organize the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. ^'^ We formed ourselves into an independent 
 church, following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley." Nothing 
 can be more clear than that our fathers considered their action in 
 the election of the superintendents, and in organizing the church, 
 as absolutely necessary to the arrangement, while they asked and 
 followed Mr. Wesley's recommendations and counsel as a matter 
 of courtesy. 
 
 Dr. Bascom brushes away the action of the General Conference 
 in the election of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury as mere dust. Hear 
 him : — 
 
 " We have shown, with perhaps sufficient force and clearness, that 
 the General Conference right of election has no connection with the 
 rights and powers of episcopacy. These were pre- settled in the con- 
 stitution, long before the existence of a General Conference, or the 
 election of a bishop in any proper sense ; for the informal election of 
 Asbury in 1784 was perfectly null as to any right of election, there 
 being neither elders nor deacons in the body, except the Wesleyan 
 ' assistants ' of Coke and Asbury, and a merely lay election could cer- 
 tainly confer no clerical ox ecclesiastical right." — Review, p. 156. 
 
 Dr. Bascom puts so much importance upon this position, that he 
 repeats it again and again. See pp. 68, 69, and 131. But I con- 
 clude it at least as safe to believe that the doctor has fallen into 
 an error, as to suppose that Mr. Asbury, Dr. Coke, and the General 
 Conference of 1784, did not know what they were about. Francis 
 Asbury was no dolt ; and there was an array of good sound sense 
 in the General Conference of 1784 that has rarely been surpassed 
 
96 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 by the same number of men since that day : I will not except 
 even the Louisville Convention. And yet, according to Dr. Bascom, 
 they had not sense enough to understand that they had no right to 
 act at all. It was theirs to receive the boon of episcopacy, and 
 then to remain passively in its hands, and be molded according to 
 its pleasure ! Their elections were nullities — they had no ecclesi- 
 astical rights ; and yet Bishop Asbury, after more than twenty 
 years of study and experience, alledges his " election by the Gen- 
 eral Conference" as one of the grounds upon which he rests his 
 " authority " as a minister of the gospel. This " election," Dr. 
 Bascom could have informed him, was a mere figment, "perfectly 
 null," as "merely lay election could certainly confer no clerical or 
 ecclesiastical right." 
 
 The Protest declares that "a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church is in no prominent sense an officer of the General Con- 
 ference." — Journal, p. 194. Now, that the bishops are elected 
 by the General Conference, and responsible to that body. Dr. Bas- 
 com will not deny. That they are high executive officers he will 
 concede. And Dr. Coke and Bishop Asbury, speaking of primitive 
 usage, say, " The bishop was the chief executor of those regula- 
 tions which were made in the college of presbyters, which answered 
 to the convocations, synods, or conferences of all well-organized 
 churches in modern times." Are not our bishops, then, in quite a 
 ^' prominent sense'''' "officers of the General Conference?" 
 
 The theory of our government is based upon the doctrine, that 
 the right of ordination and government exists originally in the 
 presbytery ; and the expediency of such executive officers as our 
 bishops arises from the fact, that the presbytery cannot carry out 
 the details of government in their own proper associated capacity ; 
 and hence they constitute "chief executors of those regulations" 
 which they enact. These are the doctrines of our fathers ; and, 
 by the way, the only doctrines upon which we can give our system 
 of government the least shadow of plausibility. 
 
 Dr. Bascom says : — 
 
 " Methodist episcopacy, as an institute, both in view of its origina- 
 tion and perpetuity, is derived from Wesley, and Wesley alone, ac- 
 cording to all the chosen witnesses of the church." — Revicto, p. 131. 
 
 But the " chosen witnesses of the church," from whom the 
 doctor quotes a multitude of short sentences, (without telling us 
 where he gets them,) say no such thing. The doctor cannot torture 
 a single passage he has found, or is able to find, in any of his 
 "chosen" authorities, into the notion that "Methodist episcopacy, 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 97 
 
 as an institute, both in view of its origination and perpetuity, is 
 derived from Wesley, and Wesley alone." That our ordination 
 was derived from Mr. Wesley we do not deny ; and that it 
 was formally recognized or "confirmed" by bishops, is also con- 
 ceded. But in what sense is it perpetuated by Mr. Wesley? 
 Have we got up a succession through which episcopal grace flows, 
 and without which valid ordinations could not be performed ? The 
 "perpetuity" of our episcopacy is derived no more from Wesley 
 than it is from Asbury, M'Kendree, George, or Roberts. Indeed, 
 the Discipline makes provision for the perpetuity of our episcopacy, 
 if all the bishops should die or be expelled. And what if this should 
 occur ? — and surely none will pretend that it might not happen — 
 that all our bishops should die in four years, or be expelled by the 
 General Conference for " improper conduct," — and if the next 
 General Conference thereafter should elect and set apart others, 
 in what sense would Mr. Wesley perpetuate our episcopacy ? He 
 did not make, nor, as far as I know, even suggest, the rule which 
 passed in 1792, providing for the election of a bishop by the Gene- 
 ral Conference, and his ordination by " the elders, or any three of 
 them," " if by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no bishop 
 remaining in our church." He certainly made no provision that 
 our bishops should not die or be expelled. If I fathom the doctor's 
 meaning, and it is quite possible I do not, he has discovered a prin- 
 ciple of indestructibility in our episcopacy " derived from Wesley," 
 that is to me perfectly novel and incomprehensible. I hope the 
 next time he takes his pen he will tell us where this principle lies, 
 and in what it consists. 
 
 Dr. Bascom proves most conclusively, what no one, that I know 
 of, ever denied — except, perhaps, Alexander M'Caine — that Mr. 
 Wesley ordained Dr. Coke a bishop, and sent him to America with 
 instructions to ordain Mr. Asbury. But what if Mr. Asbury and 
 the General Conference had not "received" Dr. Coke as their 
 superintendent ? What jurisdiction would he have had in America ? 
 His and Mr. Asbury's jurisdiction depended upon the action of the 
 General Conference of 1784, and not upon Mr. Wesley's ap- 
 pointment or Dr. Coke's ordination. And the real question 
 here is a question of jurisdiction, and not of ordination ; that 
 is, the question is, whence did the first bishops of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church derive their jurisdiction, or right of government? 
 I grant that Mr. Wesley was entitled to a high degree of respect 
 and veneration from the young church which had sprung up in 
 America under the labors of his missionaries ; but that the confer- 
 ence was bound implicitly to receive his appointments, and obey 
 
 7 
 
98 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 his mandates in everything, is more than I am willing to admit. 
 And that Mr. Asbury and the General Conference did not think 
 so, is evident from the fact that Mr. Asbury absolutely refused to 
 act under Mr. Wesley's authority alone, and the General Confer- 
 ence proceeded formally to elect both Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury 
 superintendents. It was this act, I maintain, that gave them their 
 jurisdiction as bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And 
 that this was the light in which they viewed the matter them- 
 selves, is evident from the language which they hold in their Notes 
 upon the Discipline, which I have already quoted, and which I need 
 not repeat. 
 
 The General Conference in 1784 did enter upon their minutes 
 these words : — " During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we 
 acknowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, ready in matters 
 belonging to church government to obey his commands." But 
 they soon saw cause to retract this promise: for, in 1787, Mr. 
 Wesley directed Dr. Coke to call a General Conference, " at a time 
 and place," as Dr. Emory says, " unauthorized by any previous 
 conference," and also appointed Richard Whatcoat "superintend- 
 ent with Mr. Asbury." This conference took back their promise 
 to " obey Mr. Wesley in matters of church government," and re- 
 fused to elect Mr. Whatcoat superintendent, and he was not ele- 
 vated to that office until he was elected by the General Conference 
 of 1800. In relation to the promise of obedience to Mr. Wesley, 
 Mr. Asbury says : " I never approved of that binding minute. I 
 did not think it practical expediency to obey Mr. Wesley, at three 
 thousand miles distant, in all matters relative to church govern- 
 ment, neither did brother Whatcoat, nor several others." — Journals, 
 vol. ii, p. 270. 
 
 In all this the General Conference evidently acted as though 
 they thought their elections to have some virtue in them. They 
 did not exactly believe with Dr. Basconi, that " to concur with 
 Wesley, as petitioners for the boon, and 'receive' at his hand, was 
 all the American preachers or societies had to do with the mat- 
 ter." — Review, p. 131. Nor did they believe themselves guilty of 
 violating a solemn " pledge" and " compact," nor guilty of break- 
 ing the constitution to atoms, in rescinding " tiiat binding minute." 
 But according to Dr. Bascom, that " minute" was a public pledge, 
 a solemn engagement, which could not be rescinded by a simple 
 majority without a gross breach of faith — a part of the constitution 
 which no subsequent General Conference had a rigiit to toucii. 
 
 But all this discussion as to the origin of episcopal power is merely 
 incidental, and really has no bearing whatever upon the question in 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 99 
 
 debate : for, supposing our southern brethren to be able to prove 
 that Mr. Wesley, and not the General Conference, is the fountain 
 of episcopal jurisdiction ; the question is not, whence came our 
 episcopacy ? but, to what tribunal is it amenable ? Not, whether 
 Mr. Wesley, or the General Conference, or both conjointly, con- 
 stituted the episcopacy ; but, where the power is vested of adjudi- 
 cating questions in relation to it. Whether, as the ecclesiastical 
 economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church is now constituted, 
 the bishops are independent of the General Conference, or subor- 
 dinate to it. The constitutionality of the action in the case of 
 Bishop Andrew does not at all depend upon the question of the 
 origin of episcopal power, but upon the constitutional arrangements 
 for episcopal responsibility. So that if it be ever so conclusively 
 proved that we first received our episcopacy entirely from Mr. 
 Wesley, nothing would be gained or lost upon either side. 
 
 § XX. — Is Episcopal Power communicated in Ordination? 
 
 There are various theories of ordination. The Romanists, and 
 some high-churchmen, consider it a sacrament, and that its virtue 
 depends upon the regular apostolic succession of bishops; and these 
 have power to give the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands. In 
 this theory the essence and virtue of ordination consist in the im- 
 position of the hands of a bishop of the apostolical succession. The 
 Presbyterian theory is, that the power of orders is with the pres- 
 bytery or eldership. The Independent or Congregational theory 
 is, that this power is with the congregation. 
 
 Mr. Wesley, who, all the early portion of his life, was a high- 
 churchman, by reading Lord King, StilHngfleet, and Baxter, became 
 so modified in his views, as to reject the doctrine of apostolical 
 succession, and to hold the validity of presbyterian ordination ; 
 though he still preferred the episcopal form of church government : 
 that is, he thought it much more conveninent to have a class of 
 executive officers, to whom should be confided, by the elders or 
 the chief synod, such offices as could not well be performed by the 
 whole collective body. He accordingly provided for, and recom- 
 mended, such a form of church government in America. 
 
 The simple laying on of hands gives no jurisdiction, or right of 
 government. It is purely a religious ceremony in which the bless- 
 ing of God is invoked upon the candidate, and he is set apart to 
 the special duties of his office. The terms employed in the New 
 Testament for ordination simply signify appointment, and nothing 
 is necessarily implied as to the manner of it. St. Paul speaks of 
 "the gift" being imparted to Timothy by the laying on of his hands, 
 
100 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 and of those of the presbytery. But critics have not yet been 
 able to agree as to what this "gift" was, whether the ministerial 
 character or some extraordinary spiritual endowment. There is, 
 consequently, not sufficient evidence in the New Testament that 
 the imposition of clerical hands is absolutely necessary to ministe- 
 rial character, much less is there any proof that this of itself con- 
 fers the right of jurisdiction over any portion of the church. The 
 bishops, in their Address to the last General Conference, give us a 
 very just view of ordination, which I beg leave to present here. 
 They say : — 
 
 " Without entering minutely into the details of what is involved in 
 the superintendency, as it is constituted in our church, it is sufficient 
 for our present design to notice its several departments. 1st. Confirm- 
 ing orders, by ordaining deacons and elders. We say confirming, be- 
 cause the orders are conferred by another body, which is independent 
 of the episcopal office, both in its organization and action. This confir- 
 mation of orders, or ordination, is not by virtue of a distinct and high 
 order. For, with our great founder, we are convinced that bishops 
 and presbyters are the same order in the Christian ministry. And this 
 has been the sentiment of the Wesleyan Methodists from the beginning. 
 But it is by virtue of an ojfice constituted by the body of presbyters, for 
 the better order of discipline, for the preservation of the unity of the 
 church, and for carrying on the work of God in the most effectual 
 manner. The execution of this office is subject to two important re- 
 strictions, which would be very irrelevant to prelacy, or diocesan epis- 
 copacy, constituted on the basis of a distinct and superior order. The 
 latter involves independent action in conferring orders, by virtue of au- 
 thority inherent in, and exclusively appertaining to, the episcopacy. 
 But the former is a delegated authority to confirm orders, the exercise 
 of which is dependent upon another body. The bishop can ordain 
 neither a deacon nor an elder without the election of the candidate by 
 an Annual Conference : and in case of such election he has no discre- 
 tional authority ; but is under obligation to ordain the person elected, 
 whatever may be his own judgment of his qualifications. These are 
 the two restrictions previously alluded to. 
 
 " This is certainly a wise and safe provision, and should never be 
 changed or modified so as to authorize the bishops to ordain, without 
 the authority of the ministry. With these facts in view, it is presumed 
 that it will be admitted by all well-informed and candid men, that, so 
 far as the constitution of the ministry is concerned, ours is a ' moderate 
 episcopacy.''''^ — Address, Journal, pp. 154, 155. 
 
 Here it is conceded, that " the orders are conferred by another 
 body, which is independent of the episcopal office ;" the superin- 
 tendents only "confirming" them. And this is "by virtue of an 
 office constituted by the body of presbyters, for the better order of 
 discipline, for the preservation of the unity of the church, and for 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 101 
 
 carrying on the work of God in the most effectual manner." It is 
 assumed in the Reply to the Protest, and is not denied by Dr. 
 Bascom, that " the principle applies to bishops, though not ex- 
 pressly named, as well as to elders and deacons." And I presume 
 no one of the bishops who signed this admirable document would 
 hazard his reputation by attempting to except bishops from the 
 principle which they have here presented. There was, indeed, 
 this irregularity in the first instance, that the superintendent was first 
 confirmed and then elected, — or, perhaps, we might say, the "con- 
 firming" of Dr. Coke's "orders" by Mr, Wesley, and the other 
 presbyters who assisted him, is to be considered as in anticipa- 
 tion of his election by the American Conference. I do not say that 
 Mr. Wesley considered the election of the conference as vital 
 to the arrangement ; but I say that it was so in fact, and so Mr. 
 Asbury and the conference considered it. And it is equally evi- 
 dent that they acted upon the same principle in constructing the 
 system for the perpetuity of the episcopacy. 
 
 But Dr. Bascom, in opposition to all this, maintains that " Me- 
 thodist episcopacy as an institute, both in view of its origination 
 and perpetuity, is derived from Wesley, and Wesley alone." And 
 again he says : — 
 
 " The former doctrine was, that in every original sense, episcopacy 
 was derived from Wesley — that ordination by Wesley gave birth to it, 
 and that election by the lay conference of 1784 was not even an inci- 
 dent in its institution, but a mere 'receiving' of what Wesley had 
 provided for his societies in America. The contrary of this is now 
 assumed with imposing boldness, and it is contended that episcopacy 
 is of conventional conference origin." — Review, p. 157. 
 
 Here the point I wish especially to notice is, "that ordination 
 by Wesley gave birth to " our episcopacy, and " that election by 
 the lay conference of 1784 was not even an incident in its institu- 
 tion." " We say," say the bishops, " confirming, because the 
 orders are conferred by another body, which is independent of the 
 episcopal office both in its organization and action." But Dr. 
 Bascom would make the act by which orders are " conferred," 
 "not even an incident" in the transaction, and that by which they 
 are " confirmed " everything. 
 
 It may be thought that I wrong Dr. Bascom by applying to 
 orders, under existing circumstances, principles which lie only 
 applies to Mr. Wesley's ordination of Dr. Coke. But it will 
 be recollected that he explicitly applies his principles to the 
 "perpetuity" as well as to the "origination" of our episcopacy. 
 
102 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 And further, unless his fundamental principle, that the episcopacy 
 is independent of the General Conference, is to be understood as 
 applicable to the system as it now exists — as it is settled in " the 
 constitution " — the whole of his argument, as it is based upon the 
 constitutional rights of the episcopac)% against the action of the 
 late General Conference is nonsensical and absurd. He says : — 
 "We used to think, as a church, that in episcopacy was to be 
 sought the constitutional headship* of the government." P. 158. 
 Well, what if we did ? Why then of course the bishops are not 
 " mere creatures of the General Conference," and ergo, the late 
 General Conference had no constitutional right to suspend Bishop 
 Andrew ! And what further ? Why just as legitimately we would 
 conclude that the episcopacy is supreme, in our economy, and the 
 General Conference subordinate !! ! 
 
 But one word as to " the forms of ordination," of which the 
 doctor makes so much. He says they were " always regarded as 
 essential to the very existence of the ministry, and of course the 
 church." P. 68. This, to me, is all new. I never so considered 
 these " forms ;" and more than this, I never before heard of a 
 Metiiodist who did so consider them. In general, I regard them as 
 very appropriate ; but I never yet doubted but they might be mate- 
 rially altered, or altogether cast away, and others substituted for 
 them, without annihilating ''the ministry" or " the church." I do 
 not go so far with the bishop of New-Jersey, as to believe that these 
 "forms" were constructed by the apostles, and constitute a vital por- 
 tion of " the faith once delivered to the saints." I say in general I 
 consider them appropriate. I will make an exception to an expres- 
 sion in " the form of ordaining a bishop." It is this : " Receive the 
 Holy Ghost for the office and work of a bishop," &c. This formulary 
 was originally constructed upon the principle of " episcopal grace," 
 that is, the power vested in the order of bishops by Jesus Christ, to 
 give the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, and in the church 
 service the same words are used both in the ordination of bishops 
 and presbyters. We have changed the phraseology in the ordina- 
 tion of elders from, "receive ye the Holy Ghost," to, "the Lord pour 
 
 * I will here say that I am too much of a Puritan to admit the southern doc- 
 trine of " headship." A speaker in the late General Conference represented 
 " the head of the church" as degraded by the act of the General Conference 
 in the case of Bishop Andrew. I acknowledge no bishop, or board of bishops, 
 as "head of the church." In the highest sense Christ aloiie is Head of the 
 church. In the sense in which I suppose the phrase to be used by our southern 
 brethren, for the fountain of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the General Conference 
 ia the head of the M. E. Church. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 103 
 
 on thee the Holy Ghost." As ive mean the same thing, I should 
 much prefer the latter phraseology in both forms, and will venture 
 to express a hope that some future General Conference may make 
 the change. 
 
 Dr. Bascom considers " the forms of ordination" " an undo\ibted 
 part of the constitution," and seems to apprehend great mischief 
 to the interests and purity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 from a suggestion which he had heard, from some quarter, that 
 they might be improved. After the above suggestion the doctor 
 may think, me a great radical — an enemy to the constitution, and 
 what not. But I have run the hazard of suggesting a change 
 which, whatever Dr. Bascom may think of it, I think would make 
 the form more consistent with our uniform declarations, and would 
 not come within striking distance of any " constitutional arrange- 
 ment." 
 
 I reject, as w'holly inconsistent with our theory of church govern- 
 ment, the doctrine that the simple imposition of episcopal hands 
 conveys the right of jurisdiction equally with that which maintains 
 that it makes " an indelible imprint upon the soul ;" and I also 
 reject Dr. Bascom's whole doctrine of the constitution as utterly 
 baseless. But I cannot express my surprise to find Dr. Bascom 
 assuming, in the ex cathedra manner of a professor in his lecture 
 room, that these absurd novelties constituted "the old doctrine" 
 that "used to be taught" — and that all our learned "fathers," 
 "doctors," and "defenders," have maintained it! Among the 
 numerous scraps which the doctor brings forward to prove all this, 
 not one of them has the least pertinency to the point ; and when 
 he shall make some little effort to connect them with his positions, 
 and will tell us where they are to be found, it will be time enough 
 to examine their language and connections, and to show that they 
 separately or together prove nothing at all to his purpose. 
 
 § XXI. — Reasons for the Action of the General Conference in the Case 
 of Bishop Andrew. 
 
 In addition to what has been said in the course of this investiga- 
 tion, in justification of the action of the late General Conference 
 in the case of Bishop Andrew, I shall now proceed to a brief view 
 of several circumstances which are entitled to special considera- 
 tion. 
 
 1. That the Rev. James 0. Andrew was, in 1832, nominated 
 and elected as a non-slaveholding southern man, I have already 
 sufficiently established. This, I believe, must be conceded by the 
 
104 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 south, or at least by all who know anything of the transaction. 
 The only question which has been raised is, whether he was pro- 
 perly the southern nominee, that is, whether he vidiS first nominated 
 by the south. Of this, I never doubted, and knew not that any 
 one else did, until I saw Dr. Bascom's book. How he makes out 
 his case we have seen. But even Dr. Bascom does not presume 
 that he would have been elected had he been a slaveholder. This 
 cannot be pretended. The bishop himself never dreamed any such 
 thing. What the north insists upon, in view of this fact, is, that due 
 respect for himself and his electors should have induced him to 
 remain free from this impediment, or, as soon as possible, to have 
 resigned his office. We think there was an implied understanding 
 that he should not become a slaveholder while he remained a bishop. 
 Upon what other principle could the majority of the General Con- 
 ference of 1832 have proceeded ? Would they have been so incon- 
 sistent as to give their vote for a man (I mean no disrespect) of no 
 other single qualification above what was found in several other 
 southern men, and by no means so well known as they were, with 
 the expectation that he would, at his pleasure, become a slave- 
 holder? Our southern brethren will scarcely assert this. I know 
 the bishop said before the last General Conference : " None 
 dared to ask of me a pledge in this matter." — Debates, p. 148. 
 True, none asked of the candidate " a pledge " that he would 
 never become a slaveholder : for asking such a pledge would have 
 been little short of a direct insult, as it would have implied a want 
 of entire confidence in the soundness of his judgment, or the honesty 
 of his heart. His accepting the office under the circumstances was 
 all the pledge that could honorably have been either asked or given. 
 A great statesmen of our own country and time has advanced a noble 
 sentiment upon the subject of pledges given by candidates for office. 
 He says, " The best pledge that can be given is a sound head and 
 an honest heart." This pledge we supposed we had, and this was 
 all we wanted. 
 
 Now, under these circumstances had we no reason to complain ? 
 The man who had been presented to us as one for whom we might 
 consistently vote, and one who would suit the south, changes his 
 circumstances in relation to the only point of his qualifications 
 which procured our voles, and made him a bishop. The bishop in 
 his speech makes allusion to an interview with the late Rev. S. K. 
 Hodges, which shows the views even of southern men at the time: 
 " My friend urged me ; he said my election would, he believed, 
 lend to promote the peace of the church, and that he believed it 
 would be especially important to the prosperity of Methodism at 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 105 
 
 the south."— De&afes, p. 148. So "the peace of the church" 
 was urged by the candidate's "friend" as a reason why he 
 should consent to the nomination. What did that mean ? All 
 who understand the history of that General Conference, understand 
 the sense of that phrase well. It was wisely concluded by leading 
 southern men that a slaveholder could not be, and ought ?iot to be, 
 elected to the office. And if they should defer to the party who 
 preferred a slaveholding candidate, and by that means there 
 should be no southern man elected, it would be an occasion of 
 heartburning between the north and south. James 0. Andrew 
 then knew very well what his friend Hodges meant. There was 
 no " secret will," as the bishop calls it, in the case ; it was all well 
 understood. " Brother Winans " understood it ; and hence he 
 told the candidate, with his usual candor and independence, that 
 he " could not vote for him, because he believed he was nomi- 
 nated under the impression that he was not a slaveholder." — Ibid. 
 We of the north would have been much better pleased, if the 
 bishop's explanations had been characterized by a little more 
 ingenuousness. His account of his nomination and election is too 
 much molded by partisan views and feelings. Had he felt him- 
 self the bishop of the north as well as of the south, he could have 
 given a more fair and correct statement of the matter. 
 
 In view of the whole case, the north felt themselves wounded 
 and betrayed ; and when they saw the man standing before them, 
 treating them to a dish of quibbles and cant phrases, and in various 
 ways attempting to avoid the true issue which they made upon 
 the principles of his election, their confidence was shaken and their 
 sympathies for him, in his unpleasant circumstances, very much 
 abated. They were, indeed, illy prepared to expect all this from 
 one who had been twelve years a bishop, and had formed some 
 little acquaintance with our northern territory and with northern 
 men. They had a right to suppose that he had merged his local 
 feelings in the common weal of the church, and that he would 
 occupy the attitude of a bishop of the whole connection. I say 
 distinctly, that the positions Bishop Andrew took in his vindica- 
 tion astonished and mortified us. We were astounded at the 
 intelligence that he had become a slaveholder ; and were about 
 equally shocked to hear him maintain that the circumstances of 
 his election imposed upon him no obligations to keep himself free 
 from slavery. And his taunting us with the notion of a " secret 
 will," in a matter which we supposed everybody, north and south, 
 well understood, we thought manifested too little respect for our 
 views and feelings. But I will dwell no longer upon this unplea- 
 
106 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 sant point in the discussion. I have, in all frankness, and, I trust, 
 in all kindness, presented my views, and must now leave others 
 to judge how far they are entitled to consideration. 
 
 2. Again : slaveholding in the episcopacy would bring the church 
 into a new relation to the subject of slavery, and devolve upon her 
 new and unnecessary responsibilities touching the evil. For 
 admitting of slaveholding among traveling preachers, under certain 
 circumstances, there are reasons which, with most persons, have 
 great weight ; but for admitting it in the episcopacy, when our 
 bishops need not be controlled by such circumstances, there can 
 be no reason but a disposition to give countenance and respect- 
 ability to the system : and for the General Conference to give 
 this gratuitous sanction to the system would certainly be departing 
 widely from the course of policy which had been settled from the 
 beginning. This course of action would be in evident contrast with 
 the spirit of the Discipline. Instead of appearing still to be pur- 
 suing measures " for the extirpation of the evil of slavery," it 
 would appear that we were taking measures to shield it from 
 public odium, and to render it perpetual. 
 
 It will not be questioned but slaveholding, in the episcopacy, 
 would be giving strong countenance to the system. Indeed, but 
 for this fact, it may fairly be doubted whether we should have had 
 the least difficulty with our southern brethren upon the subject. 
 If it had not been supposed that slaveholding bishops would give 
 influence and respectability to the system of slaveholding, what 
 southern man would have cared a straw about it ? In the General 
 Conference of 1836, Dr. Winans urged that, in order to the full 
 protection of Methodism at the south, and to give it influence and 
 efficiency, we ought not only to have deacons, ciders, and presiding 
 elders, but bishops, who hold slaves. This was ti)e first open 
 declaration I ever heard of this sort, in a General Conference, from 
 any quarter ; and it seemed to indicate that the strong action the 
 General Conference had taken, or was about to take, against aboli- 
 tionism was likely to be followed up, by the south, with an effort to 
 secure an advance position for " the southern institution." The 
 same indications were perceptible in the movements of several 
 southern men in the General Conference of 1840. But these 
 gentlemen were wholly mistaken in supposing that northern con- 
 servatives, after giving a check to the madness of ultra-abolitionism, 
 were prepared to encourage pro-slavery principles or movements. 
 Their object and purpose had been to maintain the position of 
 what our southern brethren call "the compromise law;" and, by 
 neither swerving to the right hand nor the left, to secure the peace 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 107 
 
 of the church upon ancient Methodistic principles. If they disliked 
 abolitionism, it was not because they loved slavery ; and if they 
 opposed the movements of the abolitionists, as injurious to the 
 interests of the slaves themselves, and subversive of the ends 
 they had in view, they were none the more willing to sanction 
 the principle of slavery by electing slaveholding bishops. It 
 seemed to sting and mortify our southern brethren that, after they 
 had obtained strong action in the General Conference against the 
 measures of the abolitionists, they could not press from that body 
 one drop of consolation for the poor, abused slaveholders of the south. 
 
 In 1836 the south really united in an effort to elect a slaveholding 
 bishop : but after all the strength they could muster was concen- 
 trated upon Dr. Capers, his election failed. And mark the result. 
 A meeting of the southern and south-western delegates was notified 
 publicly in the conference ; and there, I was informed, by a person 
 who was present, W. A. Smith, and, I believe, some others, advo- 
 cated a separation from the north, upon the ground that, in the 
 elections, the south had been proscribed. They wanted a slave- 
 holder elected, that the whole slaveholding south might see that 
 slavery had the high sanction of the General Conference, and so 
 incensed were some at their want of success, that they even pro- 
 posed to dissolve the union of the church at once. 
 
 In 1840, it is highly probable, another bishop would have been 
 elected, but for the extreme sensitiveness of the south upon the 
 subject. They would not agree in recommending a southern man 
 who did not own slaves. Indeed, it was evident that if a new 
 bishop were elected, the south would strain every nerve to procure 
 the election of a slaveholder, and, in the case of failure, another 
 paroxysm would supervene, which might be productive of far more 
 mischievous consequences than those which had attended the former 
 failure. Under these circumstances, a majority of the General 
 Conference determined to elect no bishop, though the bishops had 
 asked for an increase, and the committee on the episcopacy had 
 reported in favor of the measure. 
 
 My object in adverting to these facts is, to show the anxiety of 
 the south to secure a slaveholding bishop, and to show that the 
 reason for this anxiety was, that they might cover slavery with 
 the episcopal example, and with the sanction of the General Con- 
 ference. This, I maintain, would be the effect of admitting slave- 
 holding in the episcopacy, in any form. And, as any act, which 
 would extend the sanction of the bishops, the General Conference, 
 and, in a manner, the whole church — north as well as south — to 
 slavery, would place that subject in new relations to the church, 
 
108 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 and involve the whole body in the fearful responsibility of 
 cherishing and sustaining the institution, such an act, in all cases, 
 would be rightfully opposed by northern men, and all others, who 
 would keep the slave principle from further encroachments. 
 
 And these considerations are of no less force in relation to the 
 course of action to be pursued with a bishop who might involve 
 himself in the evil of slavery, than in relation to the course to 
 be pursued in the election of a bishop ; for, let it be observed, 
 we maintain that the bishops are officers of the General Confer- 
 ence, who " have power to expel (and, consequently, to depose) 
 them for improper conduct, if they see it necessary." The Gene- 
 ral Conference have " full powers " to regulate the episcopacy, 
 and to correct the errors of the bishops. If, then, that body should 
 continue a bishop in office, who should connect himself with slavery, 
 would it not voluntarily sanction the evil, just as directly as it would 
 to elect a slaveholder to this office ? So it seems to me. 
 
 And is this a time for the church to recede from the old anti- 
 slavery ground which she has occupied from the beginning? Is it 
 a time for the church to foster slavery, and give it her sanction ? 
 Is slavery any better now than it used to be ? or is the church con- 
 vinced that in her opposition to it she was wrong ? Dr. Bascom 
 himself declares that the enslavement of "the neo'ro/amz7y — was 
 an outrage, felt and admitted by all." — Revieiv, p. 42. And the 
 Discipline still asks, "What shall be done for the extirpation of 
 the evil of slavery ?" Shall we say, in reply, We will permit " the 
 evil " to spread itself over the whole church, north as well as south ? 
 Shall we say, We will have bishops who own slaves to preside 
 in our northern conferences, and to fix our appointments ? Shall 
 the General Conference volunteer the sanction of the whole church 
 to the system ? Shall a course be taken which would leave all our 
 bishops at perfect liberty to remove south, and become owners of 
 slaves ? No, no ! When we do all this, let us blot from the Disci- 
 pline the tenth section, and substitute for it a recognition and 
 approval of " slavery, as it exists in the southern states," and let 
 us reprove Dr. Bascom for his severe and unwarrantable sentence 
 of condemnation upon the principle. 
 
 3. Another reason why the late General Conference could not 
 suffer the case of Bishop Andrew to pass, and thus make a new 
 and broad concession to slavery, is, the state of public sentiment 
 north, in relation to the institution of slavery; and particularly the 
 strong and increasing opposition to slaveholding bishops in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, through the northern, eastern, and 
 western states. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 109 
 
 Bishop Andrew, in his speech, says : — , 
 
 " I did not, for a moment, beUeve that this body of grave and reve- 
 rend ministers would make this a matter of serious discussion." — 
 Debates, p. 149. 
 
 Here we were again astonished and mortified. That a bishop 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of twelve years' standing, 
 should not have informed himself of the state of sentiment and 
 feeling through the greatest portion of the conferences over which 
 he was appointed to preside, was strange to all northern men. 
 This was an unexpected annunciation, considering especially the 
 facts which I have already noticed in relation to slaveholding 
 bishops, which were developed during the session of the three 
 preceding General Conferences, and that they must have been 
 known by the bishop. Could not the bishop have gathered from the 
 history of the movements of the General Conferences referred to, 
 even if he had never been at the north at all, that, in the character 
 of a slaveholder, he had reason to look for opposition from others 
 besides *' some warm ultra brethren ?" In this the bishop seems 
 to have been sadly misled. 
 
 I would not plead public sentiment in justification of unjust, 
 oppressive, or illegal action in any case ; but here is a case which 
 is, as we of the north think, fairly and clearly left within the range 
 of the discretionary powers of the General Conference. In such 
 a case, the views and feelings of the masses who are to be affected 
 ought to be consulted. And if the sentiments of northern Metho- 
 dists should weigh at all in such a case, the majority had reasons 
 for adhering to their position which northern men only could under- 
 stand and appreciate. The great body of Methodists at the north 
 are true to the interests of the church, and could scarcely become 
 disaffected except by some evidence of a want of fidelity to the 
 trust committed to them upon the part of the ministry. So long 
 as we stand to our conservative position the people will stand by 
 us ; but were we to swerve from it, and give countenance to 
 slavery, they would be scattered abroad. It was my deliberate 
 opinion, at the time of the great contest in the late General Con- 
 ference, and it is still my opinion, that, had the General Conference 
 not acted at all, or had they done less than they did, the great 
 majority of the eastern, northern, and western conferences would 
 have been ruined. The portions of the north with which I am 
 more particularly acquainted have not been the most agitated by 
 the abolition excitement of the last eight or ten years ; and yet I 
 was fully advised, from day to day, during the pendency of the ques- 
 
110 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 tion in relation to Bishop Andrew, that the deepest anxiety pre- 
 vailed among all classes. The question was often and anxiously 
 asked, Will our delegates stand by the interests of the churcli, or 
 will they finally succumb to the south ? The solicitude was by no 
 means confined to the abolition petitioners, though these were 
 neither few in number nor destitute of respectability. It was not 
 so much the personal inconvenience that Bishop Andrew would 
 occasion the north by continuing to exercise his episcopal func- 
 tions, as it was the concession to slavery that the new order of 
 things implied. This was the great difficulty in the case. This 
 was my principal difficulty, and this was the principal difficulty 
 with the great mass of Methodists — preachers and people— at the 
 north. Such a concession on the part of the General Conference 
 of 1844 would have degraded Methodism in the estimation of all 
 classes in the north, and would have been the death-knell of our 
 prosperity from Maine to Iowa. For this we were not prepared. 
 In our opinion, then a;id now, the least of the two great evils which 
 were before us was the one which has occurred ; and however 
 much we dreaded this, we were bound by the maxims of common 
 prudence to fall upon it rather than upon one which would be still 
 more dreadful. 
 
 Dr. Bascom strongly intimates that we have many good people 
 at the north who are in sentiment and feeling opposed to the action 
 of the late General Conference ; and it must be admitted there 
 are some of this class. I occasionally hear of one who either 
 in his business, or other interests, is connected with the south, 
 who has strong sympathies with the southern church in this 
 controversy. Such individuals may represent, and may honestly 
 think, that there are ?nany of their way of thinking; but they are 
 very much mistaken in their estimates. Indeed, if all the northern 
 Methodists of southern principles should remove at once to the 
 south the strength of the M. E. Churcli would not be perceptibly 
 diminished, and that of the M. E. Church, South, would be very 
 little increased. I mean no disrespect in these remarks, as I intend 
 no allusion to the personal respectability of these brethren. I 
 simply design to convey the impression which rests upon my own 
 mind, that they are comparatively a very small number. 
 
 Upon the points at issue between the north and south, public 
 sentiment is fully formed at the north, and there are very few 
 counter currents. The extravagant claims of the slave influence 
 in the last three General Conferences, the unyielding obstinacy 
 with which the minority in the late General Conference pressed 
 their advantage — refusing to suffer Bishop Andrew to resign — and 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. Ill 
 
 the extravagant representations, not to say the downright misrepre- 
 sentations, which were made in the debates and pubhshed to the 
 world, of the course of action and sentiments of the north, made 
 an impression at the north — deep and strong — that the minority had 
 deliberately determined either, by some means, to rule the majority 
 or to sacrifice the unity of the church. And had we submitted to 
 the encroachments of the slave principle — had we been worried 
 into compliance with the exorbitant demands of the minority — how 
 could we have met our constituents ? What could we have said for 
 ourselves ? What would have become of the people ? Mortified, 
 broken-spirited, ashamed of us and of the M. E. Church, which 
 we should have degraded, they would have left us in multitudes — 
 some joining the seceders, but far more the various evangelical 
 denominations. 
 
 4. Again : the civilized world has signed and sealed the doom 
 of slavery. It is a remnant of barbarism which cannot bear the 
 light of the nineteenth century. And is this any time for the 
 M. E. Church to give it her sanction ? Is it any time for a church 
 which perseveres in her testimony against it, both in her moral code 
 and in her statutory enactments, to give it her approval by tolerating 
 it in her highest executive officers ? Is it any time to make a 
 decidedly retrograde movement in relation to an evil that the Chris- 
 tian world are united to destroy ? If the General Conference of 
 1844 had lent the sanction of the M. E. Church to " the evil of 
 slavery," in what light would that body have stood before the world ? 
 As things have gone with us for several years, we have been in no 
 little difficulty to keep in countenance with our British brethren. 
 We have not always heeded their remonstrances with due respect, 
 because we could not do so without giving offense to the south. 
 And if we had assumed new ground altogether upon the subject — • 
 for the first time in our history had suffered " the evil" to hold a 
 position in our episcopacy, and so have thrown over it the mantle of 
 the church — could the Wesleyan Connection of Great Britain have 
 acknowledged us any longer as a legitimate branch of the great 
 Wesleyan family ? All this we could brook if it were a matter of 
 necessity, or should it befall us in the way of duty. But to put 
 ourselves in the wrong — gratuitously to adopt and cherish a mon- 
 strous evil, and then to meet the censure of the Wesleyan Con- 
 nection in England, and even to brave the moral sentiment of the 
 world, would be no light matter. We might endure any amount 
 of persecution "for righteousness' sake," but to be "bufleted for 
 our faults" is not so comfortable. 
 
 In all this reasoning it will be perceived that I proceed upon the 
 
112 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 ground that I have endeavored to settle by evidence, that admitting 
 of slaveholding in the episcopacy would be removing a portion of 
 the odium from the institution of slavery, and fixing it upon the 
 church. As there is nothing in the nature of the episcopal office 
 that requires it — as non-slaveholding has alw^ays confessedly been 
 no disqualification for the office in any portion of the work, and 
 slaveholding is an acknowledged disqualification throughout the 
 largest portion of it — it would seem to be a gratuitous assumption 
 of the responsibilities of slaveholding upon the part of the church, 
 if our bishops were to be tolerated in holding slaves. 
 
 5. Finally : the character of our episcopacy, as a general itine- 
 rant superintendency, forbids its connection with slavery. A bishop 
 in the M. E. Church is a general superintendent, having the same 
 power and the same responsibilities north that he has south. 
 When Bishop Andrew was elected, he was elected a bishop of the 
 whole connection in these United States, and not bishop of Georgia 
 or of the southern states. Slavery is a local institution, and an 
 institution against which there are strong prejudices throughout 
 the non-slaveholding states. The general conviction at the north 
 is, that slavery is founded in gross injustice, and perpetuated 
 through the agency of the worst feelings of the human heart. And 
 though individuals may be innocently connected with the institu- 
 tion, yet these are the exceptions and not the rule. Under such 
 circumstances, what sane mind could ever suppose that a slave- 
 holding bishop could exercise the duties of his office at the north ? 
 Dr. Capers might well " doubt the heart of the man who would go 
 to the north as a bishop holding slaves." No owner of slaves 
 would attempt it who had the slightest regard for the peace of the 
 church, or the least respect for himself. The connection of the 
 episcopacy with slavery would then have the effect to keep the 
 slaveholding bishops at the south, and this would break in upon 
 the plan of our "itinerant general superintendency." I know it is 
 said, in answer to this, that our bishops do not now all go over the 
 whole work, and have not done so for some years. It is true, that 
 Bishop Hedding has not recently made the southern tour, and that 
 Bishop Andrew has never gone over the northern tour. The rea- 
 sons which have interrupted the interchange, as I suppose, have 
 been Bishop Hedding's infirmities, and, in part at least. Bishop 
 Andrew's family afflictions. Whatever has been the cause of this 
 partial location of these bishops, I have no doubt but, so far as 
 Bishop Andrew is concerned, the effect has been disastrous : for 
 had he performed the northern tour but once or twice, he would 
 have known us much better, and never would have miscalculated 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. ll"3l 
 
 so sadly as he evidently did, according to his explanatory speech in 
 the late General Conference. If he had known the north, he never 
 would have come to the General Conference of 1844 a slaveholder, 
 without his valedictory address in his hand. These are my con- 
 victions upon the subject, though I am not infallible, and of course 
 may be mistaken. But to return : such mere interruptions of the 
 episcopal plan of visitation as have occurred, doubtless for good 
 and sufficient reasons, are very different from an obstacle which 
 would render a general superintendency practically impossible, 
 without great danger to the peace and prosperity of the church. 
 Such an obstacle is slaveholding in the episcopacy. 
 
 Of this, I believe, our leading southern men in the late General 
 Conference were fully convinced ; and hence the various proposi- 
 tions which were agitated for such a division of episcopal labor as 
 to confine Bishop Andrew to tlie south. To a superficial observer 
 of the practical workings of our system the arrangement might 
 seem perfectly admissible, and to have promised a relief of the 
 difficulty. But, besides that it would be an infringement upon the 
 provisions of the constitution, which secures " the plan of our 
 itinerant general superintendency," it would fix the local attach- 
 ments and prejudices of our bishops ; and probably be the means 
 of originating party views and feelings among them, which would 
 peril the unity of the church. 
 
 We see in part the workings of such a system in the case of 
 Bishop Andrew. He was considered by the southern delegates as 
 their bishop, and they were considered his friends. They were 
 his advisers, and he was their humble servant. But a venerable 
 committee of northern men, made up of the most aged and respect- 
 able of our fathers, could not have access to the bishop upon the 
 principles of brotherly comity : they were treated as strangers, 
 and almost as spies ! 
 
 Bishop Asbury used often to remark, " Local men will have 
 local views." And as "local views" are not in any case admis- 
 sible in a bishop, he should not be a local man. His views and 
 feelings, and consequently his associations, interests, and habits of 
 intercourse, should be of a most enlarged and expansive character. 
 He should be the man of no particular conference, or class of 
 conferences ; but the servant of the whole church, for Jesus' 
 sake. Nothing could so fatally injure our itinerant system as a 
 local, or diocesan, superintendency. When this takes place, (which 
 may Heaven avert !) the itinerant spirit can never be kept alive in 
 the ministry; and when the itinerant spirit departs from the Me- 
 thodist ministry, the days of our prosperity will be numbered. 
 
 8 
 
114 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 It would have been easy to extend this investigation to a much 
 greater length. My object is not to say all that might be said, nor 
 to notice all there is in the w^ork under examination which I 
 deem really objectionable. This would enlarge the present 
 work so much as greatly to impede, if not wholly to thwart, the 
 purposes of its publication. My design is to present a condensed 
 review of the argument upon the leading points in controversy; 
 and I have not intentionally passed over anything which I conceive 
 of material importance. Of one thing I am certain, and that is, if 
 I have succeeded in refuting the positions of my opponent so far as 
 I have formally attempted to do so, there is nothing left in his 
 book of any weight in the controversy. 
 
 Of the doctor's mode of proceeding with his authorities I have 
 already complained. I might with equal justice find some 
 fault with him for his want of method and arrangement. It has 
 occasioned me no little trouble to seize and retain his different 
 positions ; or, after I had received a fair impression from them, to 
 find them again. The difficulty which I have experienced from 
 this source has convinced me that I should have saved much time, 
 and avoided no little vexation, by writing out a complete index of 
 the work. Dr. Bascom writes a book which contains a diversity 
 of topics just as he would write a letter to a friend, without chapters, 
 sections, or heads of discourse. I make not these statements as 
 a mere critic, for I do not act in this examination in that character : 
 I say nothing of the grammar or rhetoric of the performance : I 
 make these remarks merely as an apology for myself, if it shall 
 appear that I have omitted any material argument or explanation 
 of my much-respected opponent. I have done the best I could, 
 with the time I have had at command, toward analyzing the great 
 mass of materials which I found in the book, in rather too much of 
 a chaos for my taste, or for convenience in the examination. If I 
 have failed to dissect the body, the failure must be attributed to 
 my want of anatomical skill to find the location of the joints. Dr. 
 Bascom's work has been exceedingly extolled by southern editors, 
 and has already received at their hands an enrollment among the 
 greatest efforts in modern times. It is thought by them, as an e.x- 
 position of ecclesiastical and constitutional law, and as a specimen 
 of controversial writing, to be certain of immortality. I say not a 
 word against this judgment, but leave it for the wisdom of future 
 generations either to confirm or annul. 
 
Slavery and the Episcopacy. 115 
 
 It will be perceived that I do not formally meet what the doctor 
 has brought forward upon the abstract question of slavery: nor do 
 I notice his comparative view of the condition of the colored people 
 in the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding states, though I have 
 strong doubts of many of his deductions. The doctor might, per- 
 haps, raise a question whether I would not be better fed, and live 
 longer, had I a good southern master. A multitude of statistics, 
 and a world of philosophy, might be brought to bear upon the 
 question; but no argument could convince me that slavery is better 
 than liberty, or that any one has a right to my services without my 
 consent. A few days since, I fell into conversation with a colored 
 man from Washington. I asked him if he had ever been a slave. 
 He said. No, his father and mother were free. I asked if the slaves 
 in Washington were not better off, and more contented and happy, 
 than the free people of color. "Ah," said he, "a wolf had much 
 rather run at large in the woods, and half starve, than to be tied up 
 by the neck, and have plenty to eat." "Well," said I, " many of 
 the slaves love their masters, and would not leave them if they 
 could." " O yes," said he, " but then good masters do not live 
 for ever; and when they die, the servants do not know whose 
 hands they will fall into." This is precisely the reasoning of the 
 mass of colored people at the south. I do not concede to Dr. 
 Bascom the truth of his comparative view, and shall not until he 
 gives some authentic data to justify his calculations. But if all 
 his facts were established, they would not prove that southern 
 slavery is right. 
 
 Dr. Bascom joins issue with the abolitionists upon the language of 
 the Bible touching the treatment of the subject of slavery. I leave 
 this question unnoticed, as the great points in debate between 
 pro-slavery men and ultra-abolitionists have nothing to do with the 
 pending controversy. I suppose that it is well understood, that 
 upon the question of slavery and abolition I have always stood upon 
 conservative ground. I stand there still. I have not changed my 
 views in the least for eight years past upon any of the points in 
 controversy between the north and south. 
 
 As the south have, by the convention constituted by the southern 
 Annual Conferences, declared themselves separated from the juris- 
 diction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, the great object now is to settle the boundaries, and adjust 
 the relations of the two connections. I wish for an amicable settle- 
 ment of all matters of difference ; and as far as my influence goes 
 shall favor the division of the property according to the conciliatory 
 plan of the late General Conference, unless new circumstances 
 
116 Slavery and the Episcopacy. 
 
 shall arise to effect a change in my views. I know hot words 
 have passed between the parties, and wrongs have been done; but 
 nothing, so far as I see, has been done which should cut off the 
 south from their claims upon the funds; and I believe the north 
 will never think of anything else than a final adjustment of the 
 properly question upon the basis agreed upon at the last General 
 Conference. 
 
 I am aware that there are things in this pamphlet that many 
 southern men will not like ; but I beg leave to assure them that I 
 have introduced them merely because I thought justice to the ar- 
 gument required it. I have said nothing with a view to the inflic- 
 tion of pain. A perfectly tame performance upon such an occasion 
 would be worse than nothing. The matters in question are im- 
 portant ; and a tone of earnestness is as necessary to write effect- 
 ively, as a spirit of kindness and forbearance is for peace and 
 conciliation. May the great Head of the church heal our divisions, 
 and overrule our mistakes and errors, for the glory of his name, and 
 the best good of the universal church and the world ! 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A.— THE REPLY TO THE PROTEST. 
 
 The committee appointed to prepare a statement of the facts in the 
 case of Bishop Andrew, and to examine the Protest of the minority, 
 regret that the circumstances under which they have been compelled 
 to act have prevented their preparing so complete a report as the im- 
 portance of the subject demands. The Protest was not placed under 
 their command until Friday afternoon, and immediately afterward two 
 of the original committee had to withdraw, one of them being ill, and 
 the other having been elected bishop — nor were their places supplied 
 until Saturday evening. It is under these disadvaotages, and amid the 
 pressure of important conference business, that they have been required 
 to prepare a document in relation to some of the most important ques- 
 tions that have ever engaged the attention of the church. It is believed, 
 however, that the following statement of law and facts will be a sufficient 
 notice of the Protest which has been referred to them. 
 
 As the proceedings of the General Conference in the case of Bishop 
 Andrew were not judicial, its decision has gone forth to the public 
 unaccompanied by the reasons and facts upon which this action was 
 founded. This deficiency is but partially supplied by the published 
 reports of the debate on the subject. The speakers who advocated the 
 resolution were restrained by a praiseworthy delicacy from all avoida- 
 ble allusions which might give pain to the respected individual con- 
 cerned, or awaken unpleasant emotions in any quarter. It is but natural 
 that under these circumstances some misunderstanding should prevail 
 as to the merits of the case. The following statement, it is believed, 
 contains nothing, at least so far as facts are concerned, which will not 
 be cheerfully confirmed by all parties, and will throw light upon the 
 true position of the authors of the Protest. 
 
 From the first institution of the episcopacy of the M. E. Church no 
 slaveholder has been elected to that dignity, though in several instances 
 candidates otherwise eminently fitted for the station have failed of 
 success solely on accout of this impediment. Since the period referred 
 to, nine bishops have been elected, who were natives of the United 
 States. Of these only three have been northern men, while six were 
 natives of slaveholding states. Not one, however, was a slaveholder — 
 a remarkable fact, which shows very clearly, that while much more 
 than their just claim has been conceded to the slaveholding portions of 
 the church, a decided and uniform repugnance has, from the first, been 
 felt and manifested to the occupancy of that high office by a slaveholder. 
 
 It is known and acknowledged by all southern brethren that Bishop 
 Andrew was nominated by the delegates from the South Carolina and 
 Georgia Conferences, as a southern candidate for whom northern men 
 might vote without doing violence to their principles, as he was no 
 
118 Appendix. 
 
 slaveholder : Bishop Andrew himself perfectly understood the ground 
 of his election. Since the year 1832 the anti-slavery sentiment in the 
 church, as vrell as in the whole civilized world, has constantly and 
 rapidly gained ground, and within the last year or two it has been 
 roused to a special and most earnest opposition to the introduction of a 
 slaveholder into the episcopal office — an event which many were led 
 to fear by certain intimations, published in the Southern Christian 
 Advocate, the Richmond Christian Advocate, and perhaps some other 
 Methodist periodicals. This opposition produced the profoundest anxiety 
 through most of the non-slaveholding conferences. The subject was 
 discussed everywhere, and the dreaded event universally deprecated as 
 the most fearful calamity that ever threatened the church. Many con- 
 ferences instructed their delegates to use all possible means to avert 
 such an evil. Other conferences, and many thousand laymen, sent up 
 petitions and memorials to the same eflect to the present General Con- 
 ference. Such was the state of sentiment and of apprehension in the 
 northern portion of the church, when the delegates to the General Con- 
 ference learned, on reaching this city, that Bishop Andrew had become 
 a slaveholder. The profound grief, the utter dismay, which was pro- 
 duced by this astounding intelligence can be fully appreciated only 
 by those who have participated in the distressing scenes which have 
 since been enacted in the General Conference. 
 
 When the first emotions of surprise and sorrow had so far subsided 
 as to allow of sober thought and inquiry, it was ascertained that Bishop 
 Andrew had been a slaveholder for several years. Soon after his 
 election to the episcopacy, a lady of Augusta bequeathed him a female 
 slave, on condition that she should be sent to Liberia at nineteen years 
 of age, if her consent to emigrate could be obtained — otherwise she 
 was to be made as free as the laws of Georgia would permit. She 
 refused to emigrate, has since married, and is now enjoying all the 
 privileges provided for in the will of her former mistress : — she is, and 
 must be, a slave — she and her children — and liable to all that may 
 befall slaves. Another slave Bishop Andrew has inherited from the 
 mother of his former wife, and by his recent marriage he has become 
 the owner of (it was said on the floor of the General Conference) four- 
 teen or fifteen more. These belonged to Mrs. Andrew in her own 
 right before her marriage. That act, according to the laws of Georgia, 
 made them the property of Bishop Andrew, to keep or dispose of as 
 he pleased. He conveyed them to a trustee, for the joint use of himself 
 and wife, of whom the survivor is to be the sole owner. This convey- 
 ance was made for the security of Mrs. Andrew, and with no view 
 either to satisfy or to mislead the opinions of the northern church. So 
 much, at least, Bishop Andrew was understood to say to the conference. 
 His known integrity forbids the suspicion that he would attempt to dis- 
 guise the real character of the transaction ; and the fact that the earn- 
 ings of the slaves, as well as the reversionary title to them, are his, 
 demonstrates that this arrangement was not made with any view to 
 satisfy the well-known sentiments of the church against a slaveholding 
 bishop. It is manifest from this statement, which is believed to be 
 strictly correct, that Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery is — not 
 
Appendix. 119 
 
 as the Protest intimates, merely an " assumption," but that he is the 
 owner of slaves, in the full and proper sense of that term. His title 
 was acquired by bequest, by inheritance, and by marriage, which are 
 by far the most common grounds of ownership in slaves. All the 
 usual and necessary conditions of slavery have their fulfillment in the 
 relation of these person to Bishop Andrew. Their labor and their 
 earnings are subject to his control, and inure to his benefit and that of 
 his family. They are now liable, or they maybe hereafter, to be sold ; 
 they and their offspring are doomed, as the case now stands, to a bond- 
 acre that is perpetual, and they are liable and likely to descend to his 
 heirs. Beyond all reasonable doubt, the condition of Bishop Andrew's 
 slaves will be attended, while he lives, with all the alleviations — and 
 these are many and great — which a very benevolent and Christian 
 master can provide. Still it must be slavery. In the view of the law 
 of the land, and of the law of the Discipline, in all its more weighty 
 and permanent consequences to the bondman, it is and must be slavery. 
 It was said repeatedly on the floor of the conference, that the deed of 
 trust had put it quite beyond Bishop Andrew's power to free his slaves, 
 even if there were no other obstacle. So then, should the stringent 
 laws of Georgia against emancipation be relaxed or repealed by her 
 next legislature, the rule of the Discipline, which would then become 
 imperative on Bishop Andrew, could not, and would not, be satisfied, 
 and the church must still have a slaveholding bishop, in spite, not only 
 of its known will, but of its standing laws. 
 
 It was the almost unanimous opinion of the delegates from the non- 
 slaveholding conferences that Bishop Andrew could not continue to 
 exercise his episcopal functions under existing circumstances, without 
 producing results extensively disastrous to the church in the north ; and 
 from this opinion the brethren of the south did not dissent. For a 
 while the hope was entertained that the difficulty would be quietly 
 removed by his resigning his office, which it was known he had pre- 
 viously desired to do. But this hope was dissipated by the intelligence 
 that the delegates from the conferences in the slaveholding states had 
 been convened, and that they had unanimously advised him not to 
 resign. Various efforts were then made in private to devise some 
 method to relieve the case, but they all proved abortive, and nothing 
 remained but that it must come before the General Conference. The 
 bishops themselves, in their united Address to the conference, had 
 urged it to ascertain whether there had been any departure from the 
 essential principles "of the general itinerant superintendency," and 
 had declared of that superintendency that " the plan of its operation is 
 general, embracing the whole work in connectional order, and not diocesan, 
 or sectional. Consequently any division of the work into districts, or 
 otherwise, so as to create a particular charge, with any other view, or 
 in any order, than as a prudential measure to secure to all the confer- 
 ences the annual visits of the superintendents, would be an innovation 
 on the system :" — that " our superintendency must be itinerant, and not 
 local ;" — that " it was wisely provided in the system of Methodism, 
 from its very foundation, that it should be the duly of the superintend- 
 ents ' to travel through the connection at large.'' " The question then 
 
120 Appendix. 
 
 presented itself, how the case of Bishop Andrew could be so disposed 
 of as to preserve this itinerant general superintendency ? If the Gen- 
 eral Conference had even been disposed to evade it, the consideration 
 of it was forced upon them by the episcopal Address itself. 
 
 A diversity of sentiment existed as to the proper method of treatiag 
 the case. 
 
 Some, at least, believed — perhaps few — doubted that sufficient ground 
 existed for impeachment on a charge of " improper conduct " under 
 the express provisions of the Discipline. The opinion was certainly 
 entertained in several quarters that it was " improper " for the shepherd 
 and bishop of eleven hundred thousand souls either deliberately or 
 heedlessly to place himself in direct and irreconcilable conflict with 
 the known and cherished moral sentiments of a large majority of his 
 vast flock. Such, however, was the prevalence of moderate counsels, 
 that no proposal was made either to impeach or punish, and such the 
 controlling influence of forbearance and kindness, that it is believed 
 not one word was uttered during the entire debate of nearly a fortnight 
 derogatory to the character, or justly offensive to the feelings, of Bishop 
 Andrew. The transaction which had brought such distress upon the 
 church, and threatened such extensive ruin, was dealt with merely as 
 a fact — as a practical difficulty — for the removal or palliation of 
 ■which it was the duty of the General Conference to provide. It was 
 in this spirit, and for such ends, that the following preamble and reso- 
 lution were passed : — 
 
 " Whereas, the Discipline of our church forbids the doing anything 
 calculated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas 
 Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by marriage and 
 otherwise, and this act having drawn after it circumstances which in 
 the estimation of the General Conference will greatly embarrass the 
 exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in 
 some places entirely prevent it ; therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he 
 desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment 
 remains. J. B. Finley, 
 
 J. M. Trimble." 
 
 The action of the General Conference was neither judicial nor 
 punitive. It neither achieves nor intends a deposition, nor so much 
 as a legal suspension. Bishop Andrew is still a bishop ; and should 
 he, against the expressed sense of the General Conference, proceed 
 in the discharge of his functions, his official acts would be valid. 
 
 Such are the facts in the case of Bishop Andrew. We now pro- 
 ceed to notice the law. Nearly all the objections raised in the Protest 
 against the action of the General Conference may be reduced to two, 
 viz., that that body has violated the constitutional and the statutory law 
 of the church. That it has violated the constitutional law the Protest 
 attempts to prove by representing lis late action as a breach of what it 
 calls " the compromise law of the church on the subject of slavery ;" 
 meaning, as is supposed, the section on slavery, particularly that para- 
 graph which relates to traveling preachers. The entire language on 
 
Appendix. 131 
 
 this subject is evidently formed so as to make the impression on any 
 reader not intimately acquainted with the history and Discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, that there has been some period (whether 
 1804 or 1816 does not clearly appear from the Protest) when the 
 question of slavery was settled in the Methodist Episcopal Church as 
 it was in the general government at the adoption of the federal consti- 
 tution, — that " the confederating Annual Conferences," " after a vexed 
 and protracted negotiation," met in convention, and the section on 
 slavery " was finally agreed to by the parties after a long and fearful 
 struggle," as " a compact," " a treaty," which cannot be altered by the 
 General Conference until certain constitutional restrictions are removed. 
 So that now any interference on the part of that body with the question 
 of slavery in the southern conferences is as unconstitutional as it is 
 admitted would be the interference of the general government with the 
 question in the southern states. 
 
 After the boldness with which this doctrine is advanced, and the 
 confidence with which it is relied upon as " the first and principal 
 ground occupied by the minority in this Protest," it will be difficult for 
 the uninitiated to believe, that it is as unfounded in fact as it is ingeni- 
 ous in its " legal casuistry." It is indeed true, that the question of 
 slavery had been long and anxiously agitated in the church, and the 
 various General Conferences had endeavored to adjust the matter so 
 as to promote the greatest good of all parties ; but this very fact goes 
 to disprove the position assumed in the Protest : for as the attention of 
 the church had been thus strongly called to the subject, if it had been 
 the intention to guard the question of slavery by constitutional provi- 
 sions, it would have been done when the church actually did meet to 
 frame a constitution. But nothing of the kind appears. For when, in 
 1808, it was resolved that the General Conference instead of consist- 
 ing, as before, of all the traveling elders, should be a delegated body, 
 and when it was determined that that body (unlike the general govern- 
 ment, which has no powers but such as are expressly conferred) should 
 have all powers but such as are expressly taken away, — when this 
 vast authority was about to be given to the General Conference, among 
 " the limitations and restrictions " imposed, there is not one word on the 
 subject of slavery ; nor was any attempt made to introduce any such re- 
 striction. The only provision anywhere established by that General 
 Conference of constitutional force, was the general rule forbidding the 
 buying and selling of human beings with an intention to enslave them. 
 So that, in direct opposition to the assertion of the Protest, we main- 
 tain that the section on slavery is " a mere legislative enactment, a 
 simple decree of a General Conference," as much under its control as 
 any other portion of the Discipline not covered by the restrictive rules. 
 If additional proof of the truth of this position were needed it might 
 be adduced in the fact that that section which the Protest represents 
 to have been settled in 1804, was not only altered at the General Con- 
 ference or convention of 1808, but also at the delegated General Con- 
 ferences of 1812, 1816, 1820, and 1824. And although the Protest 
 speaks of it as " usually known" by the name of " the compromise act," 
 the greater part of this General Conference have never heard either 
 
122 Appendix. 
 
 that appellation or that character ascribed to it until the present occa- 
 sion. 
 
 But although this General Conference cannot admit that any portion 
 of the section on slavery is constitutional in its character, and there- 
 fore could not under any circumstances allow the imputation of the 
 Protest that they h^ve violated the constitution of the church, yet they 
 do admit that it is laio — law too which the General Conference 
 (though possessing full powers in the premises) has never altered 
 except at the above periods, and then, in each instance, for the further 
 indulgence of the south. The question then comes up, whether this 
 General Conference, as the Protest maintains, has in eifect suddenly 
 reversed the legislation of the church, not indeed by altering the law, 
 but by practically disregarding it. The portion of the law particularly 
 in question is the following paragraph : — 
 
 " When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or 
 slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our 
 church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of 
 such slaves, conformably to the laws of the state in which he lives." 
 
 This it is alledged fully covers the case of Bishop Andrew, and 
 therefore he ought to have been left in the quiet and unquestioned 
 enjoyment of his rights. Were it even true, that proceedings, either 
 judicial or " extra-judicial," have been had in his case, we should not 
 hesitate to join issue here, and maintain that this law does not protect 
 him. The Protest asks, " Is there anything in the law or its reasons 
 creating an exception in the instance of bishops ?" W^e answer. 
 There is in both. So far as judicial proceedings are concerned, the 
 Discipline divides the church into four classes, private members, local 
 preachers, traveling preachers, and bishops ; and establishes distinct 
 tribunals and different degrees of responsibility for each. The sec- 
 tion on slavery applies only to officers of the church, and therefore 
 private members are not named at all, but special provision is made in 
 the case of local and traveling preachers. How happens it that 
 bishops are not named at all ? Are they necessarily included in the 
 title " traveling preachers ?" In common parlance they may sometimes 
 be thus designated ; but in the Discipline it is not so understood, even 
 in regard to matters much less important than this, in evidence of which 
 we need only advert to the fact, that the General Conference of 1836 
 did not consider that the allowance of bishops was provided for under 
 the general title of " traveling preachers," and they therefore inserted 
 them accordingly. To explain why no mention is made of " bishops," 
 it is not necessary, as the Protest supposes, " to slander the virtuous 
 dead of the north," as if they excluded them intentionally " by a resort 
 to deceptive and dishonorable means." It is a much more natural and 
 reasonable explanation, that at that day, when the church could hardly 
 tolerate slavery in any class of the ministry, "the virtuous dead" both 
 of the north and of the south did not dream that it would ever find 
 its way into the episcopacy. 
 
 But though the language of the law does not include bishops, yet if 
 the " reason " and spirit of it did, we might be disposed to allow them 
 the benefit of it. But this is not the case. The whole tenor of the 
 
Appendix. 123 
 
 Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church is adverse to slavery. 
 Even the Protest has admitted (irreconcilable as the admission is w^ith 
 another portion of the same instrument) that, at the time of the alledged 
 " compact," " the whole church, by common consent, united in proper 
 effort for the mitigation and final removal of the evil of slavery." But 
 let the Discipline speak for itself. The mildest form in which the 
 question at the head of the section on slavery has ever been expressed, 
 is the present, namely, " What shall be done for the extirpation of the 
 evil of slavery?" And the very conference of 1804, which enacted 
 the so called "compromise law," as well as that of 1800, when the 
 paragraph relating to traveling preachers was really adopted, were each 
 convened under a request from the preceding General Conference, that 
 the whole church would aid that body in obtaining " full light in order 
 to take further steps toward the eradicating this enormous evil from that 
 part of the church of God to which they are united." It is obvious, 
 therefore, that connection with slavery is tolerated no further than 
 seems necessary. In the case of ordinary traveling preachers there 
 appeared to be a necessity for some indulgence. They might become 
 owners of slaves in the providence of God, the laws of the states might 
 not allow of emancipation ; and they had no power to choose their own 
 place of residence. But no such " reason" could apply to a bishop, for 
 he has always been allowed to live where he pleases. Again : traveling 
 preachers encumbered with slaves labor among people similarly situ- 
 ated, and who would not, therefore, be likely to object to them on that 
 account. But a bishop, by the constitution of the church, is required 
 to labor in every part of the connection ; and in by far the larger por- 
 tion of it the services of a slaveholding bishop would not be acceptable. 
 So here again the " reason " of the case does not apply to a bishop. 
 There is not, therefore, as the Protest so roundly asserts, any " express" 
 or "specific law" in the case; and therefore, as the Protest itself 
 admits, "in the absence of law it might be competent for the General 
 Conference to act on other grounds." With the failure to prove any 
 " specific law " authorizing a bishop to hold slave property, the third 
 and fourth arguments of the Protest, which are founded on this assump- 
 tion, fail also. 
 
 But, perhaps, it is not so much the law of the Discipline which the 
 Protest claims to cover Bishop Andrew as the law of the land : for 
 it declares, " The rights of the legal owners of slaves in all the slave- 
 holding states are guarantied by the constitution of the United States, 
 and by the local constitutions of the states respectively, as the supreme 
 law of the land, to which every minister and member of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, within the limits of the United States government, 
 professes subjection, and pledges himself to submit, as an article of the 
 Christian faith, in the common creed of the church." If by this is 
 meant that the law of the land allows citizens to hold slaves, it is ad- 
 mitted. But so also it allows them to keep theatres and grog-shops, so 
 that this is no ground of argument. But if it mean that the law of the 
 land requires citizens to keep slaves, (the only interpretation which can 
 make the argument available,) it is denied. And until it can be shown 
 that the Methodist Episcopal Church by its action — legislative, judicial, 
 
124 Appendix. 
 
 or executive — requires any citizen to do what the law of the land requires 
 him not to do, it is unjust to attempt to get up popular clamor against 
 it, as if it came in conflict with the civil authority. 
 
 This course of reasoning has been pursued thus far, not so much 
 because it was deemed necessary for the vindication of the conference, 
 as to avoid sanctioning, by silence, the erroneous exposition which the 
 Protest presents of the constitution, and the law of the church. For 
 it has been already seen that Bishop Andrew has been subjected to no 
 trial, and no penalty has been inflicted. At present, it is plain that the 
 conference has done nothing to depose, or even suspend Bishop An- 
 drew. His name will appear in official publications with those of the 
 other bishops, and with them he will derive his support from the funds 
 of the church. In order to make out that the General Conference had 
 no right to lake such action as they have in Bishop Andrew's case, 
 the authors of the Protest have been driven to the necessity of claiming 
 for the Methodist episcopacy powers and prerogatives never advanced 
 before, except by those who wished to make it odious, and which have 
 always been repudiated by its chosen champions. The Protest main- 
 tains that " the episcopacy is a co-ordinate branch of the government;" 
 for which no argument is adduced save this — that it is, in general, the 
 province of bishops to ordain bishops : a sufficient answer to which 
 may be found in the principle of Methodist polity, stated in the x\ddress 
 of the bishops to the present General Conference, that orders (the 
 principle applies to bishops, though not expressly named, as well as to 
 elders and deacons) are " conferred " by the election, and only " con- 
 firmed " by the ordination : and that when the election has been made, 
 the bishop " has no discretional authority ; but is under obligation to 
 ordain the person elected, whatever may be his own judgment of his 
 qualifications." And if all the bishops should refuse to ordain the 
 person elected by the General Conference, that body woidd unques- 
 tionably have the right to appoint any three elders to ordain him, as is 
 provided " in case there be no bishop remaining in our church." The 
 Protest declares that "the bishops are beyond doubt an integral, con- 
 stitutent part of the General Conference, made such by law and the 
 constitution." If the words "General Conference" be not a mere 
 clerical error, the assertion is sufficiently refuted by the answer in the 
 Discipline to the question, " Who shall compose the General Confer- 
 ence ?" and by the practice of the bishops themselves, who disclaim a 
 right to give even a casting vote, or even to speak in General Conference 
 except by permission. The Protest maintains, that "in a sense, by no 
 means unimportant, the General Conference is as much the creature of 
 the episcopacy, as the bishops are the creatures of the General Con- 
 ference." The proof adduced for which is, that " constitutionally the 
 bishops alone have the right to fix the time of holding the Annual Con- 
 ferences ; and should they refuse, or neglect to do so, no Annual Con- 
 ference could meet according to law ; and, by consequence, no delegates 
 could be chosen, and no General ('onference could be chosen or even 
 exist." That is to say, because, for the convenience of the bishops in 
 performing their tour, they are allowed to say at u-hat time in the year 
 an Annual Conference shall meet ; therefore they have the power to 
 
Appendix. 125 
 
 prevent such body from meeting at all, though, from its very name, it 
 must meet once a year ! — that, by preventing the meeting of Annual 
 Conferences, they might prevent the organization of any General Con- 
 ference ; and thus, escaping all accountability for their delinquencies, 
 might continue to lord it over God's heritage, until themselves and the 
 church should die a natural death. We can easily perceive, were this 
 reasoning legitimate, that the bishops might destroy, not only the General 
 Conference, but the church; but are at a loss to discover how it proves 
 that they can create either. We must protest against having any argu- 
 ment of ours adduced as analogous to this. 
 
 The Protest maintains, that "the General Conference has no right, 
 power, or authority, ministerial, judicial, or administrative," in any way 
 to subject a bishop " to any official disability whatever, without the 
 formal presentation of a charge or charges, alledging that the bishop to 
 be dealt with has been guilty of the violation of some law, or at least 
 some disciplinary obligation of the church, and also upon conviction of 
 such charge, after due form of trial." To those who are not familiar 
 with the Methodist economy, this might seem plausible. But it is, in 
 reality, an attempt to except, from the action of a general system, those 
 "who least of all ought to be excepted. The cardinal feature of our 
 polity is the itinerancy. 
 
 To sustain this system, it is essential that the classes should receive 
 the leaders that are appointed by the preacher, that the societies should 
 receive the preachers that are stationed over them by the bishops, that 
 the Annual Conferences should receive the bishops that are sent to them 
 by the General Conference. Unless, therefore, the utmost care be 
 taken by those who have authority in the premises, that these parties 
 shall severally be acceptable to those among whom they labor, there 
 is great danger that those who are injured by such neglect may seek 
 redress by revolutionary measures. For this reason, the officers of the 
 Methodist Church are subjected regularly to an examination unknown, 
 it is believed, among other denominations. Not only is provision made 
 for formal trials, in cases of crimes and misdemeanors, but there is a 
 special arrangement for the correction of other obstructions to official 
 usefulness. At every Annual Conference the character of every traveling 
 preacher is examined ; at every General Conference that of every 
 bishop. And the object is to ascertain not merely whether there is 
 ground for the formal presentation of charges, with a view to a regular 
 trial ; but whether there is any " objection " — anything that might in- 
 terfere with the acceptance of the officer in question among his charge. 
 And it is doctrine novel and dangerous in the Methodist Church, that 
 such diffculties cannot be corrected unless the person objected to be 
 formally arraigned under some specific law, to be found in the concise 
 code of the Discipline — doctrine not the less dangerous because it is 
 applied where " objections," unimportant in others, might be productive 
 of the most disastrous consequences. Will the Methodist Church 
 sanction the doctrine that, while all its other officers, of whatever name 
 or degree, are subjected to a sleepless supervision ; are counseled, 
 admonished, or changed, " as necessity may require, and as the Disci- 
 pline directs," a bishop, who decides all questions of law in Annual Con- 
 
 k 
 
126 Appendix. 
 
 ferences ; who, of his mere motion and will, controls the work and 
 the destiny of four thousand ministers ; who appoints and changes at 
 pleasure the spiritual guides of four millions of souls ; that the deposi- 
 tary of these vast powers, whose slightest indiscretions or omissions 
 are likely to disturb the harmony, and even impair the efficiency, of our 
 mighty system of operations, enjoys a virtual impunity for all delin- 
 quencies or misdoings not strictly criminal ? 
 
 It is believed that an attempt to establish such an episcopal su- 
 premacy would fill not only a part, but the whole of the church, "with 
 alarm and dismay." But this doctrine is not more at variance with the 
 genius of Methodism than it is with the express language of the 
 Discipline, and the exposition of it by all our standard writers. The 
 constitution of the church provides that " the General Conference shall 
 have full powers to make rules and regulations for our church," under 
 six " limitations and restrictions," among which the only one relating 
 to the episcopacy is this — " They shall not change or alter any part, 
 or rule of our government, so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the 
 plan of our itinerant general superintendency." As there is nothing in 
 the restrictive rules to limit the full powers of the General Conference, 
 in the premises, so is there nothing in the special provision respecting 
 the responsibility of a bishop. In reply to the question, " To whom is 
 a bishop amenable for his conduct?" the Discipline declares, " To the 
 General Conference, who have power to expel him for improper con- 
 duct, if they see it necessary." And this, be it remembered, is all that 
 is said respecting the jurisdiction over a bishop, with the exception of 
 a rule for his trial, in the interval of a General Conference, if he be 
 guilty of immorality. In full accordance with the plain meaning of 
 these provisions is the language of all the standard writers on Methodist 
 polity. 
 
 Bishop Emory — a man of whom it is no injustice to the living or 
 the dead to say, that he was a chief ornament and light of our episco- 
 pacy ; that he brought to the investigation of all ecclesiastical subjects 
 a cool, sagacious, powerful, practical intellect — fully sustains the posi- 
 tions we have assumed in behalf of the powers of the General Con- 
 ference over the bishops of our church. He gives an unqualified assent 
 to the following passages from the notes to the Discipline, prepared by 
 Bishops Asbury and Coke, at the request of the General Conference : — 
 " They {our bishops) are entirely dependent on the General Con- 
 ference :" " their power, their usefulness, themselves, are entirely at 
 the mercy of the General Conference." 
 
 Dr. Emory also quotes some passages from a pamphlet, by the Rev. 
 John Dickens, which, he says, was published by the unanimous request 
 of the Philadelphia Conference, and may be considered as expressing 
 the views both of that conference and of Bishop Asbury, his intimate 
 friend. Mr. Dickens affirms, that the bishops derive their power from 
 the election of the General Conference, and not from their ordination ; 
 and that the conference has, on that ground, power to remove Bishop 
 Asbury, and appoint another, " if they see it necessary." He affirms 
 that Bishop Asbury " derived his official power from the conference, 
 and therefore his office is at their disposal " — Mr. Asbury was " re- 
 
Appendix. 127 
 
 sponsible to the General Conference, who had power to remove him, if 
 they saw it necessary ;" " he is liable every year to be removed." 
 
 The above quotations show very clearly the sentiments of Asbury, 
 and Coke, and Dickens, on this question — men chiefly instrumental 
 in laying the foundations of our polity. 
 
 Equally clear and satisfactory is the testimony of another venerable 
 bishop, who still lives, in the full exercise of his mental powers and 
 benignant influence, to guide and bless the church : — "The superintend- 
 ents now have no power in the church above that of elders, except 
 what is connected with presiding in the conference, fixing the appoint- 
 ments of the preachers, and ordaining :" — " They are the servants of 
 the elders, and go out and execute their commands :" — " The General 
 Conference may expel a bishop not only for immoral, but for ' improper 
 conduct,' which means a small offense below a crime; for which not 
 even a child or a slave can be expelled but after repeated admonitions :" 
 — " The traveling preachers gave the bishop his power, they continue 
 it in his hands, and they can reduce, limit, or transfer it to other hands, 
 whenever they see cause." Such is the language of Bishop Hedding, 
 who only concurs in the moderate, truly Methodistic views of Bishops 
 Asbury, Coke, and Emory. 
 
 It is believed that this statement of the facts and the law in the case 
 will afford a satisfactory answer to all the positions and reasonings of 
 the Protest ; and, after having thus presented it, the majority are per- 
 fectly willing to abide " the decision of our contemporaries, and of pos- 
 terity." They cannot, however, close these remarks, without expressing 
 their regret that the minority, not content with protesting against the 
 action of the General Conference, as "lawless," as "without law, and 
 contrary to law," as such " a violation of the compromise law," that 
 " the public faith of this body can no longer be relied upon as the 
 guaranty for the redemption of the pledge," " that there shall be no 
 further curtailment of right as regards the southern ministry " — that, 
 not content with thus harshly assaiUng the proceedings of the General 
 Conference, they have even refused to the bishops, whom they have 
 invested with such exalted prerogatives, the quiet possession of their 
 thoughts and feelings ; and have thrown out the significant intimation,, 
 " that any bishop of the church, either violating or submitting to the 
 violation of the compromise charter of union between the north and south,, 
 without proper and public remonstrance, cannot be acceptable in the 
 south, and need not appear there." We shall be slow to believe, thalj 
 even their constituents will justify them in thus virtually deposing, not 
 one bishop only, but several, by a process which is even worse than 
 " extra-judicial." 
 
 When all the law, and the facts in the case, shall have been spread 
 before an impartial community, the majority have no doubt that they 
 will fix " the responsibility of division," should such an unhappy event 
 take place, " where in justice it belongs." They will ask. Who first 
 introduced slavery into the episcopacy ? And the answer will be. Not 
 the General Conference. Who opposed the attempt to withdraw it from 
 the episcopacy? Not the General Conference. Who resisted the 
 measure of peace that was proposed— the mildest that the case allowed*; 
 
128 Appendix. 
 
 Not the majority. Who first sounded the knell of division, and declared 
 that it would be impossible longer to remain under the jurisdiction of 
 the M. E. Church? Nut the majority. 
 
 The proposition for a peaceful separation, (if any must take place,) 
 with which the Protest closes, though strangely at variance with much 
 that precedes, has already been met by the General Conference. And 
 the readiness with which that body (by a vote which would doubtless 
 have been unanimous but for the belief that some entertained of the 
 unconstitutionality of the measure) granted all that the southern brethren 
 themselves could ask, in such an event, must for ever stand as a prac- 
 tical refutation of any assertion that the minority have been subjected 
 to the tyranny of a majority. 
 
 P'inally, we cannot but hope that the minority, after reviewing the 
 entire action of the conference, will find that, both in their Declaration 
 and their Protest, they have taken too strong a view of the case ; and 
 that by presenting it in its true light before their people, they may be 
 able to check any feelings of discord that may have arisen, so that the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church may still continue as one body, engaged 
 in its proper work of "spreading Scriptural holiness over these lands." 
 
 J. P. DuRBiN, Chairman. 
 George Peck, 
 Charles Elliott. 
 
 B.— MR. HAMLINE'S SPEECH. 
 
 I do not rise, Mr. President, with the hope that I shall "communicate 
 light" on the topics before us ; but rather for the purpose of imploring 
 light from others. It cannot be unkind in me to suggest that this 
 discussion has taken an unprofitably wide range ; for many whispers 
 within the bar, and the complaints of several speakers on the floor, 
 show that this is the case. We have drawn into the debate many 
 questions which have but a very slight connection with the propositions 
 contained in the resolution. I would, if possible, call the attention of 
 the conference from matters so remote to the real issue in the case. 
 It is complained that wc seem to have forsaken all argument, and a 
 call is made for our " strong reasons." We ought, indeed, to argue on 
 both sides. And if I should not do it, I will, at least, refrain from ad- 
 dressing a word to the galleries, or to the spectators. 
 
 There ought to be two questions before us. First. Has the General 
 Conference constitutional authority to pass this resolution 1 Second. 
 Is tt proper or jilting it should do it ? The first question should be 
 first argued ; but so far it has scarcely been touched. If we have not 
 authority to pass the resolution, to discuss its expediency is surely out 
 of place ; for it can never be expedient to violate law, unless law vio- 
 lates justice. I shall leave the question of expediency to others, or 
 only glance at it ; but I ask your attention to the topic of conference 
 authority. 
 
Appendix. 129 
 
 The resolution proposes to suspend the exercise of a bishop's func- 
 tions on a certain condilion to be performed by hitn. If I mistake not, 
 the resohition is a rnandamus measure. Its passage will absolutely 
 suspend the exercise of the superintendent's functions, until he com- 
 plies with the prescribed condition. The measure of power required 
 to do this is the same which would be requisite to suspend or depose 
 a bishop for such reasons as the resolution mentions, or, in other words, 
 for " improper conduct." Have we, then, such authority 1 I shall as- 
 sume that we have ; hoping, if I prove nothing, to provoke proof, pro 
 or con, from the brethren who surround me. 
 
 I aruge this authority in the General Conference, first, from the genius 
 of our polity on points which the ?nost nearly resemble this. Strict amena- 
 bility in church officers, subordinate and superior, is provided for in 
 our Discipline. From the class-leader upward, this amenability re- 
 gards not only major but minor morals — not only the vices, but also 
 the improprieties of behavior. The class-leader, by mere eccentricity, 
 becomes unpopular in his class. The pastor at discretion removes 
 him from his office. The exhorter or unordained local preacher proves 
 unacceptable, and a quarterly conference refuses to renew his license. 
 The itinerant pastor is not useful in charge, and the bishop or the 
 presiding elder deposes him from his charge, or from the pastoral 
 office, and makes him an assistant. The presiding elder impairs his 
 usefulness on a district, not by gross 7naliea.sa.nce, but by a slight mis- 
 feasance ; or oftener still because " he is not popular," and the bishop 
 removes him to a station or a circuit, and perhaps makes him an as- 
 sistant. I speak not now of annual appointments, when the term of 
 the itinerant expires by limitation, but of removals by the bishop or 
 the presiding elder in the intervals of conference, which always im- 
 ply a deposing from office, as well as a stationing act. In all these 
 instances the manner of removing from office is peculiar. First. It 
 is summary, without accusation, trial, or formal sentence. It is a 
 ministerial, rather than a judicial, act. Second. It is for no crime, 
 and generally for no misdemeanor, but for being " unacceptable." 
 Third. Most of these removals from office are by a sole agent, name- 
 ly, by a bishop or preacher, whose will is omnipotent in the premises. 
 Fourth. The removing officer is not legally obliged to assign any cause 
 for deposing. If he do so, it is through courtesy, and not as of right. 
 Fifth. The deposed officer has no appeal. If indiscreetly or unneces- 
 sarily removed, he must submit ; for there is no tribunal authorized to 
 cure the error, or to rectify the wrong. But we believe that there are 
 good and sufficient reasons for granting this high power of removal to 
 those who exercise it. It promotes religion. It binds the church in a 
 strong and almost indissoluble unity. It quickens the communication 
 of healing influences to the infected and the enfeebled parts of the body 
 ecclesiastical. In a word, it is a system of surpassing energy. By it 
 executive power is sent in its most efficient form, and without loss 
 of time, from its highest sources or remotest fountains, through the 
 preachers and class-leaders, to the humblest member of the church. 
 The system is worthy of all eulogy. 
 
 We will now inquire as to the bishop. In his case is this strong 
 
 9 
 
130 Appendix. 
 
 feature of Methodism lost sight of? Is he, who can at discretion, 
 by himself or by his agents, remove from ofhce so many, among whom 
 are thousands of his co-ordinates or peers, subject in turn to no such 
 summary control ? We have seen that to lodge this power of removal in 
 superior, and impose submission to it on inferior, officers is the fashion 
 of JMethodism. She loves the system. She carries it up through many 
 grades of office until we reach the bishop. Does it suddenly stop there ? 
 If so, on what ground ? I can conceive none. If any can, let the 
 reasons be arrayed before us. I can perceive none, Mr. President, 
 in being ; but I can conceive them possible under given circumstances. 
 In church and in state there must always be an ultimate or supreme 
 authority, and the exercise of it must be independent, so far as sys- 
 tematic responsibility is concerned. But is the episcopacy in regard 
 to this question supreme ? Certainly not. The General Conference, 
 adjunct in certain exigencies with the Annual Conferences, is the ulti- 
 mate depository of poAver in our church. And I beg to dwell here. 
 For, in the second place, I shall argue our authority to depose a bishop 
 summarily for improprieties morally innocent, which embarrass the 
 exercise of his functions, yrom the relations of the General Conference 
 to the church, a7id to the episcopacy. 
 
 This conference, adjunct (but rarely) with the Annual Conferences, 
 is supreme. Its supremacy is universal. It has legislative, judicial, 
 and executive supremacy. Its legislative supremacy consists of '■'■fill 
 powers to make rules,'" as the Discipline words it. This is full power for 
 quasi legislation. Under sell-assumed restrictions, which are now of 
 constitutional force and virtue, (especially as they originated in a 
 General Conference, composed not of delegates, but of traveling 
 preachers,) it can make rules of every sort for the government of the 
 church. The restrictions are few and simple. They embrace our 
 articles of religion, the ratio of representation, the perpetuity of epis- 
 copacy, and the general superintendency, the general rules, irial by 
 committee and appeal, and the avails of the Book Concern. Beyond 
 these slender restrictions, its legislation is legitimate and conclusive ; 
 and within them it is so, if the members of the Annual Conferences 
 are consenting. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, in legislation the bishop has not only peers, 
 but more than peers. In clerical orders every man on this floor is his 
 equal, but, in legislative functions, his superior. Can you contribute 
 the uplifting of a hand for or against a conference act ? You may not 
 do it. The Discipline, which we shape at pleasure, defies your touch. 
 You may not, in this regard, breathe upon it. You may not spread the 
 plaster upon a patch which we, ad libitum, apply to its weak parts. 
 If the conference, by a tie, fail to do what is desirable to be done, 
 and (like the philosopher's starving brute, caught centrally between 
 two heaps of hay) cannot escape iVoin the dilemma, I believe it is 
 doubted by the college of bishops whether the president can come to 
 our rescue by a casting vote. 
 
 The conference has judicial supremacy. It is a court of appeals 
 beyond which no parties can travel ibr the cure of errors. It is the 
 dernier resort, not only of appellants, but of original complainants. 
 
\ 
 
 Appendix. 131 
 
 You, sir, must stand or fall by its sole decision. If it err, which is 
 not a legal presumption, its unwholesome error is incurable, except 
 by the vis medicatrix — the medicinal virtue — of its own judicial ener- 
 gies. Nor has a bishop part or lot in its court action. He is consti- 
 tuted the judge of law in an inferior tribunal, but not here. His lips 
 are sealed in this august body, and except when himself is concerned, 
 he may not rise as an advocate either for the church or for an impli- 
 cated party. It would be treason to do so. It would be a most 
 offensive deed, like the bribing of a judge, or a covinous communing 
 with a juryman. So naked, sir, of judicial prerogatives is the bishop 
 in this conference. Every member on the floor wears the ermine 
 which you may not assume. Each of us blends in himself the func- 
 tions of both judge and juryman, to which you are an utter stranger. 
 In the mean time you are liable, as I suppose, to be stripped by us of 
 those other high prerogatives of which, by our countenance, you now 
 hold investiture. You see, then, that as a bishop you are both elevated 
 and depressed. In regard to legislative and judicial prerogatives, 
 when you went up you went down. Your station in the General Con- 
 ference is a peculiar eminence. Your high seat is not at all terrific in 
 concealed or outbeaming power. It is like a gallery of disabilities, 
 where, as a spectator of tragedy, you can do little more than admire 
 or reprobate the piece, and smile or frown upon the actors. But, sir, 
 such as it is, you and we approve it, and you would be as unwilling as 
 ourselves to see your prerogatives changed by increase or diminution. 
 You are high up, and low down ; and all (but yourselves most of all) 
 are content that we — as we mean by grace to do — should keep you up, 
 and keep you down. 
 
 But from the legislative and judicial functions of the conference, I 
 proceed to its executive or ministerial. Here I may be approaching 
 debatable ground. But as I wish to provoke truth, and gather instruc- 
 tion from others, I will venture to advance, leaving, if you please, a 
 bridge of retreat, if hemmed in at last, to that discreet refuge. All 
 will consent, I suppose, to the doctrine of conference supremacy in the 
 two points stated above. They will grant that this is our ecclesiasti- 
 cal legislature ; and the high court — curia maxima — of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 But has it also executive functions — and are these supreme, or all- 
 controlling ? So I affirm ; but it is for argument, and not with the 
 least design to utter a mere proverb, or to impose my dictum on the 
 conference. I beg all, sir, to hear and remember this emphatic dis- 
 avowal. I proceed then to argue, (having affirmed it as a mere logical 
 formula,) that the General Conference is clothed with supreme exe- 
 cutive functions. I will strive both to sustain it and to commend it to 
 your favor. 
 
 First, then, the General Conference is the fountain of all official 
 executive authority. It is the " Croton River" of that system of execu- 
 tive ministrations which flow in healthful streams throughout our Zion. 
 I know, sir, that between this fountain and the church members, who 
 are the remote points of minute distribution, there are interposed seve- 
 ral reservoirs of this ministerial authority. The episcopacy is one, 
 
132 Appendix. 
 
 and the chief reservoir. The pastorship is another. The class- 
 leaders are the small channels through whom passes to the door of each 
 one's heart in the class-room a measure of the disciplinary influences 
 of the church. What is objected, sir, to this view of the subject? 
 Will it be disclaimed that the conference is this fountain ? Can you 
 advise me where else than here executive authority takes its rise ? 
 Whence do you gather these life-preserving waters? From the con- 
 stitution ? That, sir, is a very brief instrument, and its provisions can 
 be scanned in two minutes. Show where its authority creates the 
 machinery of a church administration. Does it provide one wheel or 
 spring? It seems to me, sir, that like God in Eden, who planted but 
 did not till the garden, resigning that delightful task to man, so our 
 constitution says to this General Conference, Under such and such 
 restrictions you are commissioned with "full poioers to make rules and 
 regulations for" c\i\\.i\d.\.mg \h.e. fields of Methodism. Full powers for 
 what ? For two things. First " to make rules." That is legislation, 
 sir, as it stands related to other powers of the conference. But is 
 this all it can do ? No. It has full powers also " to make regulations" 
 for the government of the church. What is a regulation ? To appoint 
 a preacher to a field of labor is a regulation. To remove him to an- 
 other field is a regulation. To elect and impower a bishop to do this 
 for us is a regulation. To recall that bishop to his former station is a 
 regulation. Now " what a man does by another he does himself," is a 
 maxim in law. The General Conference may make these regulations 
 without a bishop, and leave him a less onerous superintendence, or the 
 conference may make these regulations by a bishop, and multiply the 
 toils of his superintendence. 
 
 That the conference has executive authority is indisputable : for 
 the bishop derives his authority from the conference. Are not answers 
 first, second, third, and eighth, to question third, in section fourth, sta- 
 tutory provisions ? Do they not convey authority to the bishops? If 
 those answers were blotted out by a resolution of this conference, 
 would the bishops proceed to execute the duties therein prescribed ? 
 This General Conference clothes them with these powers ; and can 
 the conference convey what it does not possess ? Can it impart to 
 bishops what was not inherent in itself up to the time of conveying it ? 
 The conference has these powers. Everything conveyed as a preroga- 
 tive to bishops, presiding elders, preachers, &c., by statutory provision, 
 and not by the constitution, or in the restrictive rules, was in the 
 General Conference, or it was mockery thus to grant it, and the ten- 
 ure of these officers is void, and their seizin tortious. They should be 
 challenged, then, as to their authority. Now, sir, all that this con- 
 ference can confer, it can withhold ; and whatever it can confer and 
 withhold, it can resume at will, unless a constitutional restriction for- 
 bids it. It can resume, then, all the powers granted to a bishop by its 
 own act, except such prerogatives as are essential to episcopacy and 
 superintendency. As to the episcopacy, which we may not do away, 
 the power to ordain is essential to its being, and whether so far as it 
 is concerned, the whole of section fourth, with that exception, might 
 not be constitutionally expunged, is doubtful. Not that 1 would have 
 
Appendix, 133 
 
 it expunged. But I am now arguing the question of conference power, 
 and not of ecclesiastical expediency. I love the episcopacy just as it 
 is ; and reverence for the office emulates in my bosom a sister passion 
 — affection for the venerable men who occupy it — affection for them 
 all ; every one. 
 
 Here, Mr. President, let me say a word concerning our church con- 
 stitution. It is a remarkable instrument. It differs cardinally from 
 most, or all civil constitutions. These generally proceed to demark 
 the several departments of government — the legislative, judicial, and 
 executive — and, by positive grant, assign each department its duties. 
 Our constitution is different. It does not divide the powers of our 
 government into legislative, judicial, and executive. It provides for a 
 General Conference, and for an episcopacy, and general superin- 
 tendency. It leaves all the powers of the three great departments of 
 government, except what is essential to an episcopacy, &c., in this 
 General Conference. It restricts us slightly in all our powers, but not 
 in one department more than in another. Under this constitution the 
 conference is as much a judicatory as a legislature ; and it is as much 
 an executive body as either. What is there in the constitution to dis- 
 tinguish the three departments of our govermental authority, or to be- 
 stow one and withhold another ? The grant of power to us is in 
 mass, and no more excludes the executive than it does either of the 
 sister departments. And that our powers are administrative do we not 
 declare, when we demand at each General Conference the Minutes of 
 every Annual Conference, and, by the " Conmiittee on the Itinerancy," 
 inspect and pass judgment on them ? And when, too, the administra- 
 tion of our bishops is put under a severe inquisition, and a committee 
 reports approval or disapproval ? Surely, if anything could, this proves 
 that the conference assumes to be supreme in administration, else why 
 does that administration thus appeal to this conference in the last re- 
 sort ? Why, sir, the streams of these administrative acts took their rise 
 here, and, like running waters to the ocean, they return hither to their 
 source. How unlike those of the president to the American Congress, 
 with which I have heard them compared, are the relations of the epis- 
 copacy to this conference ! The constitution of the United States 
 gives Congress its powers, and the president his. Each exists inde- 
 pendent of the other. The term, the duties, the privileges of the pre- 
 sident are all fixed by constitutional provision. The presidency, as an 
 office, and the incumbency of it, are plainly designated. Our church 
 constitution recognizes the episcopacy as an abstraction, and leaves 
 this body to work it into a concrete form in any hundred or more ways 
 we may be able to invent. We may make one, five, or twenty bishops ; 
 and, if we please, one for each conference. We may refuse to elect 
 another until all die or resign ; and then, to maintain the episcopacy, 
 which we are bound to do, we must elect one, at least. As to his 
 term, we may limit it at pleasure, or leave it undetermined. But in 
 this case is it undeterminable 1 Certainly not. The power which 
 elected may then displace. In all civil constitutions, as far as I know, 
 not to fix an officer's term, is to suspend it on the will of the appointing 
 power. Cabinet ministers and secretaries are examples. No officer, 
 
1 34 Appendix. 
 
 as such, can claim incumbency for life, unless such a term be autho- 
 ritatively and expressly fixed upon. 
 
 I now reach a point of my argument to which I solicit particular 
 attention. It has been urged privately, by very many, that we have 
 no authority to displace a bishop, except for crime, and by a formal 
 trial. And they who advocate it tell us to look into section fourth, 
 page 28, and we shall be convinced. Well what now is section fourth 
 to us, in a question of this sort ? That whole section is statutory. 
 Were it a part of our church constitution it might be invoked as authori- 
 tative. Mere rules as they are, and alterable by us in ten minutes, 
 by two conference votes, they expressly recognize our authority to " ex- 
 pel a bishop for improper conduct." Why then urge anything in the 
 fourth section against this pending resolution ? If there were no 
 express rule for deposing a bishop, we should still be competent to 
 depose. And for this plain reason. Whatever this conference can 
 constitutionally do it can do without first resolving that it has power to 
 do it — without passing a rule into the Discipline declaring its authority. 
 The power of this conference is derived, not from its own enactment, 
 but from the constitution. Is there anything in the restrictive articles 
 which prohibits the removal or suspension of a bishop ? This will not 
 be pretended, and of course nothing in our own statutes can deprive us 
 of powers conferred on us by the higher authority of the constitution. 
 
 Let me explain. Suppose Congress should, under the pressure of 
 any causes, calculated to blind or confuse it, deny its power to raise 
 revenues for the support of government, would it be bound by its own 
 act ? The very next day it might proceed to exercise the self-prohibited 
 power, and for this reason — the prohibition is by Congress, but the 
 grant of that which is prohibited is by the constitution, which is bind- 
 ing on Congress, in despite of its own opposing action. So with this 
 conference. Suppose the fourth section provided that this body "has 
 not power to depose a bishop for improper conduct, if it seem neces- 
 sary." We should still have power to depose, because the constitution 
 confers it, and that is paramount to all our resolutions and statutes. We 
 cannot by our enactments divest ourselves of constitutional powers, no 
 more than man made in God's image, and about to inhabit God's eter- 
 nity, can spurn the law of his being, and divest himself of free agency 
 and immortality. 
 
 Now let me proceed after the manner of mathematicians. We have 
 seen, if I mistake not, that a provision in the fourth section, page 28th, 
 declaring our incompetency to depose, would still leave us free to do it, 
 because the superior authority of the constitution confers the power. 
 Much more then may we depose if, instead of a statute forbidding it, 
 the Disci[)line is silent on the subject. But much more still may we 
 depose, if instead of silence there is a rule for deposing as well as the 
 constitutional warrant. I do not claim this for demonstration, albeit I 
 have chosen such a mode of reasoning ; but unless I greatly err the 
 argument claims some regard. Now, sir, there is a rule which many 
 of us believe applies to this case, in the answer to Question 4lh, page 
 28ih — " To the General Conference, who have power to expel him for 
 improper conduct, if they see it necessary." Let it be noticed, that in 
 
Appendix. 135 
 
 harmony with what I have said concerning our constitutional power, 
 this rule does not convey authority, else the auxiliary " shall " would be 
 used. It does not say the General Conference shall have authority, 
 which is the style used in creating constitutional prerogatives. The 
 language of the rule is simply declaratory, recognizing a power already 
 existing. Let us notice certain phrases in this declaratory rule. 
 " Have power to expel," sets forth the extent to which we may proceed 
 in our efforts to guard against the consequences of a bishop's impro- 
 prieties. The expulsion contemplated is doubtless from office. For 
 though depose is the word generally used in such connections, expel 
 is not less significant of the thing. To put out of office is expulsion. 
 If any dispute, and say the expulsion must be from orders, or from the 
 church, we answer, A power to expel from church is certainly equal 
 to the power of removing from office. The child who has license to play 
 all day, need not dread the rod for playing half a day ; and the boy 
 who is told he may ride ten, cannot disobey by riding five miles. 
 That argument is hard pushed which resorts to the phrase, " have 
 power to expel," to prove that the conference has not power to depose. 
 "Improper conduct" means less than imprudent conduct. Imprudence 
 carries our thoughts to the neighborhood of crime. It means a want 
 of wisdom to a degree Avhich involves exposure and harm. Improper 
 means, simply, not suitable, or unfitting. The usus loquendi in the 
 Discipline forbids us to assume that in some generic sense it embraces 
 crime. Whatever is unfitting a bishop's office, and would impair his 
 usefulness in the exercise of its functions, is embraced, I conceive, in 
 the phrase " improper conduct." In the Discipline it is used in contra- 
 distinction from crime. And it is never treated as crime in the admin- 
 istration, except when a private member, after frequent admonitions, 
 obstinately refuses to reform. In such a case obstinacy itself becomes 
 a criminal state of mind, and may procure expulsion. Finally, the 
 phrase, " if they see it necessary," sheds light on the whole paragraph. 
 It proves that improper does not mean criminal ; for then it would be 
 necessary, and the condition would be useless. The phrase accords 
 to the conference discretionary power, and invites them to proceed on 
 the ground of " expediency," of which some have loudly complained. 
 They may expel him, if they see it to be proper or expedient — that is, 
 if his improprieties injure his usefulness in the high office where our 
 sufirages placed him. 
 
 My mind, sir, (if not my words,) has all along distinguished between 
 orders and office. The summary removals which I have noticed are 
 from office, not from the ministry. In regard to ordained preachers, 
 these two rules will hold. First, they cannot be expelled from the 
 ministry summarily ; but must have a trial in due form. Second, they 
 cannot be expelled for " improper conduct," but only for a crime clearly 
 forbidden in the word of God. These rules, with few exceptions, will 
 apply to private members, who may be removed from the leader's or 
 steward's office, at any time, without notice, trial, or cause assigned. 
 But they cannot usually be expelled from the church without trial, or 
 the offer of trial ; nor for improper conduct, unless it become incorri- 
 gibly obstinate, and then it assumes the character of crime. The 
 
136 Appendix. 
 
 principles which apply to members and preachers should govern us 
 in regard to bishops. They ought not to be expelled from the minis- 
 try for " improper conduct," nor without due notice and trial. But if 
 others, they too may be deposed from office summarily, and for impro- 
 prieties which, even if they be innocent, hinder their usefulness, or 
 render their ministrations a calamity. That the bishop's is an office, is, 
 I suppose, conceded. True, we ordain him ; but we may cease to 
 ordain, and by suspending the conference rule which requires a day's 
 delay, may immediately blot from the Discipline these words — page 26 
 — " and the laying on of the hands of three bishops, or at least of one 
 bishop and two elders." Would not this harmonize our practice and 
 our principles ? 
 
 I shall not dwell longer, Mr. President, on the question of conference 
 authority. We have seen that when clerical orders or membership in 
 the church is concerned, crime only, or obstinate impropriety, which is 
 as crime, can expel. This is Methodism. We have seen, on the 
 other hand, that as to office, removals from it may be summary, and for 
 anything unfitting that office, or that renders its exercise unwholesome 
 to the church. I have urged that all ranks of officers are included up 
 to the point where the officer has no superior ; which never happens 
 with us, because the General Conference, under certain restrictions, is 
 the depository of all power — legislative, judicial, and executive. I 
 urged this fashion of Methodism as applicable especially to a bishop, 
 because his superior influence will render his improprieties proportion- 
 ably more embarrassing and iujurious to the church. 
 
 I have argued that the conference has power, from the grant of the 
 constitution, (which is a catholic grant, embracing all, beyond a few 
 enumerated restrictions,) to try a bishop for crime, and to depose 
 him summarily for " improper conduct." Is this hard on the bishop ? 
 Does he not summarily remove, at discretion, all the four years round, 
 two hundred presiding elders, and two thousand of his peers ; and shall 
 he complain that a General Conference, which is a delegated body — in 
 a word, that all these two thousand peers of his, whose authority con- 
 verges through the channels of representation, and concentrates here, 
 should do to him what he so uniformly does to them ? Shall one 
 elder, holding a high office at our hands, be so puissant, that, like the 
 sun in the heavens, (though he be a planet still, and in his office re- 
 flects no light which we have not shed upon him,) he must bind and 
 control all, but is in turn to be controlled by none ? No, sir. This 
 conference is the sun in our orderly and beautiful system. Look into 
 the Discipline. First you have our "articles of religion," in which 
 God appears. What is next in order ? The General Conference, 
 which, like the orb of day, rises to shed light on the surrounding scene. 
 It is first shaped or fashioned, and then, like Adam by his Maker, is 
 endowed with dominion, and made imperial in its relations ; and, 
 saving the slight reservations of the constitution, it is all-controlling in 
 its influence. Let it never be lost sight of, that the General Conference 
 is " the sun of our system." 
 
 I said, Mr. President, that if I noticed the question of expediency, it 
 would be only by a glance. I will remark, generally, that in determining 
 
Appendix. 1 37 
 
 what is proper, after having ascertained what is lawful, we should 
 look two ways. As first in importance we should consider the in- 
 terests of the church. Second, we should consult the feelings of the 
 officer. And we should inquire as to the church, how is she likely to 
 be affected by the improper conduct of her officer ? Will she be local- 
 ly and slightly embarrassed, or extensively and severely? If the injury 
 threatened will be confined to a small district, and will probably be 
 slight and ephemeral, we may bear it. But if it be likely to fall on 
 large districts and work great evils, producing strife, breaking up socie- 
 .ties, and nearly dissolving conferences ; and, if calamities so heavy 
 are likely to be long-continued, and scarcely ever end, the call for sum- 
 mary proceedings on the part of this conference is loud and imperative. 
 If in such circumstances she decline to act, will she not betray her 
 trust, and dishonor God ? In regard to the officer, it should be inquir- 
 ed if the unfitness he has brought on himself for his sphere of action 
 was by some imperative necessity, and if not, whether it was in pre- 
 sumable ignorance of the grief and misfortunes he was about to inflict 
 on our Zion ? Or must he have known what would follow, so that his 
 act proceeded from, or at least was associated with, some degree of 
 indifference, if not of wantonness, in regard to results ? These 
 things, sir, should be well weighed in settling the question of ex- 
 pediency. 
 
 A bishop's influence is not like a preacher's or class-leader's. It is 
 diffused like the atmosphere, everywhere. So high a church officer, 
 (I will not say, sir, conference officer, though just now I take you to be 
 such, at least, for the time being,) I say, so high a church officer 
 should be willing to endure not slight sacrifices for this vast connection. 
 What could tempt you, sir, to trouble and wound the church all through, 
 from centre to circumference ? The preacher and the class-leader, 
 whose influence is guarded against so strongly, can do little harm — a 
 bishop infinite. Their improper acts are motes in the air — yours are a 
 pestilence abroad in the earth. Is it more important to guard against 
 those than against these \ Heaven forbid ! Like the concealed attractions 
 of the heavens, we expect a bishop's influence to be all-binding every- 
 where — in the heights and in the depths — in the centre and on the verge 
 of this great system ecclesiastical. If instead of concentric and har- 
 monizing movements, such as are wholesome, and conservative, and 
 beautifying, we observe in him irregularities, which, however harmless 
 in others, will be disastrous or fatal in him, the energy of this body, con- 
 stitutionally supreme, must instantly reduce him to order, or if that may 
 not be, plant him in another and a distant sphere. When the church is 
 about to suffer a detriment, which we by constitutional power can 
 avert, it is as much treason in us not to exercise the power we have, as to 
 usurp, in other circumstances, tliat which we have not. 
 
138 Appendix. 
 
 C— THE ADDRESS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHO- 
 DIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, TO ALL THEIR BRETHREN AND FRIENDS 
 IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — We, the members of the General Conference 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg leave to address you with 
 earnestness on a subject of the first importance. 
 
 We have long lamented the great national evil of negro slavery, 
 which has existed for so many years, and does still exist in many of 
 these United States. We have considered it as repugnant to tlie 
 inalienable rights of mankind, and to the very essence of civil liberty, 
 but more especially to the spirit of the Christian religion. 
 
 For, inconsistent as is the conduct of this otherwise free, this inde- 
 pendent nation, in respect to the slavery of the negroes, when consi- 
 dered in a civil and political view ; it is still more so, when examined 
 in the light of the gospel. For the whole spirit of the New Testament 
 militates in the strongest manner against the practice of slavery — and 
 the influence of the gospel, wherever it has long prevailed, (except in 
 many of these United States,) has utterly abolished that most criminal 
 part of slavery, the possessing and using the bodies of men by arbitrary 
 ■will and with almost uncontrollable power. 
 
 The small number of adventurers from Europe, who visit the West 
 Indies for the sole purpose of amassing fortunes, are hardly worth our 
 notice, any further than their influence reaches for the enslaving and 
 destroying of the human race. But, that so large a proportion of the 
 inhabitants of this country, who so truly boast of the liberty they enjoy, 
 and are so justly jealous of that inestimable blessing, should continue 
 to deprive of every trace of liberty so many of their fellow-creatures 
 equally capable with themselves of every social blessing, and of eternal 
 happiness — is an inconsistency which is scarcely to be paralleled in 
 the history of mankind ! 
 
 Influenced by these views and feelings, we have for many years 
 restricted ourselves by the strongest regulations from partaking of " the 
 accursed thing ;" and have also laid some vcrj' mild and tender re- 
 strictions on our society at large. But at this General Conference we 
 wished, if possible, to give a blow at the root to the enormous evil. 
 For this purpose we maturely weighed every regulation which could 
 be adopted within our own society. All seemed to be insufficient. 
 We therefore determined at last to rouse up all our influence, in order 
 to hasten, to the utmost of our power, the universal extirpation of this 
 crying sin. To this end we passed the following resolution : — 
 
 " That the Annual Conferences be directed to draw up Addresses, 
 for the gradual emancipation of the slaves, to the legislatures of those 
 states in which no general laws have been passed for that purpose : 
 that these Addresses urge, in the most respectful but pointed manner, 
 the necessity of a law for the gradual emancipation of the slaves : that 
 proper committees be appointed out of the most respectable of our 
 friends for the conducting of the business : and that the presiding elders, 
 elders, deacons, and traveling preachers, do procure as many proper 
 bignatures as possible to the Addresses, and give all the assistance in 
 
Appendix. 139 
 
 their power in every respect to aid the committees, and to further this 
 blessed undertaking: and that this be continued from year to year, 
 till the desired end be fully accomplished." 
 
 What now remains, dear brethren, but that you coincide with us in 
 this great undertaking, for the sake of God, his church, and his holy 
 cause, for the sake of your country, and for the sake of the miserable 
 and oppressed. Give your signatures to the Addresses; hand them 
 for signatures to all your acquaintances and all the friends of liberty: 
 urge the justice, the utility, the necessity of the measure : persevere 
 in this blessed work, and the Lord, we are persuaded, will finally crown 
 your endeavors with the wished-for success. O what a glorious coun- 
 try would be ours, if equal liberty were everywhere established, and 
 equal liberty everywhere enjoyed ! 
 
 We are not ignorant that several of the legislatures of these states 
 have most generously stepped forth in the cause of liberty, and passed 
 laws for the emancipation of the slaves. But many of the members 
 of our society, even in those states, may be highly serviceable to this 
 great cause by using their influence, by writing or otherwise, with their 
 friends in other states, whether those friends be Methodists or not. 
 
 Come then, brethren, let us join hand and heart together in this im- 
 portant enterprise. God is with us, and will, we doubt not, accompany 
 with his blessings all our labors of love. 
 
 We could write to you a volume on the present subject ; but we 
 know that in general you have already weighed it ; and we have great 
 confidence that your utmost assistance will not be wanting, and we 
 promise to aid you with zeal and diligence. 
 
 That our gracious God may bless you with all the riches of his grace, 
 and that we may all meet where perfect liberty and perfect love shall 
 eternally reign, is the ardent prayer of 
 
 Your affectionate brethren, 
 
 Signed in behalf and by order of the General Conference. 
 
 Thomas Coke, \ 
 
 Francis AsBURY, > Bishops. 
 Richard Whatcoat, ) 
 
 EzEKiEL Cooper, ^ 
 
 Wm. M'Kendree, > Committee. 
 
 Jesse Lee, j 
 Baltimore, May 20th, 1800. 
 
IL